LEO- disarming question - Page 3

techbrute · June 24, 2005, 05:36 PM

Quote:

JJ&E, all in one?

No. Protecting the innocent third person he may run into after showing that he has little or no regard for human life by having just killed someone else and is fleeing into a public place, still armed, that contains lots of innocents and hostages for the taking, that hardly qualifies as JJ&E. If an armed suspect were running into a shopping mall or a day care, I may feel I need to shoot him. If his back is whats available, so be it.

I hope I wasn't expected to derive everything you wrote in the above paragraph from, "If there was a dead victim on the ground and I knew this guy did it, then yeah, I'd pop him in the back... easy shot." You certainly did a better job of explaining why you'd do that. I don't know, nor is it my direct concern, if that is legal is all areas, etc. CDV didn't clarify if he'd just shoot some guy that he "knew" (another discussion entirely) did it in the back. He didn't say that person would need to be armed, fleeing into a public place, a known felon, etc.

Quote:

Techbrute, I'm honestly curious, why does that seem strange or bothersome to you?

I'm not sure what you're referring to. My two prior posts in this thread commented that I found it interesting that a professional law enforcement officer would make an off-handed comment that he could write whatever he wanted on a police report, and a comment intended to spark some expansion of his comment about shooting an unknown in the back. I hope you aren't bothered by the fact that a citizen of the US might raise an eyebrow about a LEO commenting that he'd shoot a person in the back without expanding on it.

In regards to the original post, I'm not a LEO and have no desire to be. If in that position, I'm not sure I would have been as tolerant of a suspect fondling his sidearm while refusing to comply with a direct order.

Sgt127 · June 24, 2005, 10:46 PM

Techbrute, I'm honestly curious, why does that seem strange or bothersome to you?

I was refering to the shooting a guy standing over a dead body. That is what I envisioned when that scenario came forth. I did indeed further clarify the scenario as I saw it and to me, that would have been justified. Its a pretty common scenario for training and justification of deadly force. The justification ends if he surrenders or throws down the weapon, as far as I know, it might be a good citizen shooting bad citizen, so, there will be a moment of letting him do the right thing, if he chooses to do so, unfortunatly, not a whole lot of time because my self preservation instinct will be kicking in shortly.

techbrute · June 24, 2005, 11:07 PM

If you're shooting a guy with a smoking gun standing over a dead body saying, "take that!", that's probably justified, and I don't find that bothersome.

If you're shooting a guy just because he's standing over a dead body, no gun in sight, and you're just "sure" that he did it, yeah, I find that bothersome.

Again, clarifying your scenario goes a long way.

FrankDrebin · June 25, 2005, 08:20 AM

Quote:

Really, Frank? So TN v Garner doesn't apply in your state? (I'm assuming you mean escaping prisoner.)

Yes, really. TN v Garner was a civil case, not a criminal case. TN v Garner said the police can be held CIVILLY responsible for shooting a fleeing felon who poses no imminent threat to the police or public. Not criminally responsible. And I meant fleeing felon. Any fleeing felon. In MI, when you shoot a fleeing felon who poses absoutely no threat to you, you will not be prosecuted. You will very likely be fired, and cost your city a couple million, but you will not be charged, and you'll have a good chance at getting your job back.

Police departments generally quote TN v. Garner in their policy, and they love to have you think that if you shoot a fleeing burglar in the back you'll go to prison forever based on TN v. Garner, but it just ain't so. You may go to prison based on some other state law in some other state, but that won't happen in MI, and in other states, it won't be based solely on TN v Garner. I suspect, but am not sure, that other states may have passed some type of statute based on TN v. Garner that criminalizes shooting a non-dangerous fleeing felon, but not MI.

Coop de Ville · June 28, 2005, 12:42 AM

Let me clarify.

In reference to writing "anything," The meaning behind that is that every action or, more specifically, use of force, requires a lot of writing. This aids IAD in their investigation... it also trips you up, depending on what you write. What I meant to convey, is that I am an honest person who would not shoot someone unless I believed my life or someone elses was in danger. But, in reality, there are people who will shoot just to get a vacation...

When you act you must write. I just got home from writing about getting hit by a red light camera... yes, I was dispatched to a priority assignment where and off duty detective needed immediate backup (code 1). I was hit by the camera and had to stay late and write a statement as to why I passed a red light... a @#$% red light! You learn the ART of writing your way out of corners where they try to screw you.

In reference to shooting someone in the back... fact of the matter is, you can.

If you believe that that person committed a violent crime or will commit a violent crime, and the only way to stop that is to shoot him in the back, so be it....

remember, we are LEO, it's not only about an immediate threat to us... we can use force to protect others and prevent crimes... a little different than the CCW statutes.

I hope this helps a bit. I don't want you to think I'm out out here pointed my piece at everyone. i took this job to serve the people who make this country what it is.

Best, -Coop

techbrute · June 28, 2005, 09:53 AM

Fair enough.

June 24, 2005, 11:07 PM	#53
techbrute Member Join Date: May 17, 2004 Location: DFW, TX Posts: 45	If you're shooting a guy with a smoking gun standing over a dead body saying, "take that!", that's probably justified, and I don't find that bothersome. If you're shooting a guy just because he's standing over a dead body, no gun in sight, and you're just "sure" that he did it, yeah, I find that bothersome. Again, clarifying your scenario goes a long way. __________________ *Opinion worth what you paid.

June 28, 2005, 12:42 AM	#55
Coop de Ville Senior Member Join Date: April 14, 2000 Posts: 436	Let me clarify. In reference to writing "anything," The meaning behind that is that every action or, more specifically, use of force, requires a lot of writing. This aids IAD in their investigation... it also trips you up, depending on what you write. What I meant to convey, is that I am an honest person who would not shoot someone unless I believed my life or someone elses was in danger. But, in reality, there are people who will shoot just to get a vacation... When you act you must write. I just got home from writing about getting hit by a red light camera... yes, I was dispatched to a priority assignment where and off duty detective needed immediate backup (code 1). I was hit by the camera and had to stay late and write a statement as to why I passed a red light... a @#$% red light! You learn the ART of writing your way out of corners where they try to screw you. In reference to shooting someone in the back... fact of the matter is, you can. If you believe that that person committed a violent crime or will commit a violent crime, and the only way to stop that is to shoot him in the back, so be it.... remember, we are LEO, it's not only about an immediate threat to us... we can use force to protect others and prevent crimes... a little different than the CCW statutes. I hope this helps a bit. I don't want you to think I'm out out here pointed my piece at everyone. i took this job to serve the people who make this country what it is. Best, -Coop __________________ "If chance be the father of all flesh, disaster is his rainbow in the sky. And when you hear a 'state of emergencies, sniper kills ten, troops on rampage, whites go looting, bomb blasts school,' it is but the sound of man , worshipping his maker." - S. Turner

June 28, 2005, 09:53 AM	#56
techbrute Member Join Date: May 17, 2004 Location: DFW, TX Posts: 45	Fair enough. __________________ *Opinion worth what you paid.

June 24, 2005, 10:46 PM	#52
Sgt127 Senior Member Join Date: May 13, 2002 Posts: 1,053	Techbrute, I'm honestly curious, why does that seem strange or bothersome to you? I was refering to the shooting a guy standing over a dead body. That is what I envisioned when that scenario came forth. I did indeed further clarify the scenario as I saw it and to me, that would have been justified. Its a pretty common scenario for training and justification of deadly force. The justification ends if he surrenders or throws down the weapon, as far as I know, it might be a good citizen shooting bad citizen, so, there will be a moment of letting him do the right thing, if he chooses to do so, unfortunatly, not a whole lot of time because my self preservation instinct will be kicking in shortly.