LEO shoots fleeing robber - in the back

[chemist]

"Above the rest?" Hardly.
How about better equipped to make snap life-and-death decisions.

 

[madderg]

if you believe the suspect will commit this action again against another person it is your duty to stop them, if they are armed deadly force can be used.

 

[MrNiceGuy]

Whether or not you side with the cop isn't as important to me as to the fact they hold a double standard...one for them and one for us.

Face it, if anyone on this board (who isn't LEO) did this, we would be rotting in jail for a *long* time.

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.

double standard 
–noun
1.
any code or set of principles containing different provisions for one group of people than for another

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

 

[M.Link]

I think anyone should be OK'ed to do this, in a case like this. It's wrong that you have to "be somebody" to not end up in trouble for it. Who cares if you didn't need to do it for defense, it's getting another armed badguy off the streets.

 

[Redcap]

I think anyone should be OK'ed to do this, in a case like this. It's wrong that you have to "be somebody" to not end up in trouble for it. Who cares if you didn't need to do it for defense, it's getting another armed badguy off the streets.

If it were acceptable for everyone, that would be one thing. The fact that a cop can get away with it, but we lowly peasants can't is entirely another.

 

[chemist]

If it were acceptable for everyone, that would be one thing. The fact that a cop can get away with it, but we lowly peasants can't is entirely another.

Okayokayokay - I agree.

Let's frame the same question differently, assuming:

1) We civilians can't do it.
2) Cops can.
3) Civilians are unlikely to gain the right to do so any time soon.

THEREFORE:
Do you believe that a cop should be prosecuted the same as a civilian would be, in essence saying that we should spread out the injustice more fairly? Is your reason for supporting this position to attempt to force a change in the rules that civilians have to follow?

OR:
Do you believe that, irrespective of the unfairness of our (civilian) situation, sworn officers should have the right to do so in any case? That is, do you believe we shouldn't insist that average folks have the exact same legal status as cops?

I see now that my opinions about the importance of the experience of career LEO's are irrelevant. However, I still think that their daily exposure to every size, shape, and flavor of two-legged turds renders cops more capable than most of us in judging an appropriate response to a rapidly evolving crime. At least they're more in touch with street-level reality than the Internet Rambo who has nothing more than his high score on Halo 3 to brag about.

 

[Frog]

I may be entirely in the wrong here, but if I'm held and robbed at gun point, I don't think a legally armed citizen would be charged for shooting the robber.

I mean this isn't like the robber was running off with your TV set, or even your vehicle.

Using deadly force, after being threatened with deadly force, is 'defense' against that force being used against some one else.

If the robber had dropped his gun and ran, that's one thing. But he was still armed, and could have even shot a passer by as he made his escape.

I think the cop's action was justified, and I think a civilian doing the same thing would be also.

Frog.

 

[Stomper]

Your honor, the perpetrator suddenly backed into my .45ACP pistol which set it off therby lodging the round into his back... I was amased that he managed to do that TEN CONSECUTIVE TIMES... and THAT is the truth!

 

[Karma]

I may be entirely in the wrong here, but if I'm held and robbed at gun point, I don't think a legally armed citizen would be charged for shooting the robber.

I mean this isn't like the robber was running off with your TV set, or even your vehicle.

Using deadly force, after being threatened with deadly force, is 'defense' against that force being used against some one else.

If the robber had dropped his gun and ran, that's one thing. But he was still armed, and could have even shot a passer by as he made his escape.

I think the cop's action was justified, and I think a civilian doing the same thing would be also.

Frog.

As far as I know it is all about the definition of self defence. When the criminal stops the attack or criminal act, the danger is percieved to be over, thus no allowed shots fired. I am pretty sure a oridinary citizen would fry for doing the same thing.

 

[hefftuck]

huge double standard, there's a big difference between self-defense and shooting someone in the back

 

[Sawdust]

Do I think that all citizens should be allowed/expected to shoot at a fleeing "armed" suspect. YES. And my reason is simple.

All armed confrontations are what I would call combat. A fight for life or safety. Now in combat the general rule is that a fleeing/retreating combatant that is still holding on to his weapon is still a valid target. If he drops his weapon and continues to flee he is not an immediate threat.

 

[Spitpatch]

See my previous post for my opinion on the incident itself. As for my brethren that are convinced that police are held to a different standard than a citizen, that is absolutely correct: In all matters, and either way, and in any scenario, higher and lower. I am in a daily position to know this without a doubt.

The crux of the matter exists as to what standard one holds oneself: When you pull the trigger, can you face the legal music and take the medicine dished out by the system and still feel righteous and that you had no choice in the matter?

For those who are struggling with my meaning: if you take a human life under any circumstances, and your society elects to punish you for your decision, will you still be comfortable with society's applied consequences for your decision, confident you did the absolute right thing?

If you haven't asked yourself this, then you have no business carrying the instant means to end human life: civilian or cop.

 

[chemist]

See my previous post for my opinion on the incident itself. As for my brethren that are convinced that police are held to a different standard than a citizen, that is absolutely correct: In all matters, and either way, and in any scenario, higher and lower. I am in a daily position to know this without a doubt.

The crux of the matter exists as to what standard one holds oneself: When you pull the trigger, can you face the legal music and take the medicine dished out by the system and still feel righteous and that you had no choice in the matter?

For those who are struggling with my meaning: if you take a human life under any circumstances, and your society elects to punish you for your decision, will you still be comfortable with society's applied consequences for your decision, confident you did the absolute right thing?

If you haven't asked yourself this, then you have no business carrying the instant means to end human life: civilian or cop.

Bottom line. Well said.

 

[Partsproduction]

Face it, if anyone on this board (who isn't LEO) did this, we would be rotting in jail for a *long* time.

Huh? Since I'm not LEO how could they steal my badge? I suspect that's near the top of the justification as well, since it's considered a very dark lapse to allow anyone to take your badge.

 

[pchewn]

LEO shoots fleeing robber - in the back

Well, its pretty hard to shoot a fleeing robber in the front -- unless they are "fleeing" by running backwards!

Seriously, though, if an armed robber momentarily turns his back that should be the BEST time to defend yourself. You are not safe until he is completely gone away. He is a danger even as he turns and flees. I doubt that anyone would be in trouble with the law for shooting an armed robber in the back, even if he is moving away.

Are there cases where normal law-abiding citizens actually were either arrested/prosecuted/convicted for shooting an armed robber as he flees or otherwise momentarily turns his back?

 

[Ravenous]

Are there cases where normal law-abiding citizens actually were either arrested/prosecuted/convicted for shooting an armed robber as he flees or otherwise momentarily turns his back?

I was wondering the same thing. Our legal system is supposed to be based on precedence, so if your were in the same situation as this officer and shot the perp as they were fleeing you should be able to expect the same recourse. That being said our legal system is so seriously flawed that cannot be expected, but it should be.

 

[Fister35]

I was wondering the same thing. Our legal system is supposed to be based on precedence, so if your were in the same situation as this officer and shot the perp as they were fleeing you should be able to expect the same recourse. That being said our legal system is so seriously flawed that cannot be expected, but it should be.

Our legal system is supposed to be based on the Constitution of the United States and Common Law. Just because a police officer “gets away” with shooting some one in the back don’t think that you could do the same without prosecution. Don’t assume that the legal system applies the law equally between the government class (LEO’s) and civilians, it does not.

 

[TRD1911]

if you believe the suspect will commit this action again against another person it is your duty to stop them, if they are armed deadly force can be used.

Deadly force is justified "in self defense and the defense of others"

These guys were still a threat to the public.

I believe this fact would get any one of us out of trouble.

 

[el gringo loco]

Our legal system is supposed to be based on the Constitution of the United States and Common Law. Just because a police officer "gets away" with shooting some one in the back don't think that you could do the same without prosecution. Don't assume that the legal system applies the law equally between the government class (LEO's) and civilians, it does not.

Actually it is applied equally. However, the Constitution (specifically the 4th Amendment), allows the government to make a reasonable seizure pursuant to probable cause. Joe Citizen cannot do this. A LEO acting as an agent of the government can. The LEO had probable cause to believe the fleeing felon was armed and presented an ongoing threat to other LEOs and the public if he was not apprehended (or seized). Case law, federal law, and most state and local laws allow for a LEO to use deadly force to accomplish the seizure of a person in a situation such as this. Google Tennessee V. Garner if you don't believe me.

EDIT: The justification for this shooting is a Fourth Amendment argument for legal seizure of a person by reasonable means, not a justification of self defense. Reasonable means has been interpreted in cases like these to include the use of deadly force.

 

[Karma]

Deadly force is justified "in self defense and the defense of others"

These guys were still a threat to the public.

I believe this fact would get any one of us out of trouble.

So if a 10 year old bully is picking on a 8 year old, you can lawfully shoot said 10 year old bully? You would be defending the 8 year old. lol.

I believe that a defence for shooting someone can be used if the criminal is putting another person in immediate danger with a weapon. The problem you would have in this circumstance, would be that he has no immediate victim. If you shot him in the back because you suspected he might use the gun on someone else, I would suspect you would be getting a tour of one of our prisons.