I'm not a law expert. But I don't think a cop would allow a criminal to flee away with a FIREARM in his hand. So he just shoots him. :D

Yep, they shoots him in the leg/foot to make him fall if he's armed, most cases they probably drop their gun because of the pain, but you never know. ;)

I'm no law expert either by the way so don't "judge" (Any other word for it? Catch my meaning?) me.

I come from St. Louis where I received some Law Enforcement training and minored in Criminal Justice in college, I am by no means an expect and things may have changed since over time but I believe that the situation is left to the officers discretion when it comes to an armed suspect. A fleeing suspect will be very difficult to justify shooting, especially if their back is to the officer, I'd assume that'd be a case by case basis and certainly investigated heavily by Internal Affairs. The officer will have had to use ALL of his other means to subdue the suspect and to prevent the situation from escalating. This means going through the Law Enforcement Use of Force Continuum, you will have head to exhaust all other means of force (not literally).

Shooting always have negative impacts upon society, thus, they are certainly a last resort. Taking a live with deadly force is taking away someone's child, brother, lover, or friend. It will often have negative consequences associated with it and can sometimes escalate an already tense community situation into a more dangerous situation for the department and community at large. Gangs may retaliate against the department, the populace can become less cooperative, and the department can lose respect and authority within the community.

Violence should always be a last resort, especially when we have tazers and other non-lethal methods. I think many of you are lucky LCPD apparently has no Internal Affairs ;)

p.s. Shooting in the foot isn't legit either, lol. This ain't the wild west!

Edited August 4, 201114 yr by James009

+1 for James.

+1 for James.

Agree.

Fleeing? or moving to cover? I wouldn't take my chances... If the suspect is armed and has already threatened the use of his firearm and then runs away from an officer then hes fair game for lethal force. But then again I only majored in Criminal Justice...

James: You may want to check your notes. All others means do not have to be used before lethal force can be a viable option. Respond with equal or greater force, then de-escalate. There's no time to follow the continuum when a felon has a firearm.

Edited August 4, 201114 yr by 1adam3

Agreed. That's when it comes down to Officer's judgement. Police are NOT literally required to go through the continuum step-by-step. If the officer says that the suspect was moving for cover then he can probably justify the shooting.

Agreed. That's when it comes down to Officer's judgement. Police are NOT literally required to go through the continuum step-by-step. If the officer says that the suspect was moving for cover then he can probably justify the shooting.

And next for our roundtable discussion is... :teehee:

In a situation when the feeling suspect is running away with a lethal weapon I think the best way to handle the situation if you shot him in the leg because you can't risk it if he will start pointing the gun at you as soon he faces you.

I'm sorry but.... I love donuts...

James, I didn't think on the taser back then, you're right, but as I've said in another topic I'm in for paramedic, not in the police.