# Criteria for US Police Shooting at a Suspect? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [May 1, 2008, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/criteria-for-us-police-shooting-at-a-suspect/447683 "2008-05-01T23:08:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2008, 3:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/criteria-for-us-police-shooting-at-a-suspect/447683/21 "2008-05-02T03:41:30Z")
A quick read through that wiki page shows that the gang had killed 9 police officers. Clyde was the probable shooter in 10 murders. The gang had escaped multiple arrest attempt with extreme violence, never giving any indication of surrendering. And they were armed with Browning Automatic Rifles. The suspect in Tennesee v Garner was a burglar who was fleeing the scene with $10 and no weapons. I suspect if the issue was decided instead in Texas v Barrow the Supreme Court would not have reached the same conclusion. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2008, 4:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/criteria-for-us-police-shooting-at-a-suspect/447683/22 "2008-05-02T04:23:21Z")
I’m working off memory here. I work in a prison and I can legally use deadly force if there’s no reasonable alternative and if it’s necessary to prevent the person I’m using it on from inflicting death or serious injury to myself or a third party, or committing arson, or escaping. ---
**Author:** ![pkbites](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pkbites/32/204_2.png) [@pkbites](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pkbites)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2008, 5:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/criteria-for-us-police-shooting-at-a-suspect/447683/23 "2008-05-02T05:11:24Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] Also, don’t believe what you see on TV shows. [/QUOTE] No kidding. Just the other night I watched an episode of “Bones” for the very first and, also, the very last time. This FBI agent says to her that pawn shops aren’t allowed to buy guns. Bzzzt. Wrong! Lots of pawn shops have Federal Firearms Licenses that allows them to buy (and sell) guns. They just have to do it by the book like a regular gun shop does. Crime shows allegedly have police consultants on staff, but I seriously doubt it. Facts and reality would ruin the scripts. ---
**Author:** ![Mosier](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ea924/32.png) [@Mosier](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mosier)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2008, 6:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/criteria-for-us-police-shooting-at-a-suspect/447683/24 "2008-05-02T06:50:55Z")
[QUOTE=silenus] Lately, the criteria seems to be: Is the subject black or an immigrant? If yes, then shoot. [/QUOTE] Wrong forum, hombre. ---
**Author:** ![rbroome](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/838e76/32.png) [@rbroome](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rbroome)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2008, 11:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/criteria-for-us-police-shooting-at-a-suspect/447683/25 "2008-05-02T11:53:42Z")
[QUOTE=Loach] [Here](http://www.nj.gov/oag/dcj/agguide/useofforce2001.pdf) is the New Jersey Attorney General’s guideline on the use of force, including deadly force (warning PDF). Most states have the same or similar. Use of Deadly Force [/QUOTE] Thanks. always nice to have the straight dope here. Most of us have to guess or speculate on any given topic. Here we have someone who knows the facts (at least in one jurisdication). ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2008, 12:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/criteria-for-us-police-shooting-at-a-suspect/447683/26 "2008-05-02T12:31:05Z")
[QUOTE=Loach] [Here](http://www.nj.gov/oag/dcj/agguide/useofforce2001.pdf) is the New Jersey Attorney General’s guideline on the use of force, including deadly force (warning PDF). Most states have the same or similar. [/QUOTE] Assuming New York has a similar statute, under which clause was the following acquittal rendered: [NYPD officers acquitted in shooting of groom-to-be](http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080425/nypd_verdict_080425/20080425?hub=CTVNewsAt11) > [@](#): > > Three NYPD detectives have been cleared of all charges in relation to the shooting death of a groom-to-be on his wedding day. > > Fifty shots were fired at the unarmed 23-year-old in 2006 as he sat outside a seedy strip club after his bachelor party. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Slant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c57346/32.png) [@Mr.Slant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Slant)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2008, 1:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/criteria-for-us-police-shooting-at-a-suspect/447683/27 "2008-05-02T13:38:44Z")
[QUOTE=Johnny L.A.] Only they weren’t fleeing. They were ambushed. Certainly (a) fits. (b) does too. SNIP [/QUOTE] My reading of that is that they WERE fleeing from justice, as they had fled the scenes of earlier crimes and were in effect still fleeing… ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2008, 1:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/criteria-for-us-police-shooting-at-a-suspect/447683/28 "2008-05-02T13:46:24Z")
[QUOTE=Fear Itself] Assuming New York has a similar statute, under which clause was the following acquittal rendered: [NYPD officers acquitted in shooting of groom-to-be](http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080425/nypd_verdict_080425/20080425?hub=CTVNewsAt11) [/QUOTE] You are very confused about the law. What I quoted was the state Attorney Generals guidelines on use of force. Not a statute. The guideline was made based on Supreme Court rulings and state laws. Generally if the guideline is followed the officer should be safe from prosecution. The officers in NYC were found to not be following their state or department guidelines. The prosecutor/grand jury found that there was probable cause for a murder trial. But in this case the burden of proof was not met by the prosecution in the eyes of the judge (not a jury trial). Not the same thing at all. The officers may have been totally wrong but they still have to been found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, just like anyone else. I did not follow the trial closely but from what I heard briefly there may have been contradictory witness statements and credibility issues. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2008, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/criteria-for-us-police-shooting-at-a-suspect/447683/29 "2008-05-02T13:52:17Z")
[QUOTE=Mr. Slant] My reading of that is that they WERE fleeing from justice, as they had fled the scenes of earlier crimes and were in effect still fleeing… [/QUOTE] Well, you’re the lawyer, **Mr. Slant**. 😉 But the way I read it they were ‘evading’ rather than ‘fleeing’. The way I’m reading **Loach** ’s cite is that the suspect is running away from the cop. For example, a guy shoots up a store and kills some people. A cop is outside and the killer runs to a car, still armed. He tries to get away and the cop shoots him. He has killed, he’s armed and there is a danger he’ll kill again, and it’s a clean shot so no bystanders are in danger. But B&C weren’t actually running away, as they weren’t being ‘pursued’. If they were, they likely wouldn’t have stopped to chat with Henry Methvin’s father. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2008, 1:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/criteria-for-us-police-shooting-at-a-suspect/447683/30 "2008-05-02T13:58:13Z")
[QUOTE=Loach] You are very confused about the law. What I quoted was the state Attorney Generals guidelines on use of force. Not a statute. [/QUOTE] Pardon me. > [@](#): > > Generally if the guideline is followed the officer should be safe from prosecution. So the guidelines are for the protection of the police, not the public. ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2008, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/criteria-for-us-police-shooting-at-a-suspect/447683/31 "2008-05-02T14:09:04Z")
[QUOTE=Fear Itself] Pardon me. So the guidelines are for the protection of the police, not the public. [/QUOTE] The guidelines are not for anyone’s protection. It is there as a reference for police officers as to what their obligations are under state and federal law and the attorney general’s policy. And I don’t know what the pardon me is for. Your point was exactly the opposite of what happened. The officers were found to have not used the proper procedures under the law or department policy. They were put on trial for murder. ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2008, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/criteria-for-us-police-shooting-at-a-suspect/447683/32 "2008-05-02T14:19:14Z")
[QUOTE=Johnny L.A.] Well, you’re the lawyer, **Mr. Slant**. 😉 But the way I read it they were ‘evading’ rather than ‘fleeing’. The way I’m reading **Loach** ’s cite is that the suspect is running away from the cop. For example, a guy shoots up a store and kills some people. A cop is outside and the killer runs to a car, still armed. He tries to get away and the cop shoots him. He has killed, he’s armed and there is a danger he’ll kill again, and it’s a clean shot so no bystanders are in danger. But B&C weren’t actually running away, as they weren’t being ‘pursued’. If they were, they likely wouldn’t have stopped to chat with Henry Methvin’s father. [/QUOTE] What happened to the Barrow Gang was certainly legal under the law at the time. It was 50 years before the Tennesee v Garner decision. The question I guess would be if it was legal today. I see it as they were in constant flight. Also police are not obligated to give the suspects an equal chance. The other times they tried to arrest the gang the police were outgunned and officers died. From my cite: 1. If feasible, a law enforcement officer should identify himself/herself and state his/her intention to shoot before using a firearm. The fact that the suspects are armed with B.A.Rs and have killed multiple officers when confronted would push it more towards the less feasible side. There are multiple factors due to what happened before and the ease with which the gang murdered multiple people which in my opinion puts it out of the realm of Garner. That being said I don’t see it going down like that if it happened today. There would be some attempt to apprehend before there were shots. Of course that can only be a guess. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_Torque](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e9bcb4/32.png) [@Max\_Torque](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_Torque)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2008, 2:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/criteria-for-us-police-shooting-at-a-suspect/447683/33 "2008-05-02T14:26:26Z")
The example that came to mind for me was **Fargo**. [Minnesota’s “deadly force” statute](https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/statutes/?id=609.066) is similar to New Jersey’s: > [@](#): > > Chapter 609.066, Subd. 2. Use of deadly force. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 609.06 or 609.065, the use of deadly force by a peace officer in the line of duty is justified only when necessary: > (1) To protect the peace officer or another from apparent death or great bodily harm; > (2) To effect the arrest or capture, or prevent the escape, of a person whom the peace officer knows or has reasonable grounds to believe has committed or attempted to commit a felony involving the use or threatened use of deadly force; or > (3) To effect the arrest or capture, or prevent the escape, of a person whom the officer knows or has reasonable grounds to believe has committed or attempted to commit a felony if the officer reasonably believes that the person will cause death or great bodily harm if the person’s apprehension is delayed. So, since Margie saw the fella putting the other fella in the woodchipper and he attempted to flee, it looks like shooting him was justified. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2008, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/criteria-for-us-police-shooting-at-a-suspect/447683/34 "2008-05-02T14:27:10Z")
[QUOTE=Loach] What happened to the Barrow Gang was certainly legal under the law at the time. [/QUOTE] Right. So when did it change? When was the last time the police gunned down someone by ambuscade? (Thanks to W.F. Cody for that word. 😉 ) ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2008, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/criteria-for-us-police-shooting-at-a-suspect/447683/35 "2008-05-02T14:30:51Z")
[QUOTE=Johnny L.A.] Right. So when did it change? When was the last time the police gunned down someone by ambuscade? (Thanks to W.F. Cody for that word. 😉 ) [/QUOTE] 1985 Tennesee v Garner ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2008, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/criteria-for-us-police-shooting-at-a-suspect/447683/36 "2008-05-02T14:38:46Z")
[QUOTE=Loach] 1985 Tennesee v Garner [/QUOTE] In that case the police were sent to a burglary call, saw the suspect trying to flee, and shot him. What I’m getting at is: When was the last time law enforcement received information that wanted criminals would likely be at a given place at a given time, lay in wait for him/them, and then opened fire without warning from concealed positions? That is to say, the crim had no expectation of being confronted at that place and time, was not or did not know that he was being actively pursued, and was ambushed. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2008, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/criteria-for-us-police-shooting-at-a-suspect/447683/37 "2008-05-02T14:52:45Z")
[QUOTE=silenus] Lately, the criteria seems to be: Is the subject black or an immigrant? If yes, then shoot. [/QUOTE] [Moderating] **Silenus** , you should know better than this. Political comments of this nature are not permitted in GQ. I would suggest you read the revised sticky on [General Questions Rules](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=466202) to refresh your memory on standards for this forum. Colibri General Questions Moderator ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2008, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/criteria-for-us-police-shooting-at-a-suspect/447683/38 "2008-05-02T15:28:39Z")
There are a couple of issues here: 1. What Constitutional limits are there on an officer’s use of deadly force to apprehend a fleeing suspect? 2. What state provisions apply and what are the consequences of a violation? \*Garner \* [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=471&invol=1](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=471&invol=1) involved a civil suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983. In other words, it was a civil suit for damages–not a criminal prosecution. The Court noted: > [@](#): > > A police officer may arrest a person if he has probable cause to believe that person committed a crime. E. g., United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411 (1976). Petitioners and appellant argue that if this requirement is satisfied the Fourth Amendment has nothing to say about how that seizure is made. This submission ignores the many cases in which this Court, by balancing the extent of the intrusion against the need for it, has examined the reasonableness of [471 U.S. 1, 8] the manner in which a search or seizure is conducted. To determine the constitutionality of a seizure “[w]e must balance the nature and quality of the intrusion on the individual’s Fourth Amendment interests against the importance of the governmental interests alleged to justify the intrusion.” United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696, 703 (1983); see Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 654 (1979); United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543, 555 (1976). We have described “the balancing of competing interests” as “the key principle of the Fourth Amendment.” Michigan v. Summers, 452 U.S. 692, 700 , n. 12 (1981). See also Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523, 536 -537 (1967). Because one of the factors is the extent of the intrusion, it is plain that reasonableness depends on not only when a seizure is made, but also how it is carried out. United States v. Ortiz, 422 U.S. 891, 895 (1975); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 28 -29 (1968). The Court explained that “the question was whether the totality of the circumstances justified a particular sort of search or seizure.” Applying this standard, the Court soundly reasoned that “The same balancing process applied in the cases cited above demonstrates that, **notwithstanding probable cause to seize a suspect, an officer may not always do so by killing him** ,” which is good to know. And, even if the Constitution didn’t, “The fact is that a majority of police departments in this country have forbidden the use of deadly force against nonviolent suspects,” the Court said. More bluntly, > [@](#): > > The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable. It is not better that all felony suspects die than that they escape. Where the suspect poses no immediate threat to the officer and no threat to others, the harm resulting from failing to apprehend him does not justify the use of deadly force to do so. It is no doubt unfortunate when a suspect who is in sight escapes, but the fact that the police arrive a little late or are a little slower afoot does not always justify killing the suspect. A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead. The Tennessee statute is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes the use of deadly force against such fleeing suspects. But the Court made clear that the inquiry was fact-dependent: > [@](#): > > [the statute] is not, however, unconstitutional on its face. Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force. Thus,\*\* if the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape, and if, where feasible, some warning has been given.\*\* As applied in such circumstances, the Tennessee statute would pass constitutional muster. So the Court contemplated some circumstances in which a warning might not be constitutionally required. The Court went on to review the current state-imposed standards: > [@](#): > > The rules in the States are varied. See generally Comment, 18 Ga. L. Rev. 137, 140-144 (1983). Some 19 States have codified the common-law rule [which allowed the use of whatever force was necessary to effect the arrest of a fleeing felon, though not a misdemeanant], though in two of these the courts have significantly limited the statute. Four States, though without a relevant statute, apparently retain the common-law rule. Two States have adopted the Model Penal Code’s provision verbatim. Eighteen others allow, in slightly varying language, the use of deadly force only if the suspect has committed a felony involving the use or threat of physical or deadly force, or is escaping with a deadly weapon, or is likely to endanger life or inflict serious physical injury if not arrested. Louisiana and Vermont, though without statutes or case law on point, do forbid the use of deadly force to prevent any but violent felonies. The remaining States either have no relevant statute or case law, or have positions that are unclear. The Court noted that departmental regulations were more restrictive: > [@](#): > > Overwhelmingly, these are more restrictive than the common-law rule. C. Milton, J. Halleck, J. Lardner, & G. Abrecht, Police Use of Deadly Force 45-46 (1977). The Federal Bureau of Investigation and the New York City Police Department, for example, both forbid the use of firearms except when necessary to prevent death or grievous bodily harm. Id., at 40-41; App. 83. For accreditation by the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies, a department must restrict the use of deadly force to situations where “the officer reasonably believes that the action is in defense of human life . . . or in defense of any person in immediate danger of serious physical injury.” Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies, Inc., Standards for Law Enforcement Agencies 1-2 (1983) (italics deleted). A 1974 study reported that the police department regulations in a majority of the large cities of the United States allowed the firing of a weapon only when a felon presented a threat of death or serious bodily harm. Boston Police Department, Planning & Research Division, The Use of Deadly Force by Boston Police Personnel (1974), cited in Mattis v. Schnarr, 547 F.2d 1007, 1016, n. 19 (CA8 1976), vacated as moot sub nom. Ashcroft v. Mattis, 431 U.S. 171 (1977). Overall, only 7.5% of departmental and municipal policies explicitly permit the use of deadly force against any felon; 86.8% explicitly do not. K. Matulia, A Balance of Forces: A Report of the International Association of Chiefs of Police 161 (1982) (table). See also Record 1108-1368 (written policies of 44 departments). See generally W. Geller & K. Karales, Split-Second Decisions 33-42 (1981); Brief for Police Foundation et al. as Amici Curiae. In light of the rules adopted by those who must actually administer them, the older and fading common-law view is a dubious indicium of the constitutionality of the Tennessee statute now before us. So as of 1985: 1. The Constitutional requirement was as stated in Garner. 2. Similarly, state standards were as described in Garner, as of 1985, and departmental standards were also as described there. Garner and most of the state standards deal with civil liability and disciplinary consequences of excessive use of force. Criminal liability for use of deadly force is a bit more complicated. And an acquittal doesn’t establish that the use of force was justified. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2008, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/criteria-for-us-police-shooting-at-a-suspect/447683/39 "2008-05-02T17:02:41Z")
So it’s my understanding that in prisons across the country, you still have gunmen up in guard towers. If the general rule is, you can’t shoot a fleeing felon unless that person is a murderer, does this mean that the prison guards couldn’t shoot a convict climbing over a fence unless they knew said convict was a convicted murderer? Or are there different rules/regulations when talking about the police trying to apprehend someone and a correctional officer trying to stop an escape? ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2008, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/criteria-for-us-police-shooting-at-a-suspect/447683/40 "2008-05-02T17:09:24Z")
**Martin Hyde** : check this out: > **[Department of Justice | Homepage | United States Department of Justice](https://www.justice.gov/)** > > Official website of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). DOJ’s mission is to enforce the law and defend the interests of the United States according to the law; to ensure public safety against threats foreign and domestic; to provide federal... > **[Department of Justice | Homepage | United States Department of Justice](https://www.justice.gov/)** > > Official website of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). DOJ’s mission is to enforce the law and defend the interests of the United States according to the law; to ensure public safety against threats foreign and domestic; to provide federal... \*and see, e.g., \* > [@](#): > > (4) The use of force to prevent the escape of an arrested person from custody is justifiable when the force could justifiably have been employed to effect the arrest under which the person is in custody, except that a guard or other person authorized to act as a law enforcement officer is justified in using force which he believes to be immediately necessary to prevent the escape from a detention facility. [http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol14\_Ch0701-0853/HRS0703/HRS\_0703-0307.htm](http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol14_Ch0701-0853/HRS0703/HRS_0703-0307.htm) and > [@](#): > > c. Use of force to prevent escape from custody. The use of force to prevent the escape of an arrested person from custody is justifiable when the force could, under subsections a. and b. of this section, have been employed to effect the arrest under which the person is in custody. A correction officer or other person authorized to act as a peace officer is, however, justified in using any force including deadly force, which he reasonably believes to be immediately necessary to prevent the escape of a person committed to a jail, prison, or other institution for the detention of persons charged with or convicted of an offense so long as the actor believes that the force employed creates no substantial risk of injury to innocent persons. [http://law.onecle.com/new-jersey/2c-the-new-jersey-code-of-criminal-justice/2C-3-7.html](http://law.onecle.com/new-jersey/2c-the-new-jersey-code-of-criminal-justice/2C-3-7.html) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/criteria-for-us-police-shooting-at-a-suspect/447683.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/criteria-for-us-police-shooting-at-a-suspect/447683.md?page=3)