Law Enforcement and Deadly Force

[ulmont]

Now you are just making up facts to suit your argument.  He was not stationary.  He was coming at her.

No, I didn't say those were the facts, I said those were the principles, and determining where lines move from 1) to 2) is important.  Or do you think it's always ok to shoot unarmed suspects?

[DGuller]

I'll concede that the cop was justified to shoot the naked guy if she shot him while they were struggling for control of the gun.  At that point he was clearly a danger to everyone.  It's not clear whether this is what happened.

[garbon]

If guns weren't so prevalent in America, this never would have happened.

[crazy canuck]

Or do you think it's always ok to shoot unarmed suspects?

It is always ok when they are threatening the police officer.

You are under the mistaken impression that the officer must be under threat of lethal force themselves before they use a gun.  If that were the case we would have a lot more police officers injured and killed in the line of duty.

[crazy canuck]

I'll concede that the cop was justified to shoot the naked guy if she shot him while they were struggling for control of the gun.  At that point he was clearly a danger to everyone.  It's not clear whether this is what happened.

Great, so officers have to wait until their life is in jeopardy.

You just created a policy that will kill any chance of anyone wanting to become a cop.

[DGuller]

You are under the mistaken impression that the officer must be under threat of lethal force themselves before they use a gun.

You are under mistaken impression that this is a mistaken impression.

[Berkut]

I still don't see it - how was she in danger from this unarmed man?

Well, Berkut, clearly a police officer armed with a gun is always in deadly danger from an unarmed man; he might take away the gun and shoot her with it!

Indeed.

We can extend this notion:

Lets say we have the following story:

1. Man is in confrontation with police. He clearly has no weapon.
2. Police do not shoot him.
3. Man runs away from police, police do not shoot him.
4. Man gets gun, shoots someone.

Cna we now conclude that the police would have been perfectly justified in shooting him in step 2, since we know that in step 4 he became a threat?

And of course, if she had shot him competently, we would never have known that in fact he was going to take her gun away from her, and we would just have a cop blowing away a crazy naked guy.

The justification for the shooting is completely reliant on the events that occurred AFTER the shooting. Maybe if she hadn't shot him, he would have shot her. Maybe he felt that was the only way he could keep the crazy cop chick from shooting him again.

Who knows?

The rules should apply based on what is known at the time of the shooting, not on what happened after it.

[crazy canuck]

You are under the mistaken impression that the officer must be under threat of lethal force themselves before they use a gun.

You are under mistaken impression that this is a mistaken impression.

[Berkut]

I'll concede that the cop was justified to shoot the naked guy if she shot him while they were struggling for control of the gun.  At that point he was clearly a danger to everyone.  It's not clear whether this is what happened.

indeed - once you start wrestling with a cop and make any kind of move toward their gun, you are fair game.

[crazy canuck]

I still don't see it - how was she in danger from this unarmed man?

Well, Berkut, clearly a police officer armed with a gun is always in deadly danger from an unarmed man; he might take away the gun and shoot her with it!

Indeed.

We can extend this notion:

Lets say we have the following story:

1. Man is in confrontation with police. He clearly has no weapon.
2. Police do not shoot him.
3. Man runs away from police, police do not shoot him.
4. Man gets gun, shoots someone.

Cna we now conclude that the police would have been perfectly justified in shooting him in step 2, since we know that in step 4 he became a threat?

And of course, if she had shot him competently, we would never have known that in fact he was going to take her gun away from her, and we would just have a cop blowing away a crazy naked guy.

The justification for the shooting is completely reliant on the events that occurred AFTER the shooting. Maybe if she hadn't shot him, he would have shot her. Maybe he felt that was the only way he could keep the crazy cop chick from shooting him again.

Who knows?

The rules should apply based on what is known at the time of the shooting, not on what happened after it.

Of course you example has no relevance to the example at hand where the person was coming for the officer.

[Barrister]

You are under the mistaken impression that the officer must be under threat of lethal force themselves before they use a gun.

As I understand policy, they have to be at risk of death or greivous bodily harm, yes.

[garbon]

You just created a policy that will kill any chance of anyone wanting to become a cop.

[Berkut]

I'll concede that the cop was justified to shoot the naked guy if she shot him while they were struggling for control of the gun.  At that point he was clearly a danger to everyone.  It's not clear whether this is what happened.

Great, so officers have to wait until their life is in jeopardy.

You just created a policy that will kill any chance of anyone wanting to become a cop.

Of course they ahve to wait until their life (or someone elses) is in jeapordy. How else would you do it? Just let them shoot people as longa s they

Or do you think it's always ok to shoot unarmed suspects?

It is always ok when they are threatening the police officer.

You are under the mistaken impression that the officer must be under threat of lethal force themselves before they use a gun.  If that were the case we would have a lot more police officers injured and killed in the line of duty.

That is the case, and we have a decent number injured or killed in the line of duty.

I am unsure where you got this idea that if someone threatens a police officer, they can and should kill them, even if the threat is not credible. Like they are naked.

What if a cop pulls me over and I say "Fuck you, I should kick your ass!"

They can blow me away then?

[crazy canuck]

You are under the mistaken impression that the officer must be under threat of lethal force themselves before they use a gun.

As I understand policy, they have to be at risk of death or greivous bodily harm, yes.

Which is different then what I said.  Folks here are saying that cops can never fire on someone who is unarmed.  The fact is that a police officer can face a risk of death or greivous bodily harm even when someone is unarmed.

[Berkut]

I still don't see it - how was she in danger from this unarmed man?

Well, Berkut, clearly a police officer armed with a gun is always in deadly danger from an unarmed man; he might take away the gun and shoot her with it!

Indeed.

We can extend this notion:

Lets say we have the following story:

1. Man is in confrontation with police. He clearly has no weapon.
2. Police do not shoot him.
3. Man runs away from police, police do not shoot him.
4. Man gets gun, shoots someone.

Cna we now conclude that the police would have been perfectly justified in shooting him in step 2, since we know that in step 4 he became a threat?

And of course, if she had shot him competently, we would never have known that in fact he was going to take her gun away from her, and we would just have a cop blowing away a crazy naked guy.

The justification for the shooting is completely reliant on the events that occurred AFTER the shooting. Maybe if she hadn't shot him, he would have shot her. Maybe he felt that was the only way he could keep the crazy cop chick from shooting him again.

Who knows?

The rules should apply based on what is known at the time of the shooting, not on what happened after it.

Of course you example has no relevance to the example at hand where the person was coming for the officer.

I think I already said that if she felt she had no way of avoiding him, then perhaps a case might be made that she was justified in killing him.

I still don't see how that is the case here though - why couldn't she just run away?