I was under the impression that cops aren’t supposed to shoot someone who is not immediately threatening them or others.
The fugitive, Sweat, was running away, unarmed and not posing a direct threat. Now, I recognize no one is really going to cause a stink about this; but did the cop really legally have the right to shoot a fleeing felon who wasn’t posing a direct threat? Also, How did he know the guy running was Sweat? was it just a calculated risk that it was him, and not some dude skipping out a child support or evading a parking ticket?
Can you provide me with some statutory evidence or proof that the cop legally was allowed to or not allowed to shoot the guy in that particular situation.
I suppose the logic goes like this - he’s a felon convicted of a violent crime. He has nothing to lose, he’s going back to prison for a long long time. There is reason to believe they may have obtained weapons from nearby houses. Therefore, if he escapes he could be an immediate danger to anyone further he encounters and it is imperative to stop him.
Law enforcement has to use judgement when determining whether to use lethal force to stop a fleeing person, fugitive or otherwise. There was enough evidence to assume it was him based on his description and where he was found, and there was reason to believe that he might be armed and dangerous. I don’t think any jury would convict the cop of acting inappropriately. If it had been the wrong guy that would be a completely separate issue.
The officer is stating that he made a positive identification of the escaped prisoner and that the fugitive fled when challenged. Given that he is a convicted murderer, that his partner died in a shootout with law enforcement and the fact that he ran when challenged I believe the officer made the right call. Bear in mind that everyone in the area knew that they were looking for escaped prisoners, so it would be very stupid to run from police at this time in this area.
He was an escaped killer and he was about to disappear into the treeline, where he could well have eluded pursuit once again. The cop had every right to prevent that eventuality by the use of deadly force. How would he feel if he’d held his fire and Sweat had killed someone later on in the pursuit?
There’s no way to know that everyone in the area knew there was a manhunt for escaped prisoners. The guy had changed his appearance, and I doubt the guy that shot him had ever seen the guy before. It happened to work out in this case but if the wrong guy was shot I wouldn’t accept the circumstances as justifying shooting him. That is assuming there wasn’t some more obvious indication that they had the right man, maybe he shouted “You’ll never take me alive coppers!” as he ran off.
Use of force rule are similar but not exactly the same from state to state. I don’t know the exact wording in NY (and more importantly, how they have been interpreted) but here is what the NJ Attorney General’s guidelines are on the subject:
A desperate convicted murderer would fall within the rules. An escaped burglar would not.
That is speaking in general terms. I don’t know exactly how it went down in this case.
So, what kind of “positive identification” would be sufficient? Fingerprints? DNA? Oh, wait. The guy isn’t actually in custody to perform those tests, is he? The officer has personally seen the suspect in the recent past while knowing who he was? How recently? How many times? Fortunately, the law (Graham v Connor) says the officer only has to be acting reasonably based on the circumstances as he believed them to be at the time. Seems to be the case here. I see no problem with Sweat being shot in the back, if that turns out to be the case.
Thanks for the replies so far, seems likely this was perfectly legal, though there may be some debate on it. Note that I’m looking at it from a strictly legal point of view, not from a hypothetical ‘if he got away’ case, or emotional ‘he deserved it, good riddance’ emotional way.
I also note that the press releases seem to me to whitewash any hint of wrongdoing by the cop (even if there isn’t any)…shot in the torso; not shot in the back; …Bad guy wearing military style clothes; not hunter camouflage…
the other guy wasn’t in a gun battle; there was no gun battle; he had a gun, he didn’t drop it, he was shot. Though it does make me wonder if he was even given a chance to drop it; or they just shot him as soon as they saw him.
I heard on the news the police shot Sweat b/c he was running toward the
tree line and the police was afraid Sweat would be able slip away if made it into the woods .
FWIW the definition of “torso” as I understood it simply means the human body excluding the head, arms, and legs. So “shot in the back” and “shot in the torso” are not mutually exclusive.
Although you are correct that it might come across as a bit of a soft-pedal.
Given the circumstances, I doubt it matters all that much. If the press reports “Cop Shoots Escaped Murderer in the Back”, I for one am going to focus more on the “escaped murderer” part and not where he got shot. Especially since it is pretty obvious that this was a legal shoot.
Not according to the cop, although there is no way to verify the story that I know of - no other witnesses or video.
Maybe the investigators can look at the tracks made by the two men and see if they show the pursuit. That might be nice in a “make sure every I is crossed and every T dotted” way. OTOH I can’t bring myself to give much of a toss.
Two murderers escaped prison. One is dead and the other back to the slammer, and they didn’t get a chance to hurt anyone. That’s what I call a happy ending.
In the photos I’ve seen of him after capture, he looks remarkably like his prison photo. Same hairstyle, mustache is a bit longer, but otherwise more or less clean-shaven. I’m surprised; I would have expected him to be much shaggier.