Law Enforcement and Deadly Force

[Caliga]

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

This is what I was trying to get at a little while ago with my post.

[garbon]

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.

Wanna get closer to the matter at hand with the naked guy, counselor?

[The Brain]

Cops should always have the right to take out the trash as best they see fit.

[crazy canuck]

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?

Threaten in the sense that the police officer fears that they could become injured which is clearly the case here.  You knew that but you are taking this off to the riduculous.

[crazy canuck]

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.

Wanna get closer to the matter at hand with the naked guy, counselor?

You think that just because he was naked he could not hurt her?  Subsequent event show the fallacy of that reasoning.

[garbon]

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

Do cops often run away? Seems counter to being all powerful and cop-like.

[garbon]

You think that just because he was naked he could not hurt her?  Subsequent event show the fallacy of that reasoning.

True, he grabbed the gun that she brought into the situation...after she let him advance on her.

[The Brain]

Is Berkut a criminal? Why does he worry so?

[Berkut]

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. 

Never? I don't think anyone said anything of the sort.

In fact, everyone arguing my side has explicitly stated, I think, that there is a circumstance under which it would be justified.

However, those are rather unusual cases. Most of the time, there needs to be a weapon displayed to justify deadly force.

The fact is that a police officer can face a risk of death or greivous bodily harm even when someone is unarmed.

Sure, it is possible. Was that the case here? Note that the officer was not injured while the suspect was unarmed, but only after he armed himself - and everyone agrees that at that point, she was justified in using deadly force (if not longer capable - back to the issue of her simply returning to her car and getting backup once it was clear the situation was not going to be resolved without some kind of confrontation).

[Barrister]

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

Do cops often run away? Seems counter to being all powerful and cop-like.

I don't know about often, but it happens.

If the person holes up in a house and there's no risk of further offences, then sure.  Or a high speed chase where the risks to the public are too great, they'll back off.

The tough question though is whether there's a risk that if they back off the suspect will commit a further offence.

[Caliga]

Oh look, here's an article on the incident:

http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20090409/NEWS01/904090361

[Berkut]

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?

Threaten in the sense that the police officer fears that they could become injured which is clearly the case here.  You knew that but you are taking this off to the riduculous.

No, I am taking YOUR words and showing that they do not work in any kind of general case.

And what does "could become injured" mean? The rules are not "could become injured" they are "imminent threat of serious inkury or death".

Was that the case with the unarmed man? He was no threat to injure or kill her until he became armed which she likely could have avoided by simply retreating and waiting for backup*.



*assuming the situation was not such that she could not do so - he was already too close, restricted area, whatever.

[garbon]

Oh look, here's an article on the incident:

http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20090409/NEWS01/904090361

I like this part of the article:

Since the beginning of March, there have been two incidents in which police were threatened with guns, leading them to return fire. In both cases, the officers weren't injured.

Seems rather odd as the cop in this case fired before she was a threatened with a gun...

[Barrister]

Oh look, here's an article on the incident:

http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20090409/NEWS01/904090361

Thanks.  I couldn't follow Cal's account at all, now it makes sense.

[The Brain]

Often there isn't an inkury if the blue wall of silence works as intended.