Thread: LEO shoots fleeing robber - in the back

Originally Posted by chemist

I still follow the news from my old stomping grounds in NE Ohio, and boy, has it ever turned into a sewer.

This story falls under the "must be nice to be a LEO" heading:

"According to court records, investigators now say two teens on bikes both had guns and robbed an unidentified off-duty F.B.I. agent and one of his friends. The teenage suspects put a gun to the agent's head and took his wallet, badge and more.
When the suspects took off, the agent fired shots hitting the teen in the back and in the leg."

New Details: Suspects who robbed an off-duty FBI agent were both armed - 19 Action News|Cleveland, OH|Breaking News, Weather, Exclusives

Don't get me wrong - I'm all for cops shooting armed robbers. But if I shot somebody in the back, my name would be 'TOAST.'

Under case law from the US Supreme Court decision over Tennessee vs. Garner, an officer can use lethal force in situations where a fleeing suspect is deemed to be dangerous to other officers or the public. The danger should be considered 'reasonable'. This is why any inmate can be shot and killed when attempting to escape from any medium custody-or-higher facility or while in transit to or from any medium custody-or-higher facility. They are felons and deemed to be dangerous to the public regardless if they are armed or not.

Originally Posted by MrNiceGuy

It's a HUGE double standard

Being "better equipped" is hogwash and has nothing to do with the obvious double standard for identical actions.
Given identical situations with identical outcomes, the badge (not the action) is the deciding factor whether you will receive jail time or a high five.



It's the very definition of a double standard. To argue otherwise is an exercise in futility.

People go through a process to become sworn officers and take the duty of protecting the public. It is their job to do these things and they are held accountable when things don't go right. Its not a double standard.

Similarly, a soldier can rack up 87 kills in Vietnam with a rifle and its legal. You try that, and you'll probably be in hot water.

Originally Posted by Dan360

It is their job to do these things and they are held accountable when things don't go right. Its not a double standard.

That is part of the issue. It seem that much of the time there is no accountability. It get's swept under the rug becuase it is a police officer.

Originally Posted by Karma

That is part of the issue. It seem that much of the time there is no accountability. It get's swept under the rug becuase it is a police officer.

It may seem that way, but there is a type of punishment that doesn't make the news. There are 3 outcomes to a police related shooting. Justified, No Evidence to Pursue, Unjustified. Unless the shooting is 100% justified, the officer is not given legal protection from civil suit. After a justified shooting, a department or the state AG will represent the officer in all legal proceedings. Otherwise, the department usually tries to pin it on the officer to avoid liability and the officer has to get their own legal counsel out of pocket.

I would like to buy the agent a drink, shake his hand, and thank him. As far as the issue of a double standard, it is there, always has been and I believe always will be.

Originally Posted by novamind

I would like to buy the agent a drink, shake his hand, and thank him. As far as the issue of a double standard, it is there, always has been and I believe always will be.

Again, I don't think there is a double standard. As a private citizen, you have a right to self defense. As an agent of the government and a peace officer, the LEO in this situation had a right to self defense (which expired when the suspects ran--just as it would for a citizen) AND certain responsibilities and abilities to exercise the government's interest in seizure (through deadly force) of the suspects. A citizen does not have all of the responsibilities and obligations of a sworn LEO just because he or she may own a gun. Similarly, I can own a scalpel, bandages, and other medical equipment that I can use in an emergency. However, a surgeon is legally allowed to do all sorts of other things with that same equipment by virtue of his training and responsibilities.

Originally Posted by el gringo loco

Similarly, I can own a scalpel, bandages, and other medical equipment that I can use in an emergency. However, a surgeon is legally allowed to do all sorts of other things with that same equipment by virtue of his training and responsibilities.

I bet you played doctor quite a bit as a child, huh?

--- EDIT: posted response to wrong thread

As a disabled man with joints and connective tissue that does not repair itself properly, I have a more acute risk of severe bodily harm from more minor injuries/bumps/shoves etc

I have a HUGE problem with the ability to defend yourself being tied to the attacker having a gun, or weapon of any kind.

I don't have the luxury of filtering out what (to a normal person) is a small, or large threat. A physical threat is a threat.

The attacker is a person with the mindset to use the threat of violence to force the world to accomodate to them. The PERSON is the weapon, and likely capable of inflicting harm barehanded as well.

I don't think there should be open season on fleeing burglars, but a person who has demonstrated a willingness to injure/maim/kill will just move on to the next target. As far as i'm concerned, it's just removing the actual weapon from the street, rather than the tool the weapon was using as a threat.

You are right sir!

Even though a person does not have a gun or a weapon they can still kill someone. Its happened many many times.

Originally Posted by Father of four

You are right sir!

Even though a person does not have a gun or a weapon they can still kill someone. Its happened many many times.

Anything can be a weapon. A ballpoint pen, a rock, a bare fist...

Good point Redcap.

hey, as a LEO i wanted to point out one thing, as i agree as a double standard it is there, and always will be, that comes with the badge and for most of the time its the other way, the ordinary man or woman has more rights to defend them self with deadly force than a LEO.

as for this instance there is no double standard, and the common man would not be in the same situation, they stole his federal id badge and wallet with picture id that also contains electronic id to open some doors within his office. so when a criminal steals this at gun point, there is endless possible ways that criminal could use that to commit further crimes and even worse crimes. the common person would not be at risk for loosing such credentials.

yes, its not a good situation when a LEO shoots someone in the back, however this situation it was the appropriate thing to do.

best of luck to the FBI agent and hope he has a good career.

I'll call it JUSTICE!

Originally Posted by dieter998

hey, as a LEO i wanted to point out one thing, as i agree as a double standard it is there, and always will be, that comes with the badge and for most of the time its the other way, the ordinary man or woman has more rights to defend them self with deadly force than a LEO.

Good observation. Cops are supposed to follow the rules, on duty or off. Citizens who are in fear for their lives get their own kind of 'free pass.' That's why criminals are more afraid of armed civilians than they are of cops.