Police actions

[smenkhare]

This was posted by someone on a computer forum i frequent as an example of the consequences of crime back then and now.

IN 1958 a freind of mine had his holden car stollen, the police back then had power,,with in 2 hours they spotted the car on parramatta road heading towards the city, took chase, and fired 8 shots into the rear boot and rear window,, the cars theves were jailed 7 years.. both 18,,,and a under 17 was put in a boys home, 2 years

Does anyone else have a problem with the police firing shots into the back window and boot where there could potentially have been a hostage?

[Striker071]

Well thats why most Law Enforcement agencies dont allow shooting out of your vehicle at other vehicles only under dire cicumstances.

[fastforty]

I suppose that back in the gangster days (when lawsuits weren't so prolific) it was about the only way to stop criminals fleeing down narrow dirt roads. Now, they cannot (department policy) fire their weapons except for the purpose of stopping themselves or innocents from certain, immediate death or great bodily harm (kinda the same restrictions that civilians fall under). Personally, I think that they should be allowed to shoot at fleeing suspects (whether in a vehicle or on foot) so long as it doesn't pose a risk to innocents.

[Billy Sparks]

I think that they should be allowed to shoot at fleeing suspects (whether in a vehicle or on foot) so long as it doesn't pose a risk to innocents.

But there in lies the problem how do you blast away at the car in front of you and have decent aim? Then the problem of trying to drive talk on the radio and handle a gun...nah. The idea of police officers firing from a moving car was great when there was two officers in the car but sort of peters out now.

[OldMarksman]

From fast forty:

I suppose that back in the gangster days (when lawsuits weren't so prolific) it was about the only way to stop criminals fleeing down narrow dirt roads. Now, they cannot (department policy) fire their weapons except for the purpose of stopping themselves or innocents from certain, immediate death or great bodily harm (kinda the same restrictions that civilians fall under).

It's more than department policy, fast, it's the Fourth Amendment. SCOTUS set forth the criteria for shooting at a fleeing suspect in a 1985 decision:

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

The criteria that must be met for using deadly force against a fleeing suspect are outlined here:

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/...0&postcount=59

Personally, I think that they should be allowed to shoot at fleeing suspects (whether in a vehicle or on foot) so long as it doesn't pose a risk to innocents.

So, in your view, the police may kill someone who, under due process, may be only be imprisoned, and then only if found guilty?

[Brian Pfleuger]

Personally, I think that they should be allowed to shoot at fleeing suspects (whether in a vehicle or on foot) so long as it doesn't pose a risk to innocents.

So, in your view, the police may kill someone who, under due process, may be only be imprisoned, and then only if found guilty?

Interesting topic, isn't it? You get into the "they shouldn't run if their not guilty" and then "shoot to wound..." then "they should use a 9mm..." "no .45"

[Keltyke]

That was in 1958. Many things have changed since then. Let's get current.

[SPUSCG]

police can shoot a fleeing criminal if it can be proven their escape would have resulted in death or injury of innocent, justice department releases showed this was the most common non-natural resons people in custody die, an attempted escape

[OldMarksman]

From SPUSCG:

police can shoot a fleeing criminal if it can be proven their escape would have resulted in death or injury of innocent

According to the second link I posted above, that's one of five criteria that must all be met for compliance with the Fourth Amendment as outlined in Garner v. Tennessee.

That link takes you to a post by an attorney.

[Creature]

How is police high speed pursuit any less dangerous to the public at large than shooting at (and hitting) a fleeing suspect's car again?

[OldMarksman]

How is police high speed pursuit any less dangerous to the public at large than shooting at (and hitting) a fleeing suspect's car again?

Not quite sure where that fits--the question at hand has been whether and under what circumstances the police may use deadly force to stop a fleeing suspect , not the danger to the public.

[David Armstrong]

How is police high speed pursuit any less dangerous to the public at large than shooting at (and hitting) a fleeing suspect's car again?

Part of the problem is that if you shoot the BG you may now have a very large and heavy object travelling at a high speeed without anyone at the controls. With a pursuit there is at least a semblance of control, and in fairness to LE lots of agencies do restrict the ability of officers to engage in high-speed pursuits specifically because of the danger. Shooting at the vehicle is considered using deadly force, while simple pursuit is not. LE can still shoot at moving vehicles, but that ability has been severely curtailed because of the deadly force issue.

[Creature]

Shooting at the vehicle is considered using deadly force, while simple pursuit is not.

Yet if a BG turns his vehicle and aims it a LEO, it is considered using deadly force using a deadly weapon.

[David Armstrong]

Yet if a BG turns his vehicle and aims it a LEO, it is considered using deadly force using a deadly weapon.

No, it is considered feloniously assaulting an officer (or whatever the local statutory wording is), and in some situations using deadly force to stop the assault might be authorized. But the vehicle itself is not considered a deadly weapon per se, and aiming it at the officer is not considered using deadly force in and of itself. Several other factors need to come into play. And of course using a vehicle to commit an assault is quite different than attempting to elude the police in a vehicle.