3 ms·
The account you quoted describes the police pulling out their guns before he got into the car at all. Evading arrest is not a capital offense and they don't men
by aeturnum 6y ago
The account you quoted describes the police pulling out their guns before he got into the car at all. Evading arrest is not a capital offense and they don't mention that he had a weapon or that they believe he intended to harm anyone, so it's hard to see how pulling their weapons is justified.
It doesn't make sense to use the fact that he hit some stuff while fleeing from the men with guns to justify drawing the guns. In fact, provoking panicked flight seems like a pretty foreseeable outcome of drawing a gun on someone. If I had a gun drawn on me I might very well flee in a panic, potentially hitting cars with mine. They drew the guns before he did any of that and it's reasonable to think them drawing them made those outcomes more likely.
Edit: Here are the NJ deadly use of force standards [1]. My reading of the standards would not allow the use of deadly force in this situation. The rules also state that officers should only unholster their weapons when "circumstances create a reasonable belief that display of a firearm as an element of constructive authority helps establish or maintain control in a potentially dangerous situation." It's hard to see what was "potentially dangerous" in this situation before the guns were drawn.
[1] https://www.nj.gov/oag/dcj/agguide/useofforce2001.pdf https://www.nj.gov/oag/dcj/agguide/useofforce2001.pdf
- sebastien_b 6y agoI think the story is missing some context on this (which I tried to point out earlier, but got downvoted for my troubles) - it does seem excessive if the suspect hadn't run yet, but could be justified if he was driving towards them with the vehicle after failing to follow the officers' instructions.
- aeturnum 6y agoI agree that it would make more sense if they drew their guns in response to the suspect driving at them. I also think that, if that had happened, they would have emphasized that in their account of what happened.
- sebastien_b 6y agoAgreed - I think the story's recounting of the events might be missing some (a lot?) of details - looks like the author had only the reports to go on, since no one else wanted to provide comments for the story.
- vmception 6y agoCorrect. Right now the law supports the police rationalizing any outcome from a quantum catalogue of options, if the choice they take is within that catalogue it is considered "justified". People then use the mere word justified to determine if it matches their predisposition. Most of that comes from an appeal to authority, if an organization they respect (the district attorney, mayor, etc) gives them a confirmation that it was justified, then they feel comfortable in their world view. Despite not really knowing that the legal term justified is not universal or predictable, and just comes down to an officer choosing from a catalogue of available options, instead of being judged on which option they chose like a civilian would.