Quote:
|
Not to throw a wrench in this, ..... an officer would be solidly within the realm of Tennesee v. Garner to shoot him.
|
Maybe....today....
I don't know the case you are citing, but from context, I get a general idea, and I will say that while an officer may be within the boundaries of law, he also has to KNOW that, before pulling the trigger.
Remember the situation we are discussing here, (stopping a retreating/fleeing perpetrator, who is NOT presenting an immediate threat to others) this is a situation where, generally the armed individual is NOT allowed by law to use deadly force, and the LEO, MAY BE.
But it depends very much on the specifics of the situation, and, generally, today, absent a specific immediate threat, officers are expected to use some other means to apprehend the suspect, other than shooting them.
Just checked a summary of
Tenn v Garner, and it said officers may NOT use deadly force to apprehend a suspect, outside of certain conditions (threat to others, etc.,) but may, if those conditions are met. I also note the law comes from 1985.
I see it as a good thing that there is a Supreme Court ruling on this subject, as before that, we had a tremendous hodgepodge of varying rules, by state, and even locality.
The Rules of Engagement (ROE) matter A LOT! There is a set for us, as private individuals, and a different set for LEOs. The point of laws setting out these rules for us is to ensure the greatest congruity between what is morally justifiable and what is legally justifiable. Despite generations of work, it is still an ongoing process, and there are significant areas of divergence still. We are getting better, overall, I think, but we aren't there, yet.
in the Garner case, a youth was killed fleeing from a burglary. The police were within their ROE, and so, within the law, but as the High Court's ruling confirmed, the shooting was not morally justified.
Here's a case showing the other side of the coin. In the early 70s, Robert Garrow brutally stabbed to death three teenage campers in the Adirondacks. He escaped into the woods, known to be armed with both a rifle and a handgun. The manhunt went on for weeks, with all available resources, including large numbers of "civilians" looking for him. He was spotted several times by officers, but escaped each time, because of the officer's ROE.
At that time, NY police were forbidden to fire unless fired upon. Everyone knew that. Garrow while armed, was smart enough to never even point a gun at the police. This was a situation where (most of us believed) it would have been morally justifiable to shoot him, but it was not legally justifiable under the existing ROE. For the Police. (those ROE's were later changed due to public pressure over this matter)
Garrow was taken, by a Conservation Officer (game warden) who shot him 5 times with his shotgun, striking him with several pellets. The CO was NOT under any rule to only fire if fired on. Garrow's injuries left him confined to a wheelchair, and he was convicted and sent to a min security prison. Several months later, apparently no where near as injured as he pretended, he went over the wall one night. Word went out and the hunt was on, again. A few days later, his body was found in some woods a few miles from the prison. Shot multiple times, with at least three different caliber weapons. IIRC, they never caught who did it....
IF you carry a gun, there are two critical things you must be aware of. The first is
exactly what are your legal ROE.
The second critical thing is knowing if there is a difference between what you
can do, and what you
should do, in a given situation.
Generally, the best course for most of us is to leave law enforcement (apprehension and arrest) to the professionals.
The laws allowing us to use deadly force in defense of self and others, including castle doctrine laws are not a hunting license, nor do they in any way deputize us to be LEOs. They are intended to be a legal protection for us, against prosecution, in the event we have to use deadly force, spelling out the framework for what is, and is not justified.
Getting back to the OP, what would you do if the bad guy just walks away? I know what I should do, be a good witness is the wise choice.
However, I must be honest enough to admit that what is the wisest choice in a given situation may not feel like it, or be easy.