• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

When is it okay for Police to shoot fleeing "suspects"?

 
 
 
Rhea

Rhea

Cyborg with a Tiara
Staff member
Joined
Jan 31, 2001
Messages
15,413
Location
Recluse
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
Reading the story about the 14yo boy shot 7 times in New Jersey (he lived, thankfully) it looks like the police are trying to say that he ran away from them, pulled a gun while running and shot towards them. The investigation says he had no gun on him. Witness says he was trying to pull up his pants. Reports says "a gun was found" but was not connected (yet?) to the boy.

All of that is just background to explain why I'm pondering this question:

If a person is running from the police, WHAT would have to be present or true to make shooting toward that feeling person reasonable?

One example I can think of, the escaped murderers in New York. They were known murderers - FACT - so they presented a known and imminent danger to the community. They had nothing to gain in being caught and everything to lose; there was no leniency or mitigating circumstance to present, they knew this and the cops knew they knew this - FACT - so this made them dangerous to the Police as well as even more dangerous to the community. Because of these lack of options, it was known that they would be seeking weapons and means to defend themselves from capture. When those men ran, it seems wise and justified to shoot at them to stop them, and if they died from it, the decision could be justified due to the real and immediate danger of their escape to members of the Police and the community.

But someone "nearby" an "alleged shooting"? (Radazz Hearns)
Or, someone late on child support?
Or, someone selling drugs?
Or, someone holding a gun but unknown purpose? (Tamir Rice)

It seems that in most cases, if the suspect is fleeing, it is NOT better to shoot at them because of the risk of causing a death that is not justified by the risk to the public.

What are your thoughts? When do you think it is reasonable to shoot at a fleeing "suspect"?
 
Tennessee v. Garner
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)[1], was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that, under the Fourth Amendment, when a law enforcement officer is pursuing a fleeing suspect, he or she may not use deadly force to prevent escape unless "the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_v._Garner

You do realize officers pursuing fleeing suspects some time have to make split second decisions, most times not under the best of condidtions.

It is easy to make a moral judgement after all the facts / evidence has come to light.

While you use an age to illicit an emotional response for a 14 yr old child, what did that child look like??

Was he rather large for his size such as he could have been mistaken for an adult??

My thoughts would be if suspects did not flee, they would not get shot.

Why is it so hard to comply??
 
If you think that people have no reason to fear the police, you haven't been paying attention.
 
DrDoomNGloom said:
My thoughts would be if suspects did not flee, they would not get shot.

Why is it so hard to comply??
Click to expand...

Did the suspect hear the police?
Did the police identify themselves?
Do the police have a history of roughing up innocent bystanders?
Does the person have headphones on?
Is the person deaf?
Is the person running because of something else?
Does the person fear for their lives?

Looks like there are a lot of reasons to run.
 
In these situations, the police are the ones with the training and experience, so there is a much greater onus on them to act in a not-stupid way. It may be dumb as shit to run away from a guy pointing a gun at your head, but being that stupid isn't a capital offense and police shouldn't have the option of killing someone for being a moron without getting charged with murder.

If they know who the person is, they can arrest him later. If they don't know, a criminal getting away is a lesser evil than someone getting killed for a non-capial crime. Their default reaction should be to not shoot the guy.
 
DrDoomNGloom said:
While you use an age to illicit an emotional response for a 14 yr old child, what did that child look like??
Was he rather large for his size such as he could have been mistaken for an adult??
Click to expand...

I would say he looks older than 14.
375.jpg
Trenton teen shot by police charged with gun possession, assaulting officers
If the .22 is his, then the shooting was 100% justified. Even if the gun wasn't his, the combination of reports of shots being fired, a suspect fleeing and that suspect reaching for his waistband could have caused an officer to think that there was a threat.
My thoughts would be if suspects did not flee, they would not get shot.
Why is it so hard to comply??
Click to expand...
That's a good point.
 
Derec said:
I would say he looks older than 14.
View attachment 3781
Trenton teen shot by police charged with gun possession, assaulting officers
If the .22 is his, then the shooting was 100% justified.
Click to expand...

Kid looks like a young teen to me. So, yup, 14yo seems right on.
I happen to have a 15yo son, and also volunteer frequently in middle school, so it's pretty easy to see that what we have here is indeed a typical 14yo.

So owning a gun is reason to get shot by police?
These are the answers I was curious to hear. And I disagree entirely.
The person was FLEEING. And Police did not have a reason THEN (at the moment of decision) to think he posed a significant threat. Because he was FLEEING.
You seem to support the notion that police should shoot first and come up with excuses later.

This thread is about how they make a decision THEN.
Do we want our police to shoot without a good reason and hope evidence shows up later?
 
I love the taste of bootshine in the morning.

Tastes like . . . security.
 
Rhea said:
Kid looks like a young teen to me. So, yup, 14yo seems right on.
Click to expand...
Looks more like an older teen to me. 17-18, something like that.
So owning a gun is reason to get shot by police?
Click to expand...
Police say he was pointing it at them, which is why he was charged with assault. An armed suspect fleeing also gives police probable cause under Tennessee v. Garner.
Finally, a 14 year old is not supposed to own a gun in the first place, which explains the gun possession charge.

The person was FLEEING. And Police did not have a reason THEN (at the moment of decision) to think he posed a significant threat. Because he was FLEEING.
Click to expand...
With a gun, according to them.

You seem to support the notion that police should shoot first and come up with excuses later.
Click to expand...
The decision whether to shoot or not in situations like this has to be made quickly and can't rely on deliberations. That doesn't mean they should decide to shoot each and every time though.

This thread is about how they make a decision THEN.
Do we want our police to shoot without a good reason and hope evidence shows up later?
Click to expand...
There should be a good reason. Fleeing gives prima facie evidence that the person is likely up to no good. Given that the initial call was for gunshots and the suspect at the very least reached for his waistband (sagging kills!) it could give police probable cause to shoot even without a gun. As you say, it's about how they make a decision THEN, not if they were correct in hindsight. And this decision has to be made quickly and in the heat of the moment.
However, the fact that he was charged makes me think police have evidence that he indeed had a gun.

- - - Updated - - -

Bronzeage said:
How old does this kid appear to be?
Click to expand...
About 16-17 I would say. Is this Teenage Bronzeage perhaps? :)
 
The police say lots of things that turn out to not be true.

Why should we give them the benefit of the doubt?
 
'When is it okay for Police to shoot fleeing "suspects"?' -- Sunday thru Saturday, between 12:00AM and 11:59PM
 
If officers have difficulty in estimating people's ages, this should be addressed in their training.
 
funinspace said:
'When is it okay for Police to shoot fleeing "suspects"?' -- Sunday thru Saturday, between 12:00AM and 11:59PM
Click to expand...
So if you want to flee safely, you have to do it in that one minute window? ;)

On a related note, when is it ok to tase fleeing suspects?
Man Tased by police falls, dies

He was fleeing a traffic stop where he was the passenger, tried to climb a wall, was tased and fell in such a way as to be killed. Bad luck for him I guess.
 
Derec said:
funinspace said:
'When is it okay for Police to shoot fleeing "suspects"?' -- Sunday thru Saturday, between 12:00AM and 11:59PM
Click to expand...
So if you want to flee safely, you have to do it in that one minute window? ;)

On a related note, when is it ok to tase fleeing suspects?
Man Tased by police falls, dies

He was fleeing a traffic stop where he was the passenger, tried to climb a wall, was tased and fell in such a way as to be killed. Bad luck for him I guess.
Click to expand...
Yeah "luck".
link said:
Other residents said they attempted to help the man and perform CPR but were prevented from doing so by police.
Click to expand...
 
I got stopped by the police as a fleeing suspect. According to the police I spotted them, and fled the scene, tucking something into my waistband. According to me, I was late for a train, and didn't see them at all. The only thing I tucked into my waistband was my shirt. Fortunately, I'm white, and don't live in a country where bullets are used as a substitute for policework.

If you want to live in a country where the police are allowed to kill you if you act in a way they find suspicious, then you're welcome to. Just don't pretend you're living in a free country.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom