Quote:
Originally Posted by Bent Wookie
You're entitled to your opinion, it is the internet afterall.
But I think that's part of the issue in threads like this. Posters tend to post their judgments having little understanding of what it is they are posting about.
Each encounter is treated based on a set of facts at the time of the encounter. Police can't shoot someone based on what the individual has done in the past (even recent past). Will it change the tactics of the encounter? Ofcourse. But police still must make a decision based on what they are presented with at the time of the encounter. If deadly force can not be articulated, it simply isn't an option.
|
Very true. Each encounter is based on its own set of facts. However, that includes the circumstances involved in the crime. That includes the crime the police are brought in to investigate. Just a wiki article on basic US law...
Quote:
For deadly force to be constitutional when an arrest is taking place, it must be the reasonable choice under all the circumstances at the time... According to the code, officers should not use deadly force unless the action will not endanger innocent bystanders, the suspect used deadly force in committing the crime, or the officers believe a delay in arrest may result in injury or death to other people....
Circumstances that are taken into consideration are the severity of the offense, how much of a threat the suspect poses, and the suspect's attempts to resist or flee the police officer. When arresting someone for a misdemeanor, the police have the right to shoot the alleged offender only in self-defense....When police officers are arresting someone for a felony, the courts have given them a little more leeway.
|
Knowing the suspect likely just killed two people and is charging the cop would most defiintely be a reasonable circumstance for deadly force. I suspect if he were six foot eight and on 'roids it might be a bit clearer. But no doubt he would have been justified in shooting the guy.