The argument that once a suspect flees, deadly force shouldn't be used has come up in several threads, including instances where the suspect is armed. Also, they don't need to be armed. An unarmed rapist fleeing his crime can (legally) and should (ethically) be stopped by deadly force is needed.
The law says that unless the suspect is known to be an imminent danger to the officer or people, deadly force can be used. However, if a fleeing suspect is not an imminent danger to anyone, deadly force is against the law.
The law says nothing about the threat being "imminent", only that their is probable cause to think the suspect poses a violent threat. IF the crime they are being pursued for is a violent crime, then that provides strong basis to think the person is a violent threat to others, especially in light of the strong scientific evidence showing that violent crimes are rarely isolated incidents. Up until 1985, widespread common law was that both cops could use deadly force to stop a suspected of any felony. In 1985, the court restricted this because many felonies were non-violent, such as burglary of an empty house which was the crime in the actual case they reviewed. However, deadly force is still quite legal against an armed suspect, or an unarmed suspect of a violent crime, or even an unarmed person the cops have reasonable cause intends to harm someone.
Basically, only a clearly unarmed suspect fleeing being pursued for a non-violent crime are the only suspects for whom shooting them is against the law.
Many violent crimes (regardless of whether the person has a weapon at the time) warrants use up to deadly force to apprehend the person to protect likely future victims from a violent threat.
Wait, is this a review of The Minority Report?
Any moment beyond this very second is the future. The threat need not be imminent. The cops can and should shoot them to prevent escape if they are either armed or suspected of a violent crime. Basically, an armed or a violent crime suspect that is "fleeing" is nearly always fleeing toward other people, and the fact that they are armed or suspected of already have committed violence gives all the cause needed for cops to shoot them if needed to prevent their escape.
The fact that you blindly ignore this reality and argue that all fleeing suspects should be allowed to go...
You can feel free to cite where I made that statement.
You just did make a claim that logically presumes this.
Can you even quote me where I said it?
You claimed that a fleeing suspect is evidence that force against them is "gross force" and dismissed counter claims that merely the act of fleeing from the cops at that moment does not reduce the threat the person poses to others, including the cops at a future moment.
The Police Department never for a moment indicated the Officer believed the man was a threat to any bystanders. And in fact, the Officer, according to the video, planted the tazer on the suspect to set up his own narrative of what happened.
This argument presumes that unless they can be stopped from fleeing without the use of force, then they must be allowed to go.
You do realize the difference between Deadly Force and Force and getting back up to find a guy who is on foot and without his car which is currently in the possession of the Police? You do understand the canyon that exists between killing and subduing?
We are talking about a suspect already in flight which means unless the cop can catch up to the suspect no other form of force is going to stop them. If the cops cannot catch up to the suspect should they let him go, even if he fleeing from the rape and murder of a woman that the cops just saw him get off of? According to you, yes, they must let him get away because he doesn't pose an "imminent" threat. According to the actual law and to reasonable ethics, no, they can and should shoot him.
This incident was news because it was tourists who did the subduing, not because they didn't use guns. Note that the criminals did not have guns either which is often not the case.
We've been told by some that subduing a person that is mentally ill is nearly impossible. So hard in fact that even if naked and clearly unarmed, subduing without gun violence ins simply not possible.
You've been told no such thing.
Do I need to cite each and every one of these threads?
Yes you do, but be sure not to follow the typical strategy of gross misrepresentation and omission of critical context and facts. You must show that someone claimed that no naked unarmed person can
ever possibly be subdued without shooting them.
Odd, because I was just going to cite the actual case where a naked man was shot and killed, and the officer wasn't assaulted and the defense people made of that shooting.
The officer wasn't assaulted because he shot the deranged individual that was aggressively charging toward him before the man got close enough to assault him.
The man posed a very real threat and was shot. You didn't actually quote anyone saying that it is inherently impossible to subdue naked people without a gun, just that it is highly plausible that the officer would be seriously hurt (including shot with his own gun) had he attempted to wrestle the charging mentally deranged individual. IOW, everything about that case supports my argument and refutes yours.
You have claimed that all naked persons can always be subdued without any threat to the cop.
Please cite this claim.
Again, you fail to grasp the inherent logical presumptions of your own arguments.
No. There is large doubt when an officer shoots someone that was completely unarmed and makes no attempt to evade someone that is clearly not in their right mind. So instead of moving, calling for help, they just shoot. There are again, options available to the Police, especially when not cornered and having no other option than to use deadly force.
Ah, so you think that a cop called to protect people in the area from a deranged person should run away and wait for enough cops to show up that they can ensure that he won't have a chance to harm them.
You dismissed as invalid the claim that a naked and unarmed person could still pose a serious threat...
That was never said, nor does what I have said indicate that such a situation can not happen. You are inaccurately extrapolating.
No, I am very accurately identifying the unstated but logically neccessary premises of your argument that a shot suspect being naked automatically implicates wrong doing by the cops, even when you don't know 90% of the relevant facts and the fact that are known (witnesses saying he charged the cop) support a real imminent threat. There is zero logical connection between him being naked and a wrongful shooting, unless you also presume that a naked person can never pose a threat.
That is the ridiculous premise on which your argument is based, because only then is a violent, attacking, mentally ill naked person the total non-threat your argument requires. The fact that some naked people can be subdued without a gun does not mean that no naked person ever poses a threat to warrant shooting them, especially when there is a strong chance the person is on PCP. Your argument presumes that no charging person is ever capable of physically overpowering anyone that should be a cop. That is ridiculous. Engaging a person in hand to hand combat greatly increases the threat to the officer, and therefore the threat to all nearby citizens that the person might go after if he gets away. The fact that cops very almost always do increase the threat to themselves by not shooting suspects, does not mean they are morally or legally required to do so in all circumstances. IOW, there is nothing odd about the stats I posted in relation to incidents when cops do use deadly force.
I agree with your claim here that naked people can be subdued by Police officers.
Wrong. As nearly always, you distorted what I said and left out critical information.
I did. I thought it was obvious that I did. I was trying to make a point about taking a small thing noted in a large paragraph and taking it out of context. You know, like you did.
No, you did what you have done throughout this and most threads, which is misrepresent what people say because you have no rational argument against what they do actually say. Their is a critical difference between identifying logical presumptions that connect a person's actually stated premises and conclusions (what I do) versus knowingly omitting key words to fundamentally alter the logical meaning of what they say (what you do).
