Law Enforcement and Deadly Force

[Caliga]

Princesca and I were discussing this last night, because yesterday there was an incident in Louisville where a crazy guy was fighting with his wife and she threw him out of the house or something, and someone called the cops because he was a) banging on her door screaming, and b) totally naked.

So this cop arrives, and whips out a taser and tases him, which "didn't work".  So she (yes, lady cop) then attempted to wrestle him to the ground and cuff him, during the process of which he grabbed her gun out of her holster and shot her twice in the legs.  He then shot his girlfriend, and a neighbor who came out to see what was going on.  She then managed to get the gun away from him and shot him in the stomach, but nobody died as a result of all of this.

Anyway, we were discussing it because Princesca's cousin is a Louisville firefighter and was called to the scene, and actually had to ride with the perp to the hospital.

In my opinion--and I'm someone who is against capital punishment generally--in this sort of situation the cop should be allowed to retaliate with deadly force... I would have been fine if she emptied the rest of her clip into this guy's face if that's what it took to stop him.

I think in the past cops in the US used to do so without hesitation, but with people complaining about police brutality these days it seems cops are now expected to avoid lethal force at all costs.

Thoughts/comments?

[Caliga]

Oh, and I forgot to mention the cop was black and the suspect white.

DIS BE RACIDISTIC TREATMENT OF DA WHITE MAN!!!!111111 

[Darth Wagtaros]

No cop should put him/herself or bystanders in danger of getting killed if they can resolve the situation by shooting a gun wielding maniac.

[DontSayBanana]

I thought deadly force was authorized in this situation. Threatening with a gun is not the same as three shots, hitting two people. Or is taking potshots at civilians treated differently than taking potshots at cops?

[Caliga]

I thought deadly force was authorized in this situation.

It is in most places in the US, I think.  The question is: should it be?

[Weatherman]

The cop would be a fool if they didn't try to drop someone pointing a gun at them.

[grumbler]

Agree that this is a strange question.  How could the issue be controversial?

[garbon]

Agree that this is a strange question.  How could the issue be controversial?

Well cops are generally assholes and it sucks to have an asshole win.

[Berkut]

I don't even think this is vageuly an issue.

SOP is that someone threatening the use of deadly force can be neutralized with deadly force.

The problem is that in your story, I don't see what cop you are talking about. She did not use deadly force at first, since he did not threaten deadly force, and once he did, she had lost her ability to shoot him, since he took her gun...right?

WTF was she thinking getting into a wrestling match with the guy without backup there?

[DontSayBanana]

It is in most places in the US, I think.  The question is: should it be?

Well, your anecdote is a poor illustration. Should a cop take down somebody who's already fired and hit civilians? Absolutely. Should a cop take down someone as soon as the gun is presented? Personally, I think the cops should give one order to a "scared gunman" to put the gun down. If that one order is ignored/refused, the gunman is then a threat and should be treated as such.

[Darth Wagtaros]

Agree that this is a strange question.  How could the issue be controversial?

In places like Cambridge or what not I think it might be, but even most of the loonies would put up resistance  pro forma to use of deadly force in situations like this.

[Malthus]

I'm with Berkut here. What was the cop to do - shoot Naked Screaming Man? Of course once he took the gun, she should have shot him, but by that time she couldn't.

The real problem here was in wrestling Naked Man without a partner. 

[Berkut]

So this cop arrives, and whips out a taser and tases him, which "didn't work".  So she (yes, lady cop) then attempted to wrestle him to the ground and cuff him, during the process of which he grabbed her gun out of her holster and shot her twice in the legs.  He then shot his girlfriend, and a neighbor who came out to see what was going on.  She then managed to get the gun away from him and shot him in the stomach, but nobody died as a result of all of this.

OK, I think I see the confusion.

The question is whether she was justificed in shooting him AFTER she get her gun back, right?

Sp timeline is:

He gets her gun, shoots her
Shoots girlfriend
Shoots neighbor
Cop gets gun back.

This was not clear - I thought maybe the neighbor got the gun away from him, or someone else.

No, at this point unless she feels her or someone elses life is in danger (like he is wrestling with her trying to get the gun back) of course she has no right or reason to shoot him.

I would probably understand it if she did anyway though.

[Berkut]

It is in most places in the US, I think.  The question is: should it be?

Well, your anecdote is a poor illustration. Should a cop take down somebody who's already fired and hit civilians? Absolutely. Should a cop take down someone as soon as the gun is presented? Personally, I think the cops should give one order to a "scared gunman" to put the gun down. If that one order is ignored/refused, the gunman is then a threat and should be treated as such.

I think this ullustrates the gap between what they can do and what they should do - and it is a necessary gap.

I think a cop should be able to blow someone away who has a displayed weapon in hand and there is reasonable reason to believe they have some intent to use it. That doesn't mean they must - this is going to require some amount of judgment on the part of the police officer. And they will get it wrong sometimes.

[Caliga]

I fucked up the story, now that I read over my OP.

She shot him BEFORE he wrestled her gun away.  First, she tazed him, and when he didn't respond to that, she drew her gun and shot him.  THEN he grabbed her gun.