Genuine question here and probably going to be unpopular but I am curious. My understanding is that in some states a homeowner can use deadly force to defend themselves but in some states ( did not research this) if the threat is retreating deadly force is no longer legally justified. This means that if a homeowner shoots someone that is running away and they kill him then they themselves can be charged. Please correct my understanding of this if its incorrect. But if that is largely true, why would that not apply equally to law enforcement? Once he got loose and took off why the need for gunfire? They have him ID'ed. They have his car. He was just a dumbass that was DUI at that point. If they had let him run off could he have been picked up later with additional charges and perhaps without the need of deadly force? I back the blue and have relatives in the force but scenes like this make me uneasy.
The officer in pursuit has his taser out and drops it in favor of his gun only once the suspect turns and fires the taser at the officer. The officer wanted to use less than lethal, but the situation changed, necessitating an escalation of force.
It looks like the other officer fired his tazer already. This is one of the huge problems with tazers where you get ONE shot. If you fire and it's not effective, then it's only usage requires direct contact.
Even in those states, if the guy running still makes you feel threatened you can be justified. You won’t get away without an investigation as you might if they weren’t running, but if they had a gun pointed at you while running... yeah you’ll come out justified after investigation.
They could just be fleeing to better ground. If you feel threatened is a separate justification than them being on your property. They make this very clear in CCDW
You will lose benefit of the doubt, but you may still have a case if you have a reason to still be threatened.
You cannot shoot someone who is no longer a threat. If a person is running away and still has a weapon you are generally justified in shooting him in the back. This is because when a person has a weapon and they are running they could just be running for cover and not simply escaping. That’s why if you shoot a guy that’s running away from you but deeper into the house, you can shoot, while if they exit your door and you shoot then outside the house it’s very different things even if they are both shot in the back while running away from your position. In this case the man had just fired a weapon at an officer while running, meaning That he wasn’t escaping, he was still escalating the use of force.
Why are we downvoting a fellow pede for asking a reasonable question? C'mon fellas.
I thought the same thing, "never shoot someone running away", but this guy turned around, faced the officer closest to him, pointed the tazer at him AND fired it at him before getting shot by the other officer. So the whole running away thing in this case isn't really applicable.
As far as letting him go and picking him up later, that's a really slippery slope.
Let's say they let him get away. Now he's all amped up, intoxicated, has no car... What if he steals a car trying to get home (thinking why not, if they catch me after all that shit I just did, what's a stolen car charge matter at this point?) I mean let's face it, he was willing to shoot at police to get away, so stealing a car to get away is nothing... and then he drives and drunkenly kills a family.
Then what? How could the officers live with themselves, knowing that they could have done something to stop it? Would they be liable in court for "not doing their job" leading to the deaths?
Or, what if he was a serious felon wanted on all kinds of charges, and that's why he wanted to get away so badly? Could be in another state and the cops can't see it right away in their limited car systems? I dunno.
Just saying, letting people get away after they steal your tazer and shoot you with it is a bad look for the police and public safety.
This is definitely trickier than people are making it out to be. Are tazers considered deadly weapons? Seems weird to feel in fear of your life because someone shot a non lethal weapon at you while fleeing. Not sure about this one.am Maybe they didn't want to pursue because close proximity had already turned out bad for them once? What if he got their gun in the middle of the next struggle? Hard to say.
Did you not see that he had two officers trying to detain him? And yet he was still able to take one of the officers weapons? So, if he had the chance to tase the one officer, that would leave two officers vulnerable and he could have easily gotten one of their guns. This puts both officers in danger of their lives, as well as all of the innocent bystanders. The cops were absolutely justified in this case. Don’t tell me a taser is not lethal, especially when watching how easily he overtook TWO officers.
I'm going to make this one simple for you. You don't get to shoot anything at the police. Period. A taser is a potentially lethal weapon. If the officer was struck and disabled, now his 100 percent lethal side arm is uncontrolled and accessible by a fleeing felon. We have fleeing felon laws for a reason.
Genuine question here and probably going to be unpopular but I am curious. My understanding is that in some states a homeowner can use deadly force to defend themselves but in some states ( did not research this) if the threat is retreating deadly force is no longer legally justified. This means that if a homeowner shoots someone that is running away and they kill him then they themselves can be charged. Please correct my understanding of this if its incorrect. But if that is largely true, why would that not apply equally to law enforcement? Once he got loose and took off why the need for gunfire? They have him ID'ed. They have his car. He was just a dumbass that was DUI at that point. If they had let him run off could he have been picked up later with additional charges and perhaps without the need of deadly force? I back the blue and have relatives in the force but scenes like this make me uneasy.
Previously wrongthink
The officer in pursuit has his taser out and drops it in favor of his gun only once the suspect turns and fires the taser at the officer. The officer wanted to use less than lethal, but the situation changed, necessitating an escalation of force.
It looks like the other officer fired his tazer already. This is one of the huge problems with tazers where you get ONE shot. If you fire and it's not effective, then it's only usage requires direct contact.
Also it's a long distance for a tazer I think.
Even in those states, if the guy running still makes you feel threatened you can be justified. You won’t get away without an investigation as you might if they weren’t running, but if they had a gun pointed at you while running... yeah you’ll come out justified after investigation.
Sounds like a bullshit law to me.
They could just be fleeing to better ground. If you feel threatened is a separate justification than them being on your property. They make this very clear in CCDW
You will lose benefit of the doubt, but you may still have a case if you have a reason to still be threatened.
You cannot shoot someone who is no longer a threat. If a person is running away and still has a weapon you are generally justified in shooting him in the back. This is because when a person has a weapon and they are running they could just be running for cover and not simply escaping. That’s why if you shoot a guy that’s running away from you but deeper into the house, you can shoot, while if they exit your door and you shoot then outside the house it’s very different things even if they are both shot in the back while running away from your position. In this case the man had just fired a weapon at an officer while running, meaning That he wasn’t escaping, he was still escalating the use of force.
Why are we downvoting a fellow pede for asking a reasonable question? C'mon fellas.
I thought the same thing, "never shoot someone running away", but this guy turned around, faced the officer closest to him, pointed the tazer at him AND fired it at him before getting shot by the other officer. So the whole running away thing in this case isn't really applicable.
As far as letting him go and picking him up later, that's a really slippery slope.
Let's say they let him get away. Now he's all amped up, intoxicated, has no car... What if he steals a car trying to get home (thinking why not, if they catch me after all that shit I just did, what's a stolen car charge matter at this point?) I mean let's face it, he was willing to shoot at police to get away, so stealing a car to get away is nothing... and then he drives and drunkenly kills a family.
Then what? How could the officers live with themselves, knowing that they could have done something to stop it? Would they be liable in court for "not doing their job" leading to the deaths?
Or, what if he was a serious felon wanted on all kinds of charges, and that's why he wanted to get away so badly? Could be in another state and the cops can't see it right away in their limited car systems? I dunno.
Just saying, letting people get away after they steal your tazer and shoot you with it is a bad look for the police and public safety.
This is definitely trickier than people are making it out to be. Are tazers considered deadly weapons? Seems weird to feel in fear of your life because someone shot a non lethal weapon at you while fleeing. Not sure about this one.am Maybe they didn't want to pursue because close proximity had already turned out bad for them once? What if he got their gun in the middle of the next struggle? Hard to say.
If he gets tazed, he goes down, his gun is available for the taking!
People have died after being tased. Other people can shrug it off and keep coming. It seems inconsistent.
Did you not see that he had two officers trying to detain him? And yet he was still able to take one of the officers weapons? So, if he had the chance to tase the one officer, that would leave two officers vulnerable and he could have easily gotten one of their guns. This puts both officers in danger of their lives, as well as all of the innocent bystanders. The cops were absolutely justified in this case. Don’t tell me a taser is not lethal, especially when watching how easily he overtook TWO officers.
I'm going to make this one simple for you. You don't get to shoot anything at the police. Period. A taser is a potentially lethal weapon. If the officer was struck and disabled, now his 100 percent lethal side arm is uncontrolled and accessible by a fleeing felon. We have fleeing felon laws for a reason.