Man oh man...are we all looking at the same video??  The guy was unarmed, posed no lethal threat to anybody at the time he was shot...PERIOD!  A cop simply can't kill someone because he "thinks" he is a threat, and "may" have a weapon.  Until the guy pulls out the weapon and points it at a cop, homicide is not a responsible action on behalf of the cops.

 

I don't give a crap about "until you have been there" argument, that is no non-sequitur.  You are a trained professional "peace officer", not the damn Seal-Team-6, kill on sight rules of engagement.  Yea, he did bad shit and probably a bad guy.  He should be charged as such, not killed...unless he produced a weapon...then time to take his butt down.

 

Come on guys!  Use your heads for crying out loud. 

 

DrDetroit

 

Actually, you're quite wrong. A cop can use deadly force against an individual he has probable cause to assume he has a weapon. Or has used a weapon. You are ignorant if you think we wait for them to aim a gun at use before we shoot. Action is faster than reaction. We react to things the suspect does. There's no way in hell I'm going to wait for someone to point their gun at me before I shoot. It's how we were trained. Also, as I've said, read a fucking law book. It's justified under law to shoot an escaping suspect who poses a great danger to society. This guy struck a civilian vehicle while running from police. So instead of telling us (the actual LEO's) who have trained for this, and some of us even been in situations like this. You should actually seek the training and knowledge we have before telling us we're wrong. You can argue morally whether it was right or wrong, but legally this is justified. You will see that when no charges are brought against the officer. You are the typical person critizising police actions, yet you have "all the answers", put yourself in that situation, ever had a real gun aimed at you? It scares you shitless, you dont WAIT for them to fucking aim it at you. You react to force used against you. It's quicker for a suspect to pull a gun and shoot then it is for a cop to mentally react and then pull his gun and shoot.  He used deadly force on a civilian vehicle, and still tried to escape afterwards, he was shot for it, and while it may not have been the ideal outcome, it was certainly justified. So don't tell me, (and other LEOS) when we can, and can't fire our weapons for our safety and the public. We've actually been trained, not some know-it-all who reads shit on the internet. As someone up above stated, I seriously hope some of you people are never my backup, you'd do more harm then good by critizising every action we do.

^^ Whatever!  I guess cops can shoot now and ask questions later...just like the Gestappo. Shooting a guy in the back none-the-less, to underline your point.  If a cop simply thinks you have a gun, he can shoot you I guess.  Makes a lot of sense, and really underlines "to protect and serve".  Love the new age law.

 

I'm sure you comb though all the law books to justify anything you want.  The cops shouldn't have killed that moron...period.  Maybe they had the "right" to commit homicide, but that don't make it right or justified.

 

Also, calm down bro, you're going to have a heart attack.  I'm not telling you anything that shouldn't be common sense to any nit-wit. 

 

I sure hope your not a cop either.  If you are, you should stay behind a desk.

 

Good day,

 

DrDetroit

 

 

Edited December 16, 201312 yr by drdetroit

Actually, I am, I'm far from behind a desk. I'm not too worried about a heart attack, I've been in much more stressfull situations than dealing with the un educated public on how to do my job. If it was common sense then why is it not in the LAW. Shooting someone in the back gives the same ending as in the front, it makes no difference when you're dealing with the public's safety and our own officers. This is exactly why there is so much police stress, people like you. People who can never been anywhere near a situation, but sit back and let everyone know what they did wrong, and inform us of the laws we enforce on a daily basis. I take pride in my job, and in doing it well, I sure you hope you atleast enjoy critizising the people that might just show up to your house someday for something. There's no sense arguing with someone who won't take the time to do a little reading.

 

As you said, Good day.

Cool, I do appreciate cops, it's a rough thankless job I'd imagine.  No offense meant bud, things can get heated around here.  Just don't go shooting unarmed citizens.  

 

Other than that, take care out there and stay out of trouble, stay safe.

 

DrDetroit

 

 

Edited December 16, 201312 yr by drdetroit

Dayton17, 

 

This is a genuine question, as it SEEMS that you are a Police Officer, are the police allowed to shoot unarmed civilians who no longer pose a threat? Is that in their job description?

 

I stress that this is a very serious question and asked in a calm manner. 

 

I do not wish to rekindle our argument.

Edited December 16, 201312 yr by UrbaneDegree18

Just took my exam for one of my Criminal Justice courses, and one of the questions got me thinking about this topic. In the US Supreme Court case, Tennessee v. Garner, ruled that a LEO chasing a fleeing, unarmed suspect may exercise lethal force if the suspect poses serious harm to the public or the officer. While crashing into multiple cars (not simple fender benders either) indicates a more aggravated or aggressive nature of the suspect, this shooting I believe is clean. Already causing significant harm to the public and then attempting to flee, I believe would be justified as the suspect posing serious harm to the public or officer. Could the officers have tried to take the suspect down non lethally? Sure, but the shooting was clean.

 

Excerpt from the the Opinion of the court.

At about 10:45 p. m. on October 3, 1974, Memphis Police Officers Elton Hymon and Leslie Wright were dispatched to answer a "prowler inside call." Upon arriving at the scene, they saw a woman standing on her porch and gesturing toward the adjacent house. [Footnote 1] She told them she had heard glass breaking and that "they" or "someone" was breaking in next door. While Wright radioed the dispatcher to say that they were on the scene, Hymon went behind the house. He heard a door slam and saw someone run across the backyard. The fleeing suspect, who was appellee-respondent's decedent, Edward Garner, stopped at a 6-feet-high chain link fence at the edge of the yard. With the aid of a flashlight, Hymon was able to see Garner's face and hands. He saw no sign of a weapon, and, though not certain, was "reasonably sure" and "figured" that Garner was unarmed. App. 41, 56; Record 219. He thought Garner was 17 or 18 years old and

Page 471 U. S. 4

about 5' 5" or 5' 7" tall. [Footnote 2] While Garner was crouched at the base of the fence, Hymon called out "police, halt" and took a few steps toward him. Garner then began to climb over the fence. Convinced that, if Garner made it over the fence, he would elude capture, [Footnote 3] Hymon shot him. The bullet hit Garner in the back of the head. Garner was taken by ambulance to a hospital, where he died on the operating table. Ten dollars and a purse taken from the house were found on his body. [Footnote 4]

In using deadly force to prevent the escape, Hymon was acting under the authority of a Tennessee statute and pursuant to Police Department policy. The statute provides that

"f, after notice of the intention to arrest the defendant, he either flee or forcibly resist, the officer may use all the necessary means to effect the arrest."

Tenn.Code Ann.

Page 471 U. S. 5

§ 40-7-108 (1982). [Footnote 5] The Department policy was slightly more restrictive than the statute, but still allowed the use of deadly force in cases of burglary. App. 140-144. The incident was reviewed by the Memphis Police Firearm's Review Board and presented to a grand jury. Neither took any action. Id. at 57.

Garner's father then brought this action in the Federal District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, seeking damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for asserted violations of Garner's constitutional rights. The complaint alleged that the shooting violated the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. It named as defendants Officer Hymon, the Police Department, its Director, and the Mayor and city of Memphis. After a 3-day bench trial, the District Court entered judgment for all defendants. It dismissed the claims against the Mayor and the Director for lack of evidence. It then concluded that Hymon's actions were authorized by the Tennessee statute, which in turn was constitutional. Hymon had employed the only reasonable and practicable means of preventing Garner's escape. Garner had "recklessly and heedlessly attempted to vault over the fence to escape, thereby assuming the risk of being fired upon." App. to Pet. for Cert. A10.

The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed with regard to Hymon, finding that he had acted in good faith reliance on the Tennessee statute, and was therefore within the scope of his qualified immunity. 600 F.2d 52 (1979). It remanded for reconsideration of the possible liability of the city, however, in light of Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Services, 436 U. S. 658 (1978), which had come down after the District Court's decision. The District Court was

Page 471 U. S. 6

directed to consider whether a city enjoyed a qualified immunity, whether the use of deadly force and hollow point bullets in these circumstances was constitutional, and whether any unconstitutional municipal conduct flowed from a "policy or custom" as required for liability under Monell. 600 F.2d at 54-55.

The District Court concluded that Monell did not affect its decision. While acknowledging some doubt as to the possible immunity of the city, it found that the statute, and Hymon's actions, were constitutional. Given this conclusion, it declined to consider the "policy or custom" question. App. to Pet. for Cert. A37-A39.

The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded. 710 F.2d 240 (1983). It reasoned that the killing of a fleeing suspect is a "seizure" under the Fourth Amendment, [Footnote 6] and is therefore constitutional only if "reasonable." The Tennessee statute failed as applied to this case, because it did not adequately limit the use of deadly force by distinguishing between felonies of different magnitudes -- "the facts, as found, did not justify the use of deadly force under the Fourth Amendment." Id. at 246. Officers cannot resort to deadly force unless they

"have probable cause . . . to believe that the suspect [has committed a felony and] poses a threat to the safety of the officers or a danger to the community if left at large."

Ibid. [Footnote 7]

Page 471 U. S. 7

 

The State of Tennessee, which had intervened to defend the statute, see 28 U.S.C. § 2403(b), appealed to this Court. The city filed a petition for certiorari. We noted probable jurisdiction in the appeal, and granted the petition. 465 U.S. 1098 (1984).

 

II

 

Whenever an officer restrains the freedom of a person to walk away, he has seized that person. United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U. S. 873, 422 U. S. 878 (1975). While it is not always clear just when minimal police interference becomes a seizure, see United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U. S. 544 (1980), there can be no question that apprehension by the use of deadly force is a seizure subject to the reasonableness requirement of the Fourth Amendment.

 

 

 

Edited December 16, 201312 yr by devildog789

Dayton17, 

 

This is a genuine question, as it SEEMS that you are a Police Officer, are the police allowed to shoot unarmed civilians who no longer pose a threat? Is that in their job description?

 

I stress that this is a very serious question and asked in a calm manner. 

 

It depends on the totality of the circumstances. To make it very easy, A suspect walks into a bank, shoots 20 people dead. Takes the money walks out.Upon seeing cops, he drops his weapon, turns away, and RUNS. The police are allowed to shoot him. He shot 20 people (obviously a danger to sociecty and has no value towards human life). So to answer your question hoenstly, It depends on the totality of the circumstances. It's hard to judge black or white, in this area it's a lot of grey area. Our job description does include a clause of "Would have to be willing to use deadly force if the situtation requires it" So in a sense, the answer is yes and no. Could police shoot a shoplifter who drops a gun and runs out, No. Could they shoot a bank robber who just killed 20 people a minute ago, while his back is turned, unarmed. Yes, I believe they could. I'm not a judge, I can give you my best opinion on the matter, but in a court of law is where the decision will be made. In this case, I would say it will be upheld, we don't know a lot of things about this case, We do know he used deadly force against a civilian, then tried escaping. LAPD have a bad reputation, I won't argue that, but they (out of all police, excluding maybe chicago and NYPD) have the most experience in dealing with these situations. All i ask is people to look at it from a neutral point of view, You don't have to agree with me, but sitting behind a computer ripping them apart and informing them of everything they missed, is irrelevant. So, i think i answered all your questions, and if you have further questions feel free to ask. I'm by no means an expert on the matter (When i say that I mean i'm not considered an expert in a court of law) but I have been through classes on use of force, and a whole seperate class on deadly force in particular.

 

So, the bank robber that killed 20 people, and leaves dropping his weapon (to where we can assume he is no longer a threat) BUT still tries escaping, can be legally shot. Even behind the back. The rational here is what could he do if he does escape, he could go rob another bank, and the same thing over.   There is a limit to what extent the law can be so particular to, like i said, there is a lot of grey area here. A lot of decisions made on the fly, but in the end, we don't need to critizise officer shootings until they are done and over with. (Investigated) Everyone has their opinion, and I'm not some Nazi who will only accept my belief as the right one, I stated earlier we need checks and balances, but sitting behind a computer ripping apart officers who had to make a split second decision, one that will impact them for the rest of their lives is ignorant and selfish. I've read about the effects shooting someone has on police officers, When I was in the academy i read  "On Killing" by Dave Grossman, Thankfully I've never had to take a life, but I'd imagine it's a very bad feeling, and long lasting feeling. I can honestly say in my opinion 90% of cops are good, and willing to uphold the law.  Theres the bad 10 % but even out of those 10, I feel very few would be willin to go cowboy on someone. It's against human nature to take the life of another human. It's like a psychological thing.  Police officers don't join up going "I hope i get to shoot somebody".

 

I don't doubt what Dayton is saying.  I'm just amazed I suppose.  

 

The guy had already done the damage and was running away when shot.  I'm sure a cop is authorized to kill the guy to "prevent" such harm to the public, like a guy running away with a shotgun in hand and bystanders close by.  What I am amazed about is that the cops can kill a guy, even though he already committed those accidents and is now out of his car unarmed and predominantly a nominal-threat at best, at the time he was killed.  With the logic above, the cops can shoot him because he was a menace previously, but not at the time of the shooting.

 

If some guy runs from the cops, bashes into a million cars, and then gets out and runs away, with back turned and nothing in his hands; you're telling me the cop should shoot the guy in the back?  Really?  

 

I remember when cops needed a throw away gun for times like these...I guess not any more as it's now legal!

 

DrDetroit

Edited December 16, 201312 yr by drdetroit

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2013/12/14/police-chase-reckless-driving-suspect-in-corvette-around-south-gate/ - In case u haven't read that article yet.

 

I personally think the shooting might be justified by (US) law, but in no way morally justified. The suspect seemed pretty shaken up to me when he got out of that car due to the severe crash. If he was indeed intoxicated, there's no way he would be able to think straight. I do not think he posed a threat to anyone when he came out of that car.

 

I personally think every human life is worth to be preserved and in this case, that man could have easily been stopped without the use of lethal force. I think it is tragic that he had to die, especially because his crimes haven't been severe according to the CBS report. Everyone speeding causes a threat to the people on the streets, and sometimes, people cause accidents, even with people dead, still there is no justification for me to kill someone because of that. You can't argue that he used his car as a "weapon" because everybody speeding would use his/her car as a "weapon" then and you would be legally justified to shoot him/her. I can't see how the death of this person was necessary, even if he was a "bad guy". He was shaken up, stumbling out of the car, posing no threat to anyone. In case he had drawn a weapon that huge amount of police officers surely would have been fast enough to take him down.

 

I don't want to tell anybody out there who really is a police officer how to do their jobs, but I think there was no sense in shooting this man.

@drdetroit: No, the Gestapo was "shoot first, ask qu-*BLAM* MERELY ASKING IS TREASON" (or, I suppose, they might send you off to a camp to be gassed instead). Very little rises to the point where comparison to the Nazis is justified; this is not such a case.

@Dayton: Correct me if I'm wrong, but merely trying to escape is never enough, right? Isn't the rule in all cases still that lethal force is *necessary* to catch them? For example, if police are entirely surrounding a bank robber in a parking lot when they turn and start to run (assume there aren't cars in the area, so they never pass out of the direct sight of police officers), I'm pretty sure that police can't shoot. In that case, no officer could conclude they had to shoot - if they're surrounded by a circle of cops, they're not going to escape. Don't tell me the police can't arrest someone who tries to run while surrounded by officers without killing the suspect. I'm SURE there are techniques (maybe as simple as "most guys point guns and order them to get down, if they don't, have a few cops close and tase, shoot if they grab for something").

I don't doubt what Dayton is saying.  I'm just amazed I suppose.  

 

The guy had already done the damage and was running away when shot.  I'm sure a cop is authorized to kill the guy to "prevent" such harm to the public, like a guy running away with a shotgun in hand and bystanders close by.  What I am amazed about is that the cops can kill a guy, even though he already committed those accidents and is now out of his car unarmed and predominantly a nominal-threat at best, at the time he was killed.  With the logic above, the cops can shoot him because he was a menace previously, but not at the time of the shooting.

 

If some guy runs from the cops, bashes into a million cars, and then gets out and runs away, with back turned and nothing in his hands; you're telling me the cop should shoot the guy in the back?  Really?  

 

I remember when cops needed a throw away gun for times like these...I guess not any more as it's now legal!

 

DrDetroit

 

This situation is one of the very grey areas, because yes.... He hadn't shot anyone, he probably didn't even mean to crash into that vehicle. Morally i won't answer, because everyone WILL have a different answer. By law i believe it was justified. If it would have been me, I don't think I would have shot, There is a lot of discretion. The law can't account for every single situation that is bound to happen, so this is where discretion comes in. Some cops have good discretion, some don't . 

 

This is... unrelated, but an officer in my state dealt with a situation where... at first glance, it looked like he was a horrible person.   He was called to a suicidal child (Idk the exact age but it was less than 10) upon arriving the kid had a knife to his throat, and was telling the officer he was going to kill himself. The officer tazed the kid. When i first heard about it, i thought "He tazed a child that young? Then you think critically about it? He probably saved that kid from injuring himself, and the officer. We don't know what the kid was planning to do, maybe nothing, but maybe if that officer would have stepped closer, he would of actually cut himself.  Again, its unrelated obviously, but it shows the grey area, and the discretion that has to be used. I think he probably saved that kid from serious harm that he could have done to himself, It would be unlikely a child could actually kill the officer, but the main thing is he may have actually saved that kids life. So you allow him a 5 second taze, and save his life. But at first glance, its kind of a WTF moment. It's situations like these, people just don't understand.

 

@drdetroit: No, the Gestapo was "shoot first, ask qu-*BLAM* MERELY ASKING IS TREASON" (or, I suppose, they might send you off to a camp to be gassed instead). Very little rises to the point where comparison to the Nazis is justified; this is not such a case.

@Dayton: Correct me if I'm wrong, but merely trying to escape is never enough, right? Isn't the rule in all cases still that lethal force is *necessary* to catch them? For example, if police are entirely surrounding a bank robber in a parking lot when they turn and start to run (assume there aren't cars in the area, so they never pass out of the direct sight of police officers), I'm pretty sure that police can't shoot. In that case, no officer could conclude they had to shoot - if they're surrounded by a circle of cops, they're not going to escape. Don't tell me the police can't arrest someone who tries to run while surrounded by officers without killing the suspect. I'm SURE there are techniques (maybe as simple as "most guys point guns and order them to get down, if they don't, have a few cops close and tase, shoot if they grab for something").

 

You are correct, if his escape was impossible, shooting would not be justified. My scenario was pulled just out of my head, but yes your right. Say it was a small county, a town of maybe 500, two sheriffs deputies on scene and thats it. His escape would be likely if the sheriff just pulls up. But yes you are right, if the suspects escape is impossible, it would not be a good idea to shoot. In this case, he was trying to escape, was it likely that he get away from the 20 officers behind him? No, it wasn't . I won't say LAPD doesn't know what they're doing though.

Yes, I think we are in agreement, I was kind of unclear of what I meant by "can't", should have been "shouldn't".  I'm speaking morally, as I have no doubt that it will be justified, especially after the data presented.  Seems to me that in the old days (I'm 42), cops got into deep deep trouble for shooting anybody.  

 

A buddy of my dads, a Wayne County Trooper back in the last 70s-early 80s, said he had to write reports every time he drew his gun, let alone if he dare shoot anybody, even if armed.

 

Anyhow, things change I guess.  Cops today almost looks like military MPs.  I always thought it a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act for cops to possess half the gear and training they have/do.  But that's another thing altogether

 

Good day,

 

DrDetroit.

Yes, I think we are in agreement, I was kind of unclear of what I meant by "can't", should have been "shouldn't".  I'm speaking morally, as I have no doubt that it will be justified, especially after the data presented.  Seems to me that in the old days (I'm 42), cops got into deep deep trouble for shooting anybody.  

 

A buddy of my dads, a Wayne County Trooper back in the last 70s-early 80s, said he had to write reports every time he drew his gun, let alone if he dare shoot anybody, even if armed.

 

Anyhow, things change I guess.  Cops today almost looks like military MPs.  I always thought it a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act for cops to possess half the gear and training they have/do.  But that's another thing altogether

 

Good day,

 

DrDetroit.

 

Fair enough, i agree with what your saying, I have to apologize for my earlier posts. Things got heated, but im glad we're in agreement. I remember the instructors at the academy telling stories of having to write a report everytime they drew their gun, honestly not a bad policy, unfortunately today they would be writing way to many reports.

Nah, no prob man.  We all get there, and do that.  At least we can be adults about issues for the most part, and not all the sh*t slinging like you see at GTAForums.com.  

 

Nothing better than a hotly debated issue, makes you think.

 

Take care and be good!!

 

DrDetroit

Edited December 16, 201312 yr by drdetroit

It depends on the totality of the circumstances. To make it very easy, A suspect walks into a bank, shoots 20 people dead. Takes the money walks out.Upon seeing cops, he drops his weapon, turns away, and RUNS. The police are allowed to shoot him. He shot 20 people (obviously a danger to sociecty and has no value towards human life). So to answer your question hoenstly, It depends on the totality of the circumstances. It's hard to judge black or white, in this area it's a lot of grey area. Our job description does include a clause of "Would have to be willing to use deadly force if the situtation requires it" So in a sense, the answer is yes and no. Could police shoot a shoplifter who drops a gun and runs out, No. Could they shoot a bank robber who just killed 20 people a minute ago, while his back is turned, unarmed. Yes, I believe they could. I'm not a judge, I can give you my best opinion on the matter, but in a court of law is where the decision will be made. In this case, I would say it will be upheld, we don't know a lot of things about this case, We do know he used deadly force against a civilian, then tried escaping. LAPD have a bad reputation, I won't argue that, but they (out of all police, excluding maybe chicago and NYPD) have the most experience in dealing with these situations. All i ask is people to look at it from a neutral point of view, You don't have to agree with me, but sitting behind a computer ripping them apart and informing them of everything they missed, is irrelevant. So, i think i answered all your questions, and if you have further questions feel free to ask. I'm by no means an expert on the matter (When i say that I mean i'm not considered an expert in a court of law) but I have been through classes on use of force, and a whole seperate class on deadly force in particular.

 

So, the bank robber that killed 20 people, and leaves dropping his weapon (to where we can assume he is no longer a threat) BUT still tries escaping, can be legally shot. Even behind the back. The rational here is what could he do if he does escape, he could go rob another bank, and the same thing over.   There is a limit to what extent the law can be so particular to, like i said, there is a lot of grey area here. A lot of decisions made on the fly, but in the end, we don't need to critizise officer shootings until they are done and over with. (Investigated) Everyone has their opinion, and I'm not some Nazi who will only accept my belief as the right one, I stated earlier we need checks and balances, but sitting behind a computer ripping apart officers who had to make a split second decision, one that will impact them for the rest of their lives is ignorant and selfish. I've read about the effects shooting someone has on police officers, When I was in the academy i read  "On Killing" by Dave Grossman, Thankfully I've never had to take a life, but I'd imagine it's a very bad feeling, and long lasting feeling. I can honestly say in my opinion 90% of cops are good, and willing to uphold the law.  Theres the bad 10 % but even out of those 10, I feel very few would be willin to go cowboy on someone. It's against human nature to take the life of another human. It's like a psychological thing.  Police officers don't join up going "I hope i get to shoot somebody".

 

I just do not agree with the fact that regular police officers are allowed to carry guns. I am from Scotland and I was raised in a country where guns are a BIG NO. So while I cannot morally justify this in the slightest I do understand that it was a split second judgement, in my opinion, the wrong one. I heard something recently that the London Metropolitan Police Service shoot, on average, 2 live bullets a year (out-with the training grounds) so you can probably see why I do not agree with this as Britain has a low gun crime figure, compared to other countries. 

 

I do understand that America is facing a huge gun problem and evasive actions must be taken but I believe that if the Police cannot show, I am hesitant in using this word, maturity, then America will continue to face the gun problem. 

 

To have the authority to carry a gun in the British Police, you must have been in the Police Service for at least 4 years I believe and had an exemplary record. You are put through psychological tests and you are put through a vigorous 10 week training program which tests your every ability with a gun. Many officers who start the course eventually leave the training program as the simply cannot handle holding a firearm and possibly having to take a life. When a firearm officer in Britain fires his gun, he/she will have to justify every little detail of that shot. Example:

 Say you are a firearm officer and you  have been called in to help clear a plane that was taken over by terrorists and all passengers have been taken out of the area. You are slowly advancing up the aisle when you are confronted by and armed terrorist who starts firing at you with a pistol. He misses you with every shot and he starts to run away, you fire two shots at him. One hits him and the other hits a storage cupboard going through the thin wall. Now you have justify the shot which hit the terrorist. In court, they may see that he was running away and a shot should not be fired as he is not a threat to you, a taser shot would have sufficed. Now the shot that went through the cupboard may have hit someone who decided to take up an early hiding position and you may have just killed an unarmed civilian. Every little detail would be criticised in court very harshly.

So can you see why I may not agree with this now?

Here's the thing: From what I can tell, you guys don't generally trust your cops that much right off the bat (pretty sure I've read that some agencies don't even allow all officers to respond to emergency calls with emergency equipment). The US *cannot* generally follow that sort of model in many places: almost half of all agencies employ 10 or fewer officers. Every officer there needs to be armed. In big cities, many, many crimes involve the use of firearms, either threatened use or actual use. Again, you need to be armed to handle that. The culture in the US just would not work with unarmed cops (indeed, this is a case where the US is in the majority, even among countries where guns are uncommon - almost all countries at least put firearms in police cars, and most put them on individual police officers).

What everyone seems to be missing here...

A police officer has the ability to act on probable cause that an individual intends to do something.

As a civilian you can only act if you know that the individual is currently engaged in something.

 

This is the difference.  If this were a civilian shooting, this would end up with someone going to jail.

 

From the guy's behavior as he got out of the vehicle, he didn't appear to be running away.  If he had previously attempted to kill someone, or cause harm to officers I can see why any, if not all of the officers on scene could say they have probable cause that the suspect intended to continue to cause harm, or kill someone.

He didn't run away, he ran to the passenger side of the vehicle.  If he was running away, the route that he most likely would have taken would have been forwards.  Not back, around the car, then forwards...
What was he going to get out of the car? What was his intent?

 

But what this comes down to is.

What did the officers believe his intent was.  If it was to cause harm or kill another individual then lethal force in most areas would be legal in this situation.

 

@rushlink: Wrong. That's the standard for arrest, not use of force. The use of lethal force for non-policemen is generally some variant of "reasonable belief that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or grievous bodily harm". There need not be any actual threat to your life; it is enough that you hold a reasonable belief that the force is necessary. If Alice tells Bob that Mr. McMafia is going to kill him (and would have some good reason to know that McMafia intends to do so, like, say, if she's friendly with him), and McMafia walks up to Bob, pulling something from his pocket, and saying "I've got something for you", then Bob would likely be justified in shooting to kill. This is true even if McMafia was pulling out a bar of chocolate to give Bob - even though Bob's life was not in fact at risk, a reasonable person under the circumstances would likely conclude that McMafia was going to shoot Bob, and so would be justified in shooting first.

I just do not agree with the fact that regular police officers are allowed to carry guns. I am from Scotland and I was raised in a country where guns are a BIG NO. So while I cannot morally justify this in the slightest I do understand that it was a split second judgement, in my opinion, the wrong one. I heard something recently that the London Metropolitan Police Service shoot, on average, 2 live bullets a year (out-with the training grounds) so you can probably see why I do not agree with this as Britain has a low gun crime figure, compared to other countries. 

 

I do understand that America is facing a huge gun problem and evasive actions must be taken but I believe that if the Police cannot show, I am hesitant in using this word, maturity, then America will continue to face the gun problem. 

 

To have the authority to carry a gun in the British Police, you must have been in the Police Service for at least 4 years I believe and had an exemplary record. You are put through psychological tests and you are put through a vigorous 10 week training program which tests your every ability with a gun. Many officers who start the course eventually leave the training program as the simply cannot handle holding a firearm and possibly having to take a life. When a firearm officer in Britain fires his gun, he/she will have to justify every little detail of that shot. Example:

 Say you are a firearm officer and you  have been called in to help clear a plane that was taken over by terrorists and all passengers have been taken out of the area. You are slowly advancing up the aisle when you are confronted by and armed terrorist who starts firing at you with a pistol. He misses you with every shot and he starts to run away, you fire two shots at him. One hits him and the other hits a storage cupboard going through the thin wall. Now you have justify the shot which hit the terrorist. In court, they may see that he was running away and a shot should not be fired as he is not a threat to you, a taser shot would have sufficed. Now the shot that went through the cupboard may have hit someone who decided to take up an early hiding position and you may have just killed an unarmed civilian. Every little detail would be criticised in court very harshly.

So can you see why I may not agree with this now?

 

Totally, you are from a different place with different rules, and a much different situation. Its like growing up with your parents liking a football team, and you follow suite. It's how people are raised and where they grow up. I can understand and respect that. Here, there is just to much crime involving violence and firearms to disarm our police now. Like you said, for as long as you can remember cops weren't armed, here its the opposite, since our founding our police have been armed, so changing either for your country or mine wouldnt make much sense. I see where its hard for you to see the justification of that shooting, as I find it hard to believe you guys get through with no guns in your everyday patrol officers. So i understand where your coming from.

 

What I particularly don't get is that British police have never been routinely armed, not even when firearms were generally much more legal in the UK. I can see how it works now, but I'm really, really impressed at the officers who got being unarmed to work when criminals were free to arm themselves.