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

[Derec]

The St. Louis teen whose death by police sparked violent protests Wednesday night was supposed to start college soon and was a victim of being in the wrong place at the wrong time, his family and friends said.

I was just wondering if he was also an aspiring rapper, when I read this:

Ball-Bey's social media accounts show he was an aspiring music producer and rapper who held guns in pictures and music videos with friends. One picture was captioned, "Gang Gang" with the name Trakcistan Mafia, which Ball-Bey had previously referred to as his rap group.

Deja-vu all over again.

 

[Rhea]

Why do you folks always want that first shot before you get what's coming??

What if you kill one of those fine officers with that first shot??

I have always assumed that a good cop would think, "I would rather take a bullet than kill an innocent bystander. That's why I became a cop, to protect the people who should NOT be getting shot."

It sounds like you are say either,

"I would rather kill an innocent person than take a bullet toward my bullet-proof vest. That would make me sleep better at night."
or, perhaps,
"We know they are all guilty of something worth killing them over, so it is no skin off my back to shoot whoever and sleep well at night knowing they probably 'had it coming'."

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

Why do you folks always want that first shot before you get what's coming??

What if you kill one of those fine officers with that first shot??

I have always assumed that a good cop would think, "I would rather take a bullet than kill an innocent bystander. That's why I became a cop, to protect the people who should NOT be getting shot."

It sounds like you are say either,

"I would rather kill an innocent person than take a bullet toward my bullet-proof vest. That would make me sleep better at night."
or, perhaps,
"We know they are all guilty of something worth killing them over, so it is no skin off my back to shoot whoever and sleep well at night knowing they probably 'had it coming'."

Dude you are rambling, your English is a bit sketchy there ......................

You know what happens when you assume, correct??

You have a death wish most cops don't.

Cops are sent out to intervene with criminals who menace society.

When dispatch tells the responding officer there is a gun present / shots fired or any other indicative phrase that indicates the perpetrator will be armed only an untrained and irresponsible officer would not attempt to intervene before the suspect could fire said weapon injuring either officer or civilians.

To know that one has a potential for violence and the means to commit it but not treat it accordingly is negligent, no matter how you want to sugar coat it.

No one said go in unannounced with guns blazing, but once the perp knows you are there, fire arms are / have been involved, then according to use of deadly force standards you are duty bound to try and neutralize the assailent.

You can wait to let them fire first, but in most cases if a partner is involved you will be explaining to IA why you jeopardized either your partners life, your life or both.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Cops are sent out to intervene with criminals who menace society.

When dispatch tells the responding officer there is a gun present / shots fired or any other indicative phrase that indicates the perpetrator will be armed only an untrained and irresponsible officer would not attempt to intervene before the suspect could fire said weapon injuring either officer or civilians.

No one said go in unannounced with guns blazing, but once the perp knows you are there, fire arms are / have been involved, then according to use of deadly force standards you are duty bound to try and neutralize the assailant.

Hmmm. I'll have to tell this to my law enforcement officer friends. They normally asses the situation, arrange for back up and methodically deescalate the situation. But they must not be TRUE law enforcement officers because, although they have dealt with armed individuals, they have not needed to shoot anyone. Let alone shoot someone is the back who was fleeing.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Hmmm. I'll have to tell this to my law enforcement officer friends. They normally asses the situation, arrange for back up and methodically deescalate the situation.

Pfft. What are they - Canadians or something?

"Ooh, look at me. I use my brain and act in a professional manner" WTF kind of cop is that?

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

I don't believe I advocated "shooting some one fleeing in the back" ...................

Why are you being such a drama queen??

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There's a whole lot of argument here about a total red herring.

He wasn't shot for fleeing. He was shot for pointing a gun at the cops. It doesn't matter what direction he was moving when he did that.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

I don't believe I advocated "shooting some one fleeing in the back" ...................

Why are you being such a drama queen??

Testy aren't we? But there are others here that have defended such actions.

 

[Derec]

Testy aren't we? But there are others here that have defended such actions.

Who has? For example, the Walter Scott shooting has been universally condemned on here.

 

[Rhea]

I have always assumed that a good cop would think, "I would rather take a bullet than kill an innocent bystander. That's why I became a cop, to protect the people who should NOT be getting shot."

It sounds like you are say either,

"I would rather kill an innocent person than take a bullet toward my bullet-proof vest. That would make me sleep better at night."
or, perhaps,
"We know they are all guilty of something worth killing them over, so it is no skin off my back to shoot whoever and sleep well at night knowing they probably 'had it coming'."

Dude you are rambling, your English is a bit sketchy there ......................

LOL. okay.

You know what happens when you assume, correct??

yeah, some cute and not terribly relevant quip.
Actually, I don't have to assume, it was a figure of speech.
I work directly with the police department here so, yeah. I have a good cop and this is the attitude of my cop. We are in complete agreement. It's a healthy attitude. He uses his brain - he has a good one.

You have a death wish most cops don't.

No, this is not accurate. You have assumed it.

Cops are sent out to intervene with criminals who menace society.

They do a whole lot more than that. But yes, one of the things they do is intervene with criminals. The good ones still do everything they can to avoid harming people who do not have a desperate need to be killed. IN fact, they manage to capture armed criminals very often without killing them. Sometimes after they have run from a scene.

When dispatch tells the responding officer there is a gun present / shots fired or any other indicative phrase that indicates the perpetrator will be armed only an untrained and irresponsible officer would not attempt to intervene before the suspect could fire said weapon injuring either officer or civilians.

I disagree. Most that I know would try to de-escalate the situation be fore shooting.

To know that one has a potential for violence and the means to commit it but not treat it accordingly is negligent, no matter how you want to sugar coat it.

treating it accordingly and shooting them are not the same things.

No one said go in unannounced with guns blazing, but once the perp knows you are there, fire arms are / have been involved, then according to use of deadly force standards you are duty bound to try and neutralize the assailent.

no I don't think it is that black and white. You are not duty-bound to shoot everyone you see who has a gun.

You can wait to let them fire first, but in most cases if a partner is involved you will be explaining to IA why you jeopardized either your partners life, your life or both.

Not in my town. We care a lot about the people.

 

[ronburgundy]

Unless its in a legal hunting or gun-range context, someone with a unsecured gun in a public place who is fleeing the cops is, with near certainty, in the act of a violent armed crime, and thus a lethal threat to the public.

Imagine a white guy with a handgun walking toward a black church. He flees from the cops and they refused to shoot, thus letting him get away. A week later, he returns and kills 9 black people in the church. The national protest from all those currently attacking cops for shooting fleeing suspects would be that the cops should have shot him but didn't because they don't think #black lives matter.

That said, greater use of rubber bullets seems like a ideal solution to stopping such clear threats when the perp is not actively attacking the officers or another person.

You mean like how the police shot and killed all those white Oath Keepers out at Cliven Bundy's ranch for aiming their loaded weapons at federal agents?

Or maybe the Oath Keepers didn't get shot because they didn't run, they stood their ground aiming at the federal agents and that's why the police didn't shoot them?

And many people complained that those guys should have been forcibly taken out and only were not because they where white (which is what you are insinuating).

If their clear intent was to use their guns to commit a violent crime, and shooting them was the best way to ensure they would be stopped from doing so, then yes they should have been shot. It isn't clear that people on private property threatening to use guns if they are forcibly attacked on that property, qualifies.

Do you think Dylan Roof should have been shot by the cops if they had seen him walking down the street with his handgun and he fled toward the church when they confronted him?

IF yes, then you agree that shooting fleeing suspects, even prior to them committing a crime is sometimes acceptable.

 

[ksen]

You mean like how the police shot and killed all those white Oath Keepers out at Cliven Bundy's ranch for aiming their loaded weapons at federal agents?

Or maybe the Oath Keepers didn't get shot because they didn't run, they stood their ground aiming at the federal agents and that's why the police didn't shoot them?

And many people complained that those guys should have been forcibly taken out and only were not because they where white (which is what you are insinuating).

I don't remember anyone saying they "should have" been taken out but that if they were not white they probably "would have" been taken out.

If their clear intent was to use their guns to commit a violent crime, and shooting them was the best way to ensure they would be stopped from doing so, then yes they should have been shot. It isn't clear that people on private property threatening to use guns if they are forcibly attacked on that property, qualifies.

Threatening federal agents with a loaded weapon is a crime. It's assault.

It doesn't matter if the federal agents were about to forcibly attack the people on that property.

Do you think Dylan Roof should have been shot by the cops if they had seen him walking down the street with his handgun and he fled toward the church when they confronted him?

IF yes, then you agree that shooting fleeing suspects, even prior to them committing a crime is sometimes acceptable.

I've never said shooting fleeing suspects is always wrong.

What I have said is that I think police kill way too many civilians that could have otherwise been apprehended for their day in court.

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

So post # 42 you claim that is why YOU became a cop ..................

Now post #50 you state you work with the police department, You HAVE a GOOD COP, is he a pet?? What do you feed him?? How do you train him??

So now which is it, you ARE A COP or YOU WORK WITH COPS??

 

[Derec]

What I have said is that I think police kill way too many civilians that could have otherwise been apprehended for their day in court.

The guy from the OP was apprehended and will have his day in court.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

What I have said is that I think police kill way too many civilians that could have otherwise been apprehended for their day in court.

The guy from the OP was apprehended and will have his day in court.

He was shot 7 times. Just for reference sakes.

 

[Malintent]

If officers have difficulty in estimating people's ages, this should be addressed in their training.

What is the relevance of the age of a suspect that was reported as 'armed and dangerous'? How fast does a bullet move out of a gun held by a 14 yo versus a 40 yo? I am fascinated to know.

 

[Sarpedon]

It's quite simple.

Grown men are expected to take additional risks to save the lives of children. This is an accepted cultural norm. I find it sad indeed that this must be explained in this age.

While yes, occasionally children become dangerous criminals or combatants, and yes, occasionally they must be killed, the idea that adults can wantonly shoot them without even attempting some other course of action is simply unmanly, and speaks volumes of american culture, which has turned cowardice into a superpower. The USA is a nation that any act of violence can be excused by saying 'I was in fear of my life.' Thus a coward has the right to kill, where the brave person does not. It is a norm that encourages cowardice, violence, distrust, racism, and dehumanization, all for the benefit of state power and gun lobby profits. So much for the land of the free and home of the brave.

And the worst part is that so many people don't even stop to think about it.

Also, another thing I shouldn't have to remind you of, but apparently do: suspect being reported as 'armed and dangerous' by a call in. Call ins are often not accurate, and the officer on the scene absolutely should be able to see the situation and make critical judgements rapidly and with an open mind, rather than acting according to preconceptions that may very well be false. As an example, recall that lad in Cincinatti, Tamir Rice, who was shot and killed as he played in a park with a toy gun, by an officer who had been told that there was a person 'with a gun' in the park. Because he had been primed with false information, and was a poor officer with many prejudices, tragedy ensued. A more observant and open minded officer might have seen and acted differently. This is why officers need to be trained to stop and LOOK, and SEE what is really there. Observation is a skill that can be trained. And yes, with training it can be done very quickly. That is what I am saying.

If we had well trained officers who stopped to think before grabbing their guns, we'd have fewer incidents, and more trust in the officers in the rare conditions where they did need to use force. Instead, we have ill trained yahoos going around pulling their guns first because THAT is what they are trained to do, instead of looking and thinking and actually defending the public. And we have people like you to thank for it.

 

[ksen]

And don't forget guys, America values life.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It's quite simple.

Grown men are expected to take additional risks to save the lives of children. This is an accepted cultural norm. I find it sad indeed that this must be explained in this age.

But that doesn't mean anyone is expected to take fire from a child without responding.

While yes, occasionally children become dangerous criminals or combatants, and yes, occasionally they must be killed, the idea that adults can wantonly shoot them without even attempting some other course of action is simply unmanly, and speaks volumes of american culture, which has turned cowardice into a superpower. The USA is a nation that any act of violence can be excused by saying 'I was in fear of my life.' Thus a coward has the right to kill, where the brave person does not. It is a norm that encourages cowardice, violence, distrust, racism, and dehumanization, all for the benefit of state power and gun lobby profits. So much for the land of the free and home of the brave.

Gangbangers know what they are doing. I have no problem with the cops treating them like adults on the street.

If we had well trained officers who stopped to think before grabbing their guns, we'd have fewer incidents, and more trust in the officers in the rare conditions where they did need to use force. Instead, we have ill trained yahoos going around pulling their guns first because THAT is what they are trained to do, instead of looking and thinking and actually defending the public. And we have people like you to thank for it.

We would have a bunch of dead officers.

 

[fast]

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. 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??

That's a good point.

No, that's not a good point. It's not always true either, but even if it were always true, it still wouldn't be a good point. That something is true doesn't make it a good point.