Bad news for WA LEOs

[bbbass]

I always thought that "Hands up don't shoot" was fake news.

Agreed!!!

 

[rfmjchp]

I'm a former active duty/reserve military law enforcement and retired California LEO. 1967-71 USAF Security Police, after basic 19 mths nuclear weapon and ICBM missile security, 12 mths Southeast Asia, 14 mths base police/LE. 8/74-12/75 AFRes SP, 12/75-12/83 Army Natl Grd MP. 34 yrs civilian LEO, last 32 Highway Patrol/State Police.

Even in California, an officer can use deadly force against an fleeing unarmed person who has committed or charged with a violent and atrocious felony and whose escape would threaten death or serious bodily harm to the officer or another. Last court decision upholding this was in 2007. Garner decision did establish nationwide rules when LEOs can use deadly force, but since most trials happen in state courts, officers have the same defense available that private citizens had. A quick read of the legislation would seem that it holds LEOs to a different and higher standard in the use of deadly force, and are unable to use the same defense as private citizens. The article talks about using what other officers would do, or something similar.

I also have a feeling that in some cases when prosecutors are considering charging an officer in a fatal shooting incident, they may take into consideration reaction from local law enforcement. Just enough that if there is the slightest doubt in their investigation, ability to successfully prosecute, its in the officer's favor. Unless the officer had a bad record, then the doubt goes away.

First 19 mths and last 14 mths, I was in Strategic Air Command. We had signs like "Use of Deadly Force Authorized", red lines with the same, like fire lanes and Priority A resources. At least everyone in SAC was trained, told that if you cross the red line or hear "Halt, Hands up", you stopped and follow instructions. Otherwise you might get butt stroked or shot. Don't have that in the civilian world.

 

[Diamondback]

A quick read of the legislation would seem that it holds LEOs to a different and higher standard in the use of deadly force, and are unable to use the same defense as private citizens. The article talks about using what other officers would do, or something similar.

And that's the REAL game... the next move is to say, "we don't let COPS do this, why do we continue to let these dangerous armed maniac Concealed Carry Killers?" *snort*

Every opening they get to tighten the screws...