Use of Deadly Force

[JRH Oregon]

I have been trying to do some research about using deadly force, and the rulings on instances where deadly force was used, but I really can't seem to find what I am looking for. Everything I seem to find is about police, not citizens. If someone could guide me in the right direction I would appreciate it.

Thanks

Read More

 

[JRH Oregon]

Just found the Personal Defense Network site, seems to be a few good articles on when and how to apply lethal force, but not much for actual instances.

 

[OFADAN]

This sounds like a shameless plug and perhaps it is... anyway, we spend about 2.5 to 3 hours covering the Use of Deadly Force in our Basic Handgun Safety course in addition to about 3 hours of range time actually training with our defensive handgun (more than just shooting). I'm not arrogant enough to say it is the best but it is one of the most comprehensive in the region. We've been at it for the last 17 years so this isn't our first rodeo. We had a seated judge recently attend the class and gave us a big thumbs up and we've had District Attorneys attend saying the same thing.

It is an option and something to consider. Oregon Firearms Academy LLC - office number is 541-451-5532. If you want to chat with me personally and I'm not in the office then ask the office for me to return your call if you want to learn more about what is covered in the course.

Dan

 

[revjen45]

You shoot because some bozoid is doing something that so threatens you being killed or maimed that nothing is worse. You shoot because you have to, not because you can.

 

[OLDNEWBIE]

You feel you or another's life is in imminent danger from another. In other words if he's running away after the fact it's not o.k.

 

[Koda]

I have been trying to do some research about using deadly force, and the rulings on instances where deadly force was used, but I really can't seem to find what I am looking for. Everything I seem to find is about police, not citizens. If someone could guide me in the right direction I would appreciate it.

Thanks

1) learn what "Ability, Opportunity, and Jeapardy" means
2) read the book In The Gravest Extreme by Massad Ayoob. Regarding your reference to law enforcement keep in mind that its the same for the LEO as it is the citizen.

reference: Ability, Opportunity, Jeopardy | Cornered Cat

 

[JRH Oregon]

I understand when to use it, I just wanted to see if there were any important case files to read. I like seeing exact circumstances and what the outcomes where.

 

[Koda]

My bad, I re-read your ppst and it makes sense now.

Ive looked for the same stories too with not much luck on all but the most high profile cases

 

[Michael Js]

1) learn what "Ability, Opportunity, and Jeapardy" means
2) read the book In The Gravest Extreme by Massad Ayoob. Regarding your reference to law enforcement keep in mind that its the same for the LEO as it is the citizen.

reference: Ability, Opportunity, Jeopardy | Cornered Cat

Doesn't seem like it's the case any longer - at least not in the past year. Deadly force is used without sufficient reason; at least in mine, and many others', opinions...

 

[JSJPDX]

Go through back issues of Combat Handguns Magazine, they have a section called "Self Defense and the Law" written by Ayoob that covers just the sort of thing you're looking for; case studies of different shootings and the outcome/aftermath.

 

[Silver Hand]

If that day ever comes you will know what to do, and maybe you will survive.
If you have any question in mind, it is the wrong day.
Silver Hand

 

[wichaka]

Doesn't seem like it's the case any longer - at least not in the past year.

I hate to burst everyone's bubble...but it never has been.
The rules for deadly force for a citizen and a LEO are way different.

The use of deadly force in the position of a citizen is very narrow compared to the LEO.

I would take up the advice of OFADAN, and take the course he offers. Besides sitting down with an attorney, it will be money well spent.

I did a write up a few years ago on one of their courses, can see it here; http://www.northwestfirearms.com/fi...training-day-ofa-oregon-firearms-academy.html

 

[JRH Oregon]

Go through back issues of Combat Handguns Magazine, they have a section called "Self Defense and the Law" written by Ayoob that covers just the sort of thing you're looking for; case studies of different shootings and the outcome/aftermath.

Just found these online last night, thanks for the tip.

 

[fd15k]

I hate to burst everyone's bubble...but it never has been.
The rules for deadly force for a citizen and a LEO are way different.

The use of deadly force in the position of a citizen is very narrow compared to the LEO.

Could you please expand on that a bit ?

 

[wichaka]

Could you please expand on that a bit ?

Sure.

The most famous case that details how LE applies deadly force is Tenn. v Garner; 471 US 1

Commonly known as the "Fleeing Felon" law...which is kinda, sorta, roughly...but not really.

Can an Officer still shoot a fleeing felon? Yes, in some circumstances...and we'll look at them here.


Tenn v. Garner. This portion of case law (471 U.S. 1 (1985)) has two prongs to look at;


1 - Officers are authorized to use deadly force against any person as necessary in self-defense or the defense of another. When they have reason to believe they or another are in immediate danger of death or serious physical harm.

Important points of this prong;

- Any person

- Reason to believe - A Legal Definition

"Reasonable belief" - personal knowledge of facts and circumstances which are reasonably trustworthy.

Also defined as;
- what an average person in similar circumstances might believe.
- a belief which is not reckless or negligent in holding.

- Immediate danger of serious physical harm, doesn't have to be death.


2 - Officers are authorized to use deadly force to capture or seize a dangerous suspect when there is probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious bodily harm, and there in no reasonably safe means of preventing the suspect's escape.

Important points of this prong;

- Capture or Seize

- Inflicted or threatened serious bodily harm

I will give a quick & easy example of "threatened infliction of serious bodily harm"
Subject passes a note to a bank teller stating they have a gun and will use
it if x amount of money is not given. There is no requirement for an actual weapon to be seen.

- No reasonable safe means


Prong 2 is the difference between citizen and LE.

Citizen can not apply deadly force to capture or seize, nor can then employ it to prevent the suspects escape.

Of course laws from state to state differ.

 

[fd15k]

The most famous case that details how LE applies deadly force is Tenn. v Garner; 471 US 1

Okay, so you're looking at it from the Federal law perspective. I am under impression that the issue
at stake there is the fact LEO is a representative of the government, and their authority is limited
by the Constitution (notably 4th Amendment in this case). It is necessary to create exceptions to
such limits to allow LEOs do their job.

Citizens on the other hand are not bound by the Constitution, and their actions are only governed
by the specific federal and/or state laws.

1 - Officers are authorized to use deadly force against any person as necessary in self-defense or the defense of another. When they have reason to believe they or another are in immediate danger of death or serious physical harm.

Well, it seems that under ORS citizens are given an exemption from unlawful use of force for the same purpose.

2 - Officers are authorized to use deadly force to capture or seize a dangerous suspect when there is probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious bodily harm, and there in no reasonably safe means of preventing the suspect's escape.

Citizen's arrest is also authorized by Oregon law, though it might be a bit more narrow than this.

Prong 2 is the difference between citizen and LE.

Citizen can not apply deadly force to capture or seize, nor can then employ it to prevent the suspects escape.

Of course laws from state to state differ.

As it follows from my statements above, I don't agree with you, though of course this is for the purpose of the conversation only,
since I am not a lawyer I agree on the second part though - most "use of force" laws are on the state level, and they are usually
the ones to limit actions of citizens.

Edit: never mind... you're from the Washington state

 

[wichaka]

Okay, so you're looking at it from the Federal law perspective.

Yes, as that's where the states get their start. The states can either take verbatim what the Feds allow, or water it down and limit the actions of both LE and citizen alike.

After doing some research into Oregon Law, I'll add that here as well.

I am under impression that the issue at stake there is the fact LEO is a representative of the government, and their authority is limited by the Constitution (notably 4th Amendment in this case). It is necessary to create exceptions to
such limits to allow LEOs do their job.

Case law, Federal and state law is what has taken precedent in deadly force situations these days. The Constitution is not excluded, but rarely raises its head in such cases...unless there's something glaring.

Citizens on the other hand are not bound by the Constitution, and their actions are only governed
by the specific federal and/or state laws.

Both LE and citizen alike are bound by State and Fed law. As they come into play when a case come before the court.

Well, it seems that under ORS citizens are given an exemption from unlawful use of force for the same purpose.

Citizen's arrest is also authorized by Oregon law, though it might be a bit more narrow than this.

In that case, one needs to look at both ORS 133.225 & 161.225

I agree on the second part though - most "use of force" laws are on the state level, and they are usually
the ones to limit actions of citizens.

But they start from the Federal level.


As I've posted in other threads. Good money is always spent on talking with an attorney versed in use of force issues.

 

[fd15k]

Yes, as that's where the states get their start. The states can either take verbatim what the Feds allow, or water it down and limit the actions of both LE and citizen alike.

After doing some research into Oregon Law, I'll add that here as well.

Cool! Appreciate it!

Case law, Federal and state law is what has taken precedent in deadly force situations these days. The Constitution is not excluded, but rarely raises its head in such cases...unless there's something glaring.

I think we're on the same page with that. When I say Constitution, I mean the entire framework, including the case law. Also when talking about Federal or state law,
it implies various precedents that clarify the legislative intent or establish the application.

Both LE and citizen alike are bound by State and Fed law. As they come into play when a case come before the court.

We agree on that one. My statement was about the Constitution - it restricts government, not citizens.

If an officer takes candy from a baby without a warrant or some established exemption to the 4A, that's an illegal search & seizure.
If a citizen takes a candy from a baby, that's a robbery (typically under state law).

 

[Koda]

It is necessary to create exceptions to
such limits to allow LEOs do their job.

It was my understanding that the only difference is that the LEO has certain legal immunities only because he is required to be there by law where the citizen is not, and in that context only. Applying deadly force (shooting someone) is otherwise the same.

That about as much thought as I've put into it and I'm not even certain what those immunities or exceptions are.

I also cant argue that its often abused....

 

[fd15k]

It was my understanding that the only difference is that the LEO has certain legal immunities only because he is required to be there by law where the citizen is not, and in that context only. Applying deadly force (shooting someone) is otherwise the same.

That about as much thought as I've put into it and I'm not even certain what those immunities or exceptions are.

I also cant argue that its often abused....

Well, there are two related things. One, there are precedents that establish when it is okay for the LEOs to violate your rights.
Usually such precedents stem from the the public benefit outweighing individual rights (order vs freedom). Second thing is what's
called Qualified Immunity. I am not certain where it came from, but likely some Supreme Court case. Qualified Immunity
provides protection to LEOs enforcing the law from being prosecuted even when such law is a violation of the Constitution.

wichaka is definitely more knowledgeable on the subject of QI, he might correct me if I'm wrong.
As for the application of deadly force, we seem to agree, everything depends on the state law. Oregon seems to
provide a lot of leeway to the citizens.

Edit:

As outlined by the Supreme Court in Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982),[1] qualified immunity is designed to shield government officials from actions "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_immunity