TN vs. Garner vs. Chicago

[Glenn E. Meyer]

New Policy Allows Police To Shoot At Fleeing Cars
Previously, Shots Could Only Be Fired At Cars Used To AttackCHICAGO (CBS)

http://cbs2chicago.com/local/police....2.1105766.html

The Chicago Police Department has instituted a major change in policy regarding the use of deadly force.

Effective next Monday, police officers will be able to fire their guns under circumstances where they previously could not.

The new policy, from police Supt. Jody Weis and confirmed by WBBM Newsradio 780 Wednesday morning, allows police officers to shoot at fleeing vehicles if the driver or passengers are suspected of committing a felony.

The old policy allowed officers only to shoot at vehicles that pose a threat to them or others, such as if the driver were trying to run down the officer.

But now, officers need not be under attack to open fire.

--- This seems contrary to TN. vs. Garner - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_v._Garner

The rationale is that fleeing from a felony is not a action punishable by death and without a definite risk - lethal force was inappropriate.

So, is Chicago clueless (quite possible)? Is this a reasonable change? Is an expansion of deadly force to fleeing appropriate - even felons have rights?

I would think it would in court in a flash if local rights organizations get in the action.

I would please like the discussion to avoid chest thumping, kill them all blather - can we stick to a L and CR analysis and not how you have blood lust.

GEM

[CowTowner]

I guess I'm more concerned about the possibility of bystanders being wounded and/or killed by an officer's bullet which fails to penetrate the vehicle's windows or exterior shell. As well as the potential after effects of a "clean kill" shot and any innocent civilians in the path of the now out of control motor vehicle.
This seems to make no sense at all from a public safety standpoint.
Never mind the SCOTUS decision and any legal questions that will arise.

[Brian Pfleuger]

I would have to make the (perhaps unjustified) assumption that the officers would wait until the vehicle was in a reasonably safe/unpopulated area before conducting such a high risk operation.


Tennessee vs Garner is an interesting case. Both sides made interesting and fairly convincing arguments.

I'm not sure of the law in Illinois, isn't fleeing the police after committing a crime an automatic felony in some places?

[OldMarksman]

Probably bad reporting. The old policy may have been more restrictive than required under Garner, and the new one may still comply.

This could well be true:

Effective next Monday, police officers will be able to fire their guns under circumstances where they previously could not.

This may not:

The new policy, from police Supt. Jody Weis and confirmed by WBBM Newsradio 780 Wednesday morning, allows police officers to shoot at fleeing vehicles if the driver or passengers are suspected of committing a felony.

The apparent lack of consideration of the seriousness of the felony and the adequacy of "suspicion" seem to be at odds with Garner.

And, these statements are rather contradictory:

The old policy allowed officers only to shoot at vehicles that pose a threat to them or others, such as if the driver were trying to run down the officer.

But now, officers need not be under attack to open fire.

The restriction alluded to in the latter sentence was not part of Garner, as I understand things.

However, it could involve legal ignorance in the department. Last year the city council where I live voted to ban open carry (already prohibited by the county) and concealed carry (in contravention of a state preemption law). No subsequent reports have surfaced--it's possible that the council persons still think they did something.

I guess we'll find out.

[chemgirlie]

Legality aside, how does this law size up practicality wise?

It's hard enough to hit a moving target, let alone hit a moving target protected by metal and upholstery while under immense stress, making sure not to endanger the lives of any bystanders in the fairly densely populated Chicago area, and actually make a hit that incapacitates the driver or stops/slows the car (my knowledge of where one would need to shoot a car is minimal).

[JWT]

Unless Chicago police are all expert marksman (doubtful) the policy seems like a fine one for wounding uninvolved bystanders. Of course the lawyers would love that since they could / would then sue the h--- out of the city.

For a city that is strongly anti gun this policy appears to be 'out of character'.

[maestro pistolero]

It's hard to imagine how a policy that essentially creates a death sentence for being suspected of a felony could withstand scrutiny. This would make the local police into judge, jury and executioner.
There must be something missing here. A very dangerous concept indeed. For one thing, it would incentivize some criminals to simply open fire, rather than flee.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Yeah, it sounds like a messed up story. I would expect uproar over this.

[maestro pistolero]

That it is a CBS story and news station gives the story some credibility. Isn't mere possession of a handgun currently a felony? If so, wouldn't just being suspected of having a gun in the car justify shooting as you drove away? The story did say SUSPECTED of a felony.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Based on what I have read about Garner and the terse news story I see no real conflict if the standard for shooting the fleeing felon is:

unless necessary to prevent the escape and 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. Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)

When the news article said felony I am speculating they are not talking about embezzlement but rather something like murder or bank robbery etc. I am not sure this type policy is out of the norm. Prison guards can shoot escaping prisoners I believe and I would suppose Garner would support that as well?

[chemgirlie]

There's a big difference between prison guards shooting convicted felons who are escaping and police shooting suspected felons who may not display signs of becoming violent and who have not gone through due process and ben found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Actually, it almost seems like it brings the rules for police officers in line with the rules for civilians, being that in many places a civilian can technically shoot a fleeing bad guy who has attempted to commit or actually has committed a violent felony.

[maestro pistolero]

Interesting concept. Dangerous ground that I wouldn't want to occupy, though.
What if a citizen reasonably believed that a person was going to imminently harm or kill innocents if allowed to leave?

It's very slippery, for cops or citizens, because it requires reading the mind, or at least, claiming to know the intention of the perpetrator. Hard to know, and even harder to prove.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by maestro pistolero

It's very slippery, for cops or citizens, because it requires reading the mind, or at least, claiming to know the intention of the perpetrator. Hard to know, and even harder to prove.

I am not sure it is that difficult. I don't think you have to read minds either. In Garner for instance Justice White talked about being armed as one criteria.

I think a cop who shoots a fleeing criminal who is armed could make a case that the BG was a danger to others.

I agree that citizens should not engage in chasing BGs but we expect cops to chase them and someone who is openly armed, is aware the cops are chasing them, and don't stop could well be a danger to the public and justify the use of deadly force as an example.

[OldMarksman]

Here is a better news account:

http://www.wbbm780.com/New-rules--wh...hicles/4897101

"Now officers will be able to fire upon the driver or passenger in a vehicle if that person is a forcible fleeing felon, someone who has committed a very serious offense resulting in bodily harm or has threatened to commit great bodily harm," Drew told Newsradio 780.

The old policy allowed officers to shoot at vehicles that pose a threat to them or others, if the driver was trying to run down the officer, for example.

This is almost in line with my lay understanding of Garner.

The CBS report cited earlier said that the new policy "allows police officers to shoot at fleeing vehicles if the driver or passengers are suspected of committing a felony".

According to my lay reading of Garner, the threshold for the officer is probable cause--not mere suspicion. Further, the person had to be fleeing from a serious offense involving bodily harm or death (or posing a serious threat to the officer or others if not immediately apprehended).

I think that correctly interpreting this WBBM report requires additional knowledge. It refers to shooting a "forcible fleeing felon". However, it appears to me from the fact that Garner had himself been escaping from a night time burglary, and from Justice O'Connor's dissent, that one cannot safely assume it to be lawful for an officer to shoot at someone fleeing from just any "forcible" felony, notwithstanding what is said in this report.

I also seem to recall hearing somewhere that deadly force is permissible only if it constitutes the only way of apprehending the felon.

One more time--I guess we'll find out.

[Evan Thomas]

Thanks for the clarification, OldMarksman. "Probable cause" and "serious offense involving bodily harm or death" do make a bit of a difference to what would be justified, I'd say.

Originally Posted by TG

I think a cop who shoots a fleeing criminal who is armed could make a case that the BG was a danger to others.

I agree that citizens should not engage in chasing BGs but we expect cops to chase them and someone who is openly armed, is aware the cops are chasing them, and don't stop could well be a danger to the public and justify the use of deadly force as an example.

Could this be interpreted along the lines of "Well, 'armed and don't stop' is a danger to the public, and a car can be a deadly weapon..." so any fleeing suspect might be considered armed? Circular, but possible. And a bad idea, I'd think.

Originally Posted by Glenn E. Meyer

The old policy allowed officers only to shoot at vehicles that pose a threat to them or others, such as if the driver were trying to run down the officer.

Other things -- especially the risk to bystanders -- being equal, I'd prefer they kept to this policy.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by Vanya

Could this be interpreted along the lines of "Well, 'armed and don't stop' is a danger to the public, and a car can be a deadly weapon..." so any fleeing suspect might be considered armed? Circular, but possible. And a bad idea, I'd think.

You are right. It is circular logic but not what I believe. A car may be a deadly weapon but a gun always is. A fleeing criminal driving recklessly through a populated area? I think deadly force might legitimately be used. Again, shooting them just because they are running away with no other factors in play probably won't get past Garner.