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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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 to refresh your memory on standards for this forum.
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,
But the Court made clear that the inquiry was fact-dependent:
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 Court noted that departmental regulations were more restrictive:
So as of 1985:
The Constitutional requirement was as stated in Garner.
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.
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?
