Quote:
Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz
That's kind of the point though.
I don't think people generally have an issue with cops using deadly force where there is an immediate, and real threat to themselves or another person. Sure that's something that "May" happen, but the real issue is the IMMEDIATE part.
Someone holding a gun to a hostage is an immediate threat. Go ahead and shoot him for what he may do.
Someone running away from a cop with a non-deadly weapon is not an immediate threat, nor is he any type of mortal threat at that point.
|
This is fine, and I bet on reflection that JiriHrdina agrees with this, but my point is that you have to recognize that there is a real debate to be had about where we want to draw the line. There are going to be cases where the danger isn't quite so immediate, but is significant and compelling. For example, I might say, "it's totally reasonable for the police to shoot a fleeing suspect who has just stabbed someone and is carrying a knife, because there's a real chance he might stab someone else". Someone else might say, "you don't know how good a chance there is, though. Maybe he only stabbed this person over a personal dispute, and really poses no danger to anyone else". How much evidence do you need that the person running is dangerous before you shoot them? How dangerous do they need to be? If the guy doesn't have a weapon at all, but you have reason to believe he's running back for his car a couple of blocks away where he intends to hurt or kill his wife, do you shoot him? Some of these cases are harder than others.
The other half of it is that you have to recognize that wherever the line is drawn, we're going to have to tell Police officers that that's where the line is, and then leave it to them to make a judgment call. There is not really any way to do this without it ultimately being left to the judgment of the officer to try to make a good decision in the moment, which, given the circumstances, is going to be really, really hard to do.