All this nonsense made up here is easily dismissed because it is simply not the way that the law is written.
The suspect dictates how the confrontation or arrest will go. Their actions determine what force, if any is necessary. It could be just talking to the suspect, to placing handcuffs on them, to taser, to mace, to deadly force… It’s in the hands of the suspect…
The REAL victim in these incidents is not the dead suspect who tried to shoot the officer and certainly not any relatives of the dead suspect.
The REAL victim in these incidents is the officer because the suspect actions forced the Officer to act so that he may go home to HIS family at the end of his shift.
The use of force is defined in state law. I use North Carolina’s because that is what I’m familiar with but I seriously doubt that there is any difference between any state’s laws on this matter.
§ 15A‑401. Arrest by law‑enforcement officer. Use of Force in Arrest. – b. To defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use OR IMMINENT USE of physical force while effecting or attempting to effect an arrest or while preventing or attempting to prevent an escape.
The emphasis is on “OR IMMINENT USE”. Definition: im·mi·nent /ˈimənənt/ Adjective: About to happen: “imminent danger”. Synonyms: impending – impendent – forthcoming.
An officer in possession of common sense will certainly use deadly force and has the right to take a deadly shot when faced with the IMMINENT threat of serious bodily injury or death.
That IMMINENT threat of serious bodily injury or death does NOT have to be coming from a gun, knife or other weapon. It can be coming from hands, feet or even from the use of a car. It’s NOT the tool used that counts…it’s the ABILITY to bring about serious injury or death BY ANY MEANS that can be defended against with deadly force.
UNLIKE the military, law enforcement operates under a completely different ROE (Rules Of Engagement). Law enforcement is NOT the military and does NOT have to be fired upon first to be authorized the use of deadly force. Again, the emphasis is on “imminent”. Stop getting the two confused. They, law enforcement and military, were never the same to begin with.
By it being imbedded state law no law enforcement supervisor [chief of police or sheriff] or city administrator [mayor, city/county manager] can order otherwise AND NO ATTORNEY CAN ARGUE DIFFERENTLY.
☠️ A person running at an officer with a knife/machete – deadly force authorized.
☠️ An unarmed 240 pound violator on top of a 120 pound officer beating the officer in the head – deadly force authorized.
☠️ A 6’4″, 17 year old behemoth under the influence of a mind altering narcotic who has already assaulted and injured an officer by a strike in the head bringing about a loss of strength and possible concussive problems charging that officer again with the apparent intent to cause bodily injury or death – DEADLY FORCE AUTHORIZED!
☠️ Assaulting you with a vehicle – deadly force authorized.
☠️ A person running at an officer with their hands hidden from view so as to potentially be holding a weapon (gun, knife or bludgeon) – deadly force authorized.
☠️ A person swinging a crowbar, flag pole, etc at the officer’s upper body and head – deadly force authorized.
☠️ A person moving a gun in a manner that appears to the officer that they are “about” to be targeted – deadly force authorized. Getting out of a car with a gun in hand certainly qualifies.
UNDERSTAND THIS: The law enforcement officer's safety takes precedence OVER that of the offender...EVEN IF THEY ARE MENTALLY ILL. It is not the law enforcement officer's responsibility, nor are they qualified, to try and make a determination as to whether a person is mentally ill. That is the responsibility of the medical professionals who have treated the offender. If a medical professional failed to determine the offender to be 'a danger to him/herself or others' then you need to direct your anger and law suit at the medical professional who failed you and failed to order the offender into involuntary commitment for their protection in the first place.
Part 2
ALSO: I don’t give a damn what color of the barrel/gun is; Functioning dangerous weapons come in all color schemes and the criminals have been caught painting the tips of the barrels of their guns orange just to fool cops and get an edge on shooting first. If you point ANYTHING at me that can be construed as a projectile weapon I’m going to put two or more rounds into you center mass and let God decide if you live or die.
If you’re running for cover with a gun in hand you certainly can be shot in the back or anywhere else for that matter. Police don’t have to let you reach cover thus allowing you to shoot at them from a position of safety. So for you people that are planning on a “Police can’t shoot them in the back.” argument….know from the start you are wrong…yes the police can and are perfectly authorized to do so. As stated, this is real life….not some movie or TV show.
Also, not being a TV drama, the officer doesn’t have to yell “Stop police” or even warn you first to “Drop the gun”. If there is no time for a warning then so be it. The violator doesn’t get to shoot first if the officer can help it. It’s not a color thing, it’s a law thing, and unlike Burger King you don’t get to have it your way after the words “you are under arrest” are uttered.
When an officer determines the armed violator has broken the law the armed violator’s decisions are narrowed down to these, and only these, options;.
You go to jail.
You go to the hospital and then you go to jail.
You go to the morgue.
The officer has already made their own decision….that they’re going home alive to their family.
There is a point of no return. When the line is crossed there is no shoot to wound, no shoot in the leg, no shoot below the waist, no second chances. You should have paid attention to the first chance given you….to comply with the orders of the police. It is shoot center mass to stop and it is then up to God to decide your fate with regard to live or die. And make no mistake…when you cross that line you know you shouldn’t have crossed the officer couldn't care less if you live or die. All they care about is that you are stopped and that they make it home to their wife and children.
What does the officer feel when the bad guy dies? You mean besides the recoil?
✔ Aggravation that the bad guy caused them to have killed for the good of society.
✔ Anger that the bad guy’s parents failed in their job of raising the bad guy.
✔ Aggravation that they have to endure being on administrative leave doing boring jobs around the department for a long time.
✔ Amusement at the “low informed” citizenry that make comments like “Why not below waist”, "Shoot them in the leg", or something equally ignorant.
✔ Disgust at the absolute morons that come out with the all too expected wild police conspiracy theories based on conjecture, a lack of any real knowledge of police methodology and a distinct lack of knowledge of the legal mandates under which the officer will be judged.
✔ Relief that their training served them well and allowed them to be the one that walked away from the encounter alive, unharmed, and the victor….the consequence…..not the victim.
We must continue to educate the masses about Graham v. Connor, in which the Supreme Court of the United States declared quite clearly that:
“The Fourth Amendment ‘reasonableness’ inquiry is whether the officers’ actions are ‘objectively reasonable’ in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or motivation. The ‘reasonableness’ of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene [NOT a spouse, civilian bystander, politician, liberal, news reporter, activist, racist NAACP/BLM protesters/rioters, defense attorneys], and its calculus must embody an allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second decisions about the amount of force necessary in a particular situation.”
Much like the soldier feels no remorse for defending their country…it would be just as ignorant to expect the officer to feel remorse for defending the citizenry of their city against its enemies…the violent criminal.
Part 1
All this nonsense made up here is easily dismissed because it is simply not the way that the law is written.
The suspect dictates how the confrontation or arrest will go. Their actions determine what force, if any is necessary. It could be just talking to the suspect, to placing handcuffs on them, to taser, to mace, to deadly force… It’s in the hands of the suspect…
The REAL victim in these incidents is not the dead suspect who tried to shoot the officer and certainly not any relatives of the dead suspect.
The REAL victim in these incidents is the officer because the suspect actions forced the Officer to act so that he may go home to HIS family at the end of his shift.
The use of force is defined in state law. I use North Carolina’s because that is what I’m familiar with but I seriously doubt that there is any difference between any state’s laws on this matter.
§ 15A‑401. Arrest by law‑enforcement officer. Use of Force in Arrest. – b. To defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use OR IMMINENT USE of physical force while effecting or attempting to effect an arrest or while preventing or attempting to prevent an escape.
The emphasis is on “OR IMMINENT USE”. Definition: im·mi·nent /ˈimənənt/ Adjective: About to happen: “imminent danger”. Synonyms: impending – impendent – forthcoming.
An officer in possession of common sense will certainly use deadly force and has the right to take a deadly shot when faced with the IMMINENT threat of serious bodily injury or death.
That IMMINENT threat of serious bodily injury or death does NOT have to be coming from a gun, knife or other weapon. It can be coming from hands, feet or even from the use of a car. It’s NOT the tool used that counts…it’s the ABILITY to bring about serious injury or death BY ANY MEANS that can be defended against with deadly force.
UNLIKE the military, law enforcement operates under a completely different ROE (Rules Of Engagement). Law enforcement is NOT the military and does NOT have to be fired upon first to be authorized the use of deadly force. Again, the emphasis is on “imminent”. Stop getting the two confused. They, law enforcement and military, were never the same to begin with.
By it being imbedded state law no law enforcement supervisor [chief of police or sheriff] or city administrator [mayor, city/county manager] can order otherwise AND NO ATTORNEY CAN ARGUE DIFFERENTLY.
☠️ A person running at an officer with a knife/machete – deadly force authorized. ☠️ An unarmed 240 pound violator on top of a 120 pound officer beating the officer in the head – deadly force authorized. ☠️ A 6’4″, 17 year old behemoth under the influence of a mind altering narcotic who has already assaulted and injured an officer by a strike in the head bringing about a loss of strength and possible concussive problems charging that officer again with the apparent intent to cause bodily injury or death – DEADLY FORCE AUTHORIZED! ☠️ Assaulting you with a vehicle – deadly force authorized. ☠️ A person running at an officer with their hands hidden from view so as to potentially be holding a weapon (gun, knife or bludgeon) – deadly force authorized. ☠️ A person swinging a crowbar, flag pole, etc at the officer’s upper body and head – deadly force authorized. ☠️ A person moving a gun in a manner that appears to the officer that they are “about” to be targeted – deadly force authorized. Getting out of a car with a gun in hand certainly qualifies.
UNDERSTAND THIS: The law enforcement officer's safety takes precedence OVER that of the offender...EVEN IF THEY ARE MENTALLY ILL. It is not the law enforcement officer's responsibility, nor are they qualified, to try and make a determination as to whether a person is mentally ill. That is the responsibility of the medical professionals who have treated the offender. If a medical professional failed to determine the offender to be 'a danger to him/herself or others' then you need to direct your anger and law suit at the medical professional who failed you and failed to order the offender into involuntary commitment for their protection in the first place.
Part 2
ALSO: I don’t give a damn what color of the barrel/gun is; Functioning dangerous weapons come in all color schemes and the criminals have been caught painting the tips of the barrels of their guns orange just to fool cops and get an edge on shooting first. If you point ANYTHING at me that can be construed as a projectile weapon I’m going to put two or more rounds into you center mass and let God decide if you live or die.
If you’re running for cover with a gun in hand you certainly can be shot in the back or anywhere else for that matter. Police don’t have to let you reach cover thus allowing you to shoot at them from a position of safety. So for you people that are planning on a “Police can’t shoot them in the back.” argument….know from the start you are wrong…yes the police can and are perfectly authorized to do so. As stated, this is real life….not some movie or TV show.
Also, not being a TV drama, the officer doesn’t have to yell “Stop police” or even warn you first to “Drop the gun”. If there is no time for a warning then so be it. The violator doesn’t get to shoot first if the officer can help it. It’s not a color thing, it’s a law thing, and unlike Burger King you don’t get to have it your way after the words “you are under arrest” are uttered.
When an officer determines the armed violator has broken the law the armed violator’s decisions are narrowed down to these, and only these, options;.
The officer has already made their own decision….that they’re going home alive to their family.
There is a point of no return. When the line is crossed there is no shoot to wound, no shoot in the leg, no shoot below the waist, no second chances. You should have paid attention to the first chance given you….to comply with the orders of the police. It is shoot center mass to stop and it is then up to God to decide your fate with regard to live or die. And make no mistake…when you cross that line you know you shouldn’t have crossed the officer couldn't care less if you live or die. All they care about is that you are stopped and that they make it home to their wife and children.
What does the officer feel when the bad guy dies? You mean besides the recoil?
✔ Aggravation that the bad guy caused them to have killed for the good of society.
✔ Anger that the bad guy’s parents failed in their job of raising the bad guy.
✔ Aggravation that they have to endure being on administrative leave doing boring jobs around the department for a long time.
✔ Amusement at the “low informed” citizenry that make comments like “Why not below waist”, "Shoot them in the leg", or something equally ignorant.
✔ Disgust at the absolute morons that come out with the all too expected wild police conspiracy theories based on conjecture, a lack of any real knowledge of police methodology and a distinct lack of knowledge of the legal mandates under which the officer will be judged.
✔ Relief that their training served them well and allowed them to be the one that walked away from the encounter alive, unharmed, and the victor….the consequence…..not the victim.
We must continue to educate the masses about Graham v. Connor, in which the Supreme Court of the United States declared quite clearly that:
“The Fourth Amendment ‘reasonableness’ inquiry is whether the officers’ actions are ‘objectively reasonable’ in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or motivation. The ‘reasonableness’ of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene [NOT a spouse, civilian bystander, politician, liberal, news reporter, activist, racist NAACP/BLM protesters/rioters, defense attorneys], and its calculus must embody an allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second decisions about the amount of force necessary in a particular situation.”
Much like the soldier feels no remorse for defending their country…it would be just as ignorant to expect the officer to feel remorse for defending the citizenry of their city against its enemies…the violent criminal.