1-16.000 - Department of Justice Policy On Use Of Force
1-16.200 - USE OF DEADLY FORCE AND PROHIBITED RESTRAINT TECHNIQUES
A. Deadly Force
Law enforcement and correctional officers of the Department of Justice may use deadly force only when necessary, that is, when the officer has a reasonable belief that the subject of such force poses an imminent danger of death or serious physical injury to the officer or to another person.
1. Deadly force may not be used solely to prevent the escape of a fleeing suspect.
2. Firearms may not be discharged solely to disable moving vehicles. Specifically, firearms may not be discharged at a moving vehicle unless: (1) a person in the vehicle is threatening the officer or another person with deadly force by means other than the vehicle; or (2) the vehicle is operated in a manner that threatens to cause death or serious physical injury to the officer or others, and no other objectively reasonable means of defense appear to exist, which includes moving out of the path of the vehicle. Firearms may not be discharged from a moving vehicle except in exigent circumstances. In these situations, an officer must have an articulable reason for this use of deadly force.
They are both the same fundamentally there are some differences in the details where a LEO can claim self defense but a regular person could not (e.g. no duty to retreat) but basically the same law applies to both. Both a LEO and a regular citizen have a right to protect themselves or someone else from imminent harm. If it’s not imminent or it’s not protecting someone from harm they are criminally liable for the violence they carry out.
Back when the U.S. was a representative democracy, this was – despite what the Slate article says – almost unheard of – because they would be tried in federal court.
Today, a state trial is inconceivable to me because SCOTUS would say the shooter’s action was close enough to reasonable to go to federal court, where Trump would pardon.
If Minnesota is going to launch a hopeless prosecution, maybe they should also look for accessories. Donald Trump has endorsed police brutality. If there’s evidence that the shooter paid attention to all that, could they indict Trump as accessory before the fact?
Hypothetically, let’s say the shooter was actually tried in state court. Could he try a Nuremberg defense (acting as ordered)? I expect this is legally worthless, but I think it would have great jury appeal.
Since September, ICE agents have shot into nine moving vehicles. Only two people have died – because it is hard to hit a moving target. But those other ICE agents aren’t likely to be morally better. The problem here is a lawless regime, not one man at the bottom of the organizational pyramid.
You have the right to use deadly force to protect yourselves from someone with a deadly weapon, including a car. And there may be an examples where you can claim shooting the driver is protecting yourself, but absolutely not in this example, he was not protecting himself or anyone else by shooting the driver.
And again it’s irrelevant because the last two shots were a blatant execution of the driver and were not in any shape or form self defense.
Agreed. I think this case is likely to turn on just this question: Can the officer validly claim to have had a reasonable belief there was an imminent serious threat?
My look at the videos doesn’t make me think the answer is crystal clear.
It’s the perception of a “reasonable person” not specifically the shooter, and just.maybe with a pro-cop jury a good lawyer might just be able to convince them that the first shot was fired while they we being threatened with imminent harm, but they still have to show the “protect” part, and there is no way that applies here.
You must have missed the bit of the video where the murderer, standing beside the car and not under any threat of imminent harm in the slightest, shoots the victim two times from the side of the car through the divers door. That’s about as clear as murder can be. It’s almost impossible to think of more clear evidence of murder.
Instead of just imagining what the legal rules are, we could look them up.
Since this is in Minnesota, here’s their standard jury instruction on self defense. We can pretend this is in fact tried in state court (and, let’s also pretend that he doesn’t have federal immunity)
(I think the need to retreat would be fatal to the defense here)
Turns out you don’t know much about the US legal system. They don’t usually no. But in this case yes they do, see my link above….
If state or local prosecutors in Minnesota were to charge a federal officer with a state crime, that case would play out differently from a typical state criminal prosecution.
Most significantly, it would likely take place in federal court rather than state court. A federal statute allows federal officers to move state criminal cases from state to federal court if they have a defense rooted in federal law.
.
.But the move to federal court doesn’t mean that federal players would take over the entire process. The state or local prosecutor would still prosecute the case in federal court. And the criminal charges would still be for state-law crimes. Importantly, this means that if an officer were convicted, the president could not pardon them. The president can pardon individuals only for federal crimes, not state crimes.
But a reasonable person would not believe that shooting the driver in the circumstances of the first shot would avert anything. Given the position of the shooter and the car it was clearly not going to avert any kind of harm to anyone.
And again its irrelevant because the second and third shots were a flat out execution by a murderer who was not in the slightest bit of danger. All the statutes are very clear on that, even if there was an imminent threat once it has passed there is no basis for self defense.
Forgive me. I didn’t realize you were talking about a defendant raising a defense against a state crime by saying that he’s a federal agent.
That’s different than raising self defense to a murder charge. It’s based on his status as an ICE agent.
(I’ll admit I was confused, too. I pictured you describing the state choosing federal Court. With what you’re describing, the defendant is deciding that federal court Is a better forum, which is unusual)
I am. Which is miles from Minnesota, and federal ICE cases
And that would be the argument in the jury room. I sympathize with your position (hearing him call her a “fucking bitch” tells me he was angry at her for not complying, and that’s why he drew his weapon and ultimately killed her)
I think, under Minnesota law, he had a duty to retreat. Instead, he pulled a weapon. That is - I think - fatal to his defense.
I can’t imagine there will be much debate. I can just see some debate about the first shot, a very pro cop jury might just be convinced by a good defense on that.
But the second and third shots are cut and dried. There was no imminent threat, no reason to use deadly force, it was murder caught on tape from several angles (and the murderer had motive and called the victim a fucking bitch after killing her). It’s an open and shut case
The prosecution may fail but if it gets to jury deliberations, it’s very likely guilty verdict IMO
