Violence erupts after officer-involved shooting

[Teddy B 17,252]

Sheriff Clarke will have none of this I can guarantee you that. It won't be like Baltimore. My wife's step brother is actually a deputy and they are told "you do what you need to do, I'll take care of the rest".

BTW, this is not the first time in recent weeks we see outrage over some dude being shot for running away from the cops, armed or not. Since when are they not allowed to shoot at a suspected criminal who's running away without waiting for them to shoot first? Ridiculous.

Cops can't simply shoot a fleeing suspect, they must pose an imminent threat to the police or the general public.

Can police officers shoot at fleeing individuals?

Only in very narrow circumstances. A seminal 1985 Supreme Court case, Tennessee vs. Garner, held that the police may not shoot at a fleeing person unless the officer reasonably believes that the individual poses a significant physical danger to the officer or others in the community. That means officers are expected to take other, less-deadly action during a foot or car pursuit unless the person being chased is seen as an immediate safety risk.

In other words, a police officer who fires at a fleeing man who a moment earlier murdered a convenience store clerk may have reasonable grounds to argue that the shooting was justified. But if that same robber never fired his own weapon, the officer would likely have a much harder argument.

“You don’t shoot fleeing felons. You apprehend them unless there are exigent circumstances — emergencies — that require urgent police action to safeguard the community as a whole,” said Greg Gilbertson, a police practices expert and criminal justice professor at Centralia College in Washington state.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/can-police-use-lethal-force-fleeing-suspect/

[OriZ 3,157]

Cops can't simply shoot a fleeing suspect, they must pose an imminent threat to the police or the general public.

Yes, and that is open to interpretation(as per your own quote). If a suspect stole a car, or was suspected of committing that crime or any other crime for that matter(which would usually be why cops would be trying to apprehend them to start with), tries to flee(admittance of guilt 90% of the time), and the officer shoots them believing they pose a threat because if they are not caught right now they could potentially steal another car or maybe shoot a person, whether or not the suspect shot at them first, I would back that cop 100%.

Edited August 15, 2016 by OriZ

[Teddy B 17,252]

Yes, and that is open to interpretation(as per your own quote). If a suspect stole a car, or was suspected of committing that crime or any other crime for that matter(which would usually be why cops would be trying to apprehend them to start with), tries to flee(admittance of guilt 90% of the time), and the officer shoots them believing they pose a threat because if they are not caught right now they could potentially steal another car or maybe shoot a person, whether or not the suspect shot at them first, I would back that cop 100%.

Someone suspected of stealing a car is not an imminent threat to police or the general public. You're really reaching with that example. You know what an imminent threat means, let's not play games.

[OriZ 3,157]

Someone suspected of stealing a car is not an imminent threat to police or the general public. You're really reaching with that example. You know what an imminent threat means, let's not play games.

Well the question was never on whether or not they should pose an imminent threat(define imminent threat however you would like), that's why even in my original post that you quoted I wrote suspected criminal. I was just making a point it should not matter whether or not this suspect is shooting at the cops first or not, if they believe they are a threat and they are trying to escape, they have the right to fire at them first. They don't have to wait like ducks in a shooting range. I'm sure most of us can agree on that.

[Teddy B 17,252]

Well the question was never on whether or not they should pose an imminent threat(define imminent threat however you would like), that's why even in my original post that you quoted I wrote suspected criminal. I was just making a point it should not matter whether or not this suspect is shooting at the cops first or not, if they believe they are a threat and they are trying to escape, they have the right to fire at them first. They don't have to wait like ducks in a shooting range. I'm sure most of us can agree on that.

It doesn't matter if it is a "suspected criminal" or a convicted criminal. Legally the question is whether or not a person poses an imminent/immediate threat to police or the general public. You seem to think that if a cop thinks that a suspected car thief might run someone over next week that the cop can shoot the suspect, that is not an imminent threat and if the cop did shoot that suspect, he would be held legally responsible.

Edited August 15, 2016 by Teddy B

[smilesammich 10,727]

Well the question was never on whether or not they should pose an imminent threat(define imminent threat however you would like), that's why even in my original post that you quoted I wrote suspected criminal. I was just making a point it should not matter whether or not this suspect is shooting at the cops first or not, if they believe they are a threat and they are trying to escape, they have the right to fire at them first. They don't have to wait like ducks in a shooting range. I'm sure most of us can agree on that.

cops are not supposed to be judge and jury.

and yes, they do have to wait like ducks in a shooting range. they signed up to be those ducks. that's what being a police officer entails.

[OriZ 3,157]

Alright well I guess if we can't even agree that if a potentially dangerous suspected criminal that could harm the police or the public is trying to escape the cops by running away then they have a right to shoot at said suspect without waiting for the suspect to shoot at them then that's just way too much DDS for me.......

[Teddy B 17,252]

Alright well I guess if we can't even agree that if a potentially dangerous suspected criminal that could harm the police or the public is trying to escape the cops by running away then they have a right to shoot at said suspect without waiting for the suspect to shoot at them then that's just way too much DDS for me.......

Your definition of a "potentially dangerous suspect" does not meet the legal definition of imminent danger. Your interpretation is illegal. There is nothing to agree upon. It's really that simple.

[OriZ 3,157]

Your definition of a "potentially dangerous suspect" does not meet the legal definition of imminent danger. Your interpretation is illegal. There is nothing to agree upon. It's really that simple.

And after that I said define it however you want. I said the point was not what the definition is, but that once we have established that we can at least agree that they are allowed to shoot at said suspect, which val doesn't think even that should fly apparently. And that's fine, some other things we agree on, this we don't.

As far as car theft probably not the best example although that has, in the past many times turned into alot more than that(people getting shot, crashes, etc). But even assuming it's for something more serious, apparently some people think cops should be like ducks otherwise they will burn the whole city down, I can't agree with that. Now whether or not legally cops would have the right to shoot at a suspect for lesser crimes(such as car theft), doesn't change the fact that if you're running away from the cops and something like that happens, it's on you. The cop might get in trouble, but if you don't want to get hurt don't try to run away from the police, simple as that.

[OriZ 3,157]

And for the record, it doesn't matter to me if the suspect is black, white, hispanic, jewish, muslim, christian, buddhist...if you believe they are posing a thread if not apprehended, you have the right to shoot them, whether or not they shot at you personally first. The only reason I gave the car theft example was because of a video posted in this forum several weeks ago where one crashed into cruisers and then fled on foot(I can't find it for some reason but it wasn't that long ago). Once they tried to apprehend him he ended up getting shot and ended up being unarmed. Not a sympathetic situation, but dude was obviously out of control, and that was their discretion. I'm not sure if at the time he was shot they knew whether or not he had a gun on him or not, just that he stole a car, crashed into their car, and tried to run, not knowing what his next move could be. Would you consider him dangerous enough to shoot? I don't know if legally they were in the right or not, as I don't believe there are any conclusions yet to any investigation, but again, had he not stolen a car, crashed into a cruiser and tried to run to start with, he would still be alive.

[smilesammich 10,727]

And for the record, it doesn't matter to me if the suspect is black, white, hispanic, jewish, muslim, christian, buddhist...if you believe they are posing a thread if not apprehended, you have the right to shoot them, whether or not they shot at you personally first. The only reason I gave the car theft example was because of a video posted in this forum several weeks ago where one crashed into cruisers and then fled on foot(I can't find it for some reason but it wasn't that long ago). Once they tried to apprehend him he ended up getting shot and ended up being unarmed. Not a sympathetic situation, but dude was obviously out of control, and that was their discretion. I'm not sure if at the time he was shot they knew whether or not he had a gun on him or not, just that he stole a car, crashed into their car, and tried to run, not knowing what his next move could be. Would you consider him dangerous enough to shoot? I don't know if legally they were in the right or not, as I don't believe there are any conclusions yet to any investigation, but again, had he not stolen a car, crashed into a cruiser and tried to run to start with, he would still be alive.

for the record, this is not correct. policing isn't a simple matter of perceiving danger to oneself and figuring if it's okay to shoot someone based upon that perception. nothing is as simple as, 'dude crashed into a cop car and ran = open fire, execute suspect" i mean i get that's how some of you want police to operate, but that isn't in the best interest of citizens OR the police.

[Teddy B 17,252]

And after that I said define it however you want. I said the point was not what the definition is, but that once we have established that we can at least agree that they are allowed to shoot at said suspect, which val doesn't think even that should fly apparently. And that's fine, some other things we agree on, this we don't.

As far as car theft probably not the best example although that has, in the past many times turned into alot more than that(people getting shot, crashes, etc). But even assuming it's for something more serious, apparently some people think cops should be like ducks otherwise they will burn the whole city down, I can't agree with that. Now whether or not legally cops would have the right to shoot at a suspect for lesser crimes(such as car theft), doesn't change the fact that if you're running away from the cops and something like that happens, it's on you. The cop might get in trouble, but if you don't want to get hurt don't try to run away from the police, simple as that.

It is defined legally and that trumps any opinions you may have. You can repeatedly post your opinions, but that does not change the fact that your opinion does not equal the legal definitions of imminent danger. It's okay to admit you were wrong Oriz.

[OriZ 3,157]

Yes, val, if they believe they pose a threat to the public, even Teddy said so, they do have the right to do so. It would be foolish not to - why base it solely on whether or not they tried to kill that particular cop? If they are a danger, they need to be stopped. Considering my initial comment was made in regards to a situation already at hand, where a black officer shot at an armed black suspect, after said suspect turned towards him, and black rioters decided this was reason enough to burn a city, I did not mean for this to go into a hypothetical conversation on what poses a threat and what doesn't. Show of hands - who here believes that this shooting was not legal or warranted? Besides Val. Look, you say cops can't be judge and jury. Neither can we. We don't know what they are feeling, seeing, thinking or any other indications at the time that might make them believe someone is a threat, so we can't judge their actions unless we walk in their shoes.

[OriZ 3,157]

It is defined legally and that trumps any opinions you may have. You can repeatedly post your opinions, but that does not change the fact that your opinion does not equal the legal definitions of imminent danger. It's okay to admit you were wrong Oriz.

Seems pretty murky to me. I don't think this is as clear cut as you're trying to make it. There could be many circumstances in which I'm sure a cop would come out squeaky clean shooting someone if they had enough indications to believe they were a threat, even if all they did until then was steal a car. It has happened and it will. Like I said we don't know their thought process unless we are them so we can't judge. It's a decision you only have a couple moments to make. It has nothing to do with being right or wrong on my part.

[Rob L 3,811]

Seems pretty murky to me. I don't think this is as clear cut as you're trying to make it. There could be many circumstances in which I'm sure a cop would come out squeaky clean shooting someone if they had enough indications to believe they were a threat, even if all they did until then was steal a car. It has happened and it will. Like I said we don't know their thought process unless we are them so we can't judge. It's a decision you only have a couple moments to make. It has nothing to do with being right or wrong on my part.

Thank you for providing this mornings entertainment. Your contortions in your floor exercises were superb but your dismount off your high horse was poorly executed and the landing a disaster. Better luck in Tokyo.