This may be a stupid question but I’ve never really considered it before. Are police normally allowed to shoot people who are running away on foot? I thought deadly force was only allowed if there was some imminent threat to another person or themselves.
Merry Christmas.
I think you are correct astro, except there isn’t really enough detail in the story to tell whether the victim presented a threat to the officer during the chase.
I worked for a couple of years as a police officer, and would have to say that unless this 12 year old was a threat to himself or someone else, the shooting wouldn’t be justified.
There’s really insufficient factual information to determine if it’s a good shoot or not. If the suspect had just committed a violent crime prior to the car chase, then perhaps it was justified, but it’s just not possible to tell. I think this is a case of NEI (Not Enough Information).
Not to sound smartassed, but how does that work- he’s a threat to himself, so shoot him?
Based on the information provided, no, he should not have been shot. If he had a gun or knife in his hand, then yes. But the information does not indicate that he had such a weapon.
I’m not positive, but I’m pretty sure that police officers can’t shoot anyone running away.
It’s not really a smartassed question Troy. Sometimes you can be justified in shooting someone if it will ultimately prevent them from taking their own life. It is a very difficult judgement call though. Luckily, I never had to face that situation.
Monica, a police officer can justify shooting someone running away if, in their judgement, their escape is likely to result in greater harm to the public than had they not done so.
I think we need to research better non-lethal long-range weapons and let cops shoot whoever they like.
Used to have a link to a site by a California company that had developed a Star Trek like Stun weapon which was currently suitcase sized, IIRC. Sadly, I’ve lost the link to it, or I’d post it.
Oh, and Troy there was a stand up comic, who as part of his routine would show members of the audience a newspaper article which talked about police killing a man who was trying to commit suicide. It ended up being a “kill him or let him kill them” situation.
The article is vague enough that it’s possible the kid might have been threatening the officers somehow. That is, It didn’t say he wasn’t running away while pointing a gun back at them.
It is usually up to a “police review board” as to whether or not charges would be filed against the officer.
If there was a large enough public outcry, and enough publicity, a prosecutor may get involved and persue the case, but that is very, very, very rare. Most police shootings are reviewed by other police from the same department, and if the other police do not want to charge the fellow officer, then it is ok for him to shoot the kid.
The officer is usually put on paid leave while the police review board considers the matter, sometimes takes years to decide, and then the officer is either charged(very rare), put back on duty, given a demerit, or given a medal.
Last year, in Ohio, a police officer making a night time raid on a house, shot and killed an unarmed 12 year old boy in the back with a 12 guage shotgun. The police officer said his weapon “discharged by itself”. The police officer said he did not pull the trigger. The police review board found no fault with the officer and put him back on duty.
Many police kill more than once with these types of situations, and are continually put back on duty. It all depends on how the other police, his co-workers, feel about what happened.
The federal lawmen snipers that shot and killed the 12 year old boy in the back, and shot and killed the unarmed mother holding a baby at Ruby Ridge inside her house, got medals, promotions, and commendations from president clinton and janet reno.
Be advised, that if a civilian( a non-police officer) did the same thing, he likely will not get the same kind of “understanding” than if a cop shot someone.
A cop that shoots someone is presumed innocent and justified in his shooting of others, it must be “proved” that a cop was not justified.
On the other hand, a civilian, must prove it was justified if he shoots someone.
Susanann, you imply that a police officer is not held to as high a standard as a civilian would be held.
Care to explain a little further, or provide a bit more evidence for this statement?
From the story in the Pittsburgh Post Gazette, “shots were fired during the chase.” They’re not saying whether or not that means that the boy fired upon police, but one can hope that the officers involved didn’t simply open fire because the boy was fleeing.
This will be an interesting story to watch.
12 years old…driving a stolen car…and leading cops on a chase…
The important question is…Where’s his mommy and daddy?!
Hey man,dont bother,** ehhmon**
:smack: :smack: :smack: I meant to say dont bother Mr.Skinny
I just got up…
Update. http://www.thewgalchannel.com/news/1856951/detail.html
The boy was shot in the back. No word on whether he was armed. Troopers on administrative leave.
This still implies nothing about fault. More details needed.
This thread http://www.boston.com/dailynews/360/nation/Autopsy_shows_12_year_old_boy_:.shtml says a little bet more, but not much.
It does say something about the boy’s parent(s).
And, of course, he won’t be a problem child in the future. :rolleyes: