Quote:
Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!
Well because I'm not the one saying there is a line in the sand. The SCOTUS and various circuit courts around the USA say as much. Here's the one regarding objective reasonableness you don't seem to get...
Of course there is leeway because of the stressfull nature of the job. But it's not a blank slate to say "I feared for my life so we're all good". Also, when dealing with a murder suspect, the rules change according to court rulings. There is no doubt a murder suspect chasing a cop could justifiably be shot simply for those two factors.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/23/us...fear.html?_r=0
Training? Really? Are you sure you should be asking that question? |
Ahh.... I think I found the disconnect.
I take the position that a cop that uses deadly force has formed those "subjective" grounds based on a whole host of "objective" grounds - anything from subject behavior, officer training, environmental impacts, etc, etc. He articulates those in the subsequent follow-up investigations.
The follow-up investigators, crown and possibly a judge makes a decision on whether his actions were reasonable. Thus the "objective reasonableness" you indicated.
Fact is, the decision is far from clear cut as you seem to think. It seems to me that you feel 5 different cops can go into the same encounter and it should be resolved in the same way each time. That's not the case and in fact would probably be resolved 5 different ways.
Ya sure. Training. I asked. Tell me. PM me if you desire. Wiki-training doesn't count.