This does seem to imply that the best choice is for the cops to shoot first, doesn’t it? It reduces all situations down to a simple “What if so-and-so decides to do me harm? That’s reason enough in my book to shoot first!”
What he did prior to that may have justified the cop shooting him. I doubt it, in this particular case, but I don’t know beyond reasonable doubt. So no, on the evidence of just that video, I don’t agree he should be convicted. I expect far more evidence to be provided, and I’ll judge based on that.
But just because someone’s running away doesn’t mean they’re not a threat. That’s idiotic.
If it’s reasonable to think that someone’s about to shoot you then yes, of course you can shoot first. The idea that someone is only allowed to defend themselves after they’ve been shot is fucking stupid.
This guy was pointing a gun at the cops. He wasn’t a random, innocent member of the public, and had he been shot it would have been a proportionate and reasonable response.
You need to have a reasonable belief that someone’s going to harm you imminently. In that case, you can defend yourself. Not must, not should, but can, and no-one should criticise you for doing so.
Of course, if you have dependants, and choose not to defend yourself and leave them in the shit, you are due for criticism.
Anyone not already under arrest is a potential threat, right? Even a guy that is moving away from a cop as fast as possible.
I never said it was. But until the cop can tell the difference between bad guys and good guys, he has no business discharging his weapon.
Potential, perhaps, but that’s irrelevant. What matters is whether they’re an imminent threat.
Yes, even a guy like that. It’s not impossible that he could stop and shoot the cop, and if the cop has reason to believe he’s going to do that, then shoot him. Your point that it may not have been reasonable to believe that in one particular case is irrelevant, and has no bearing on the general issue.
You don’t get to shoot people because they’re “bad guys”. You get to shoot them if you reasonably believe they’re an imminent danger of death or serious injury to you or someone else. Whether they’re a good or bad guy is irrelevant.
Then we should hold cops to a standard of strict liability when they are wrong. When it turns out the guy running away was unarmed, the cop should be convicted and go to the penitentiary. Right?
So no officer is allowed to fire unless he possesses telepathic powers. Check.
No, wrong. For the reasons I’ve already, repeatedly, explained. Whether he was actually a threat is entirely irrelevant to whether or not the cop was allowed to shoot him.
That genuinely seems to be what people want. That or they like seeing cops die.
I was going to argue with you, but then I read the subsequent sixty posts, all devoted to calm agreement about this totally non-controversial example. So I think that discussion settles whether there’s controversy among the ‘amateurs’ I listed.
As far as professionals, here’s an article from October 2008 Police Magazine discussing rules of engagement, which shows that passionate disagreement does exist about other policies calling for police restraint. In this article, the argument is used repeatedly that policies such as not shooting at moving vehicles, not pursuing suspects without a partner or absent line-of-sight, or not using flashlights as blunt instruments (except in “extreme circumstances”)* endanger the officers subjected to them*.
Maybe things have changed in the last seven years, and I’d be glad to search for some more recent professional level discourse about ROE, but I’m gonna continue to believe there’s some controversy within the law enforcement field about delayed use of force against armed subjects resisting arrest.
Oh, and thanks for your polite disagreement. It’s another shining example of why I so enjoy topical discussions on the SDMB.
Hyperbole much? Or just the same broken logic that means cops can gun down anyone for any reason, even illegal reasons, and it’s ok because their safety comes first?
That is dangerous thinking, and contrary to public policy. If cops make mistakes, they should be the ones at risk, not the public.
Here’s a more recent article from NYT which deals more directly with the type of situation in the example. (Might be behind a paywall, I rarely look at the paper so I really don’t know.) I think it supports my belief somewhat, but YMMV, so I’d be glad to hear other opinions. In any case, it does not appear that the type of default approach we’re discussing has anything near universal support within the profession, although I dare to hope I’m seeing it wrong.
No-one’s suggested they can gun people down for illegal reasons. But gunning someone down because you’re legitimately scared they’ll kill or seriously injure you isn’t (or at least, shouldn’t be) illegal. That’s the reason they, and you, can shoot people.
Not if the mistake was a reasonable one to make. If they’re reckless or negligent, yes, but that’s not what’s being talked about here. We are talking about, for example, someone reaching for what the cops had good reason to believe was a gun. In such a situation, even if it turns out not to be a gun, there’s nothing wrong with the police shooting him.
A policeman tries to shoot a dog, but misses.
Then there is no way to convict a cop of an illegal shooting, unless he wants to be convicted and confesses. Right?
In the cop’s defense, both the dog and the 4 year old girl were coming right at him! You can’t expect him to just wait around until he’s bitten. Or licked. Or hugged in the knee.