9 ms·

I of course don't have all the facts of the case, but at first glance it seems unreasonable that a fleeing suspect (and in this case not a suspect at all) is ac

I of course don't have all the facts of the case, but at first glance it seems unreasonable that a fleeing suspect (and in this case not a suspect at all) is actually shot multiple times. Is it OK to shoot fleeing suspects? It is of course possible that she charged them or something, like I said don't have all the facts here, just wondering if that is OK. Edit: I was not trying to make a value statement (although I think it’s wrong), but wondering what the law is. That got answered, so thank you.

duxup 6y ago
Well SCOTUS isn't addressing any of that, just ruling that she can sue. Now she gets a case and can try to prove "unreasonable".
JumpCrisscross 6y ago
> Is it OK to shoot fleeing suspects? This is the job of the legislature (EDIT: and elected executive). Not the court. The court decides if it’s legal. Blurring those lines is how you ruin the rule of law.
- boomboomsubban 6y ago
  If nothing else, the freedom to not get shot is fairly obviously protected under the ninth amendment. It's probably also covered by the "unreasonable" part of "unread seizure." Either way, it is well within the scope of the courts.
  - JumpCrisscross 6y ago
    > the freedom to not get shot is fairly obviously protected under the ninth amendment These issues are complicated. If you think something is fairly obvious, you are missing colour. (My feelings are different for a legislator.) My freedom to not get shot interferes with your freedom to be protected by police. Until recently, criminals were hanged by county legal functions. That line has shifted. Policing in America is too violent, but it is not apparent that it is illegally violent.
    - XorNot 6y ago
      The problem there is that it's already been ruled the police do not have to protect you. So I don't know how you square that with the idea that someone has a freedom to be protected by police, who in turn are free to elect not to do that.
    - michaelmrose 6y ago
      Our cops are with disturbing regularity murdering our citizens and robbing them on the highway. The majority of civil asset forfeitures are small potatoes stolen by cops without a charge leveled. We halfway between Western Europe and a corrupt former soviet republic.
      - JumpCrisscross 6y ago
        This is a great polemic, but irrelevant to the law. I believe we need laws prohibiting what’s going on. I don’t think we turn the courts into unelected legislators to do that.
        caslon 6y ago
        Courts are already unelected legislators; the least they could do is enforce the Constitution.
        DubiousPusher 6y ago
        And what does that mean? For 170 odd years the constitution has guaranteed people representation in court. But until Gideon v. Wainwright in 1963, if you were broke, your chances of getting any kind of representation varies greatly from one state or county to the next. Finally, a fairly activist court decided to interpret that right as a specific literal individual civil right. And one of the most well known aspects of our court system is born. One which we tout every time we question the ethical qualifies of other countries. But why did it take so long. Why, when the court was less activist could this not be read literally and universally as we so clearly think it reads today. If it's just about," interpreting the constitution" and if there was some better time when judges knew their place, why couldn't they see it? You can say the same about aspects of the first amendment, the second, the fourth and many others. Practically everything we say is great about the American legal system and our civil liberties owes to a judge acting a bit like an activist primarily between the years of 1930 and 1970.
  - danjaco 6y ago
    The real kicker here is "unreasonable." Cops shooting a fleeing suspect assuming that person is "dangerous" will be found reasonable. Cops shooting someone who talks back at them is already resisting arrest.
- michaelmrose 6y ago
  The legislative branch has produced first and foremost the constitution. It is just and lawful. Even dissenting justices find this lawful thus it is remarkable that you should disagree. The court should consider the constitution, state law, and the body of relevant cases
  - JumpCrisscross 6y ago
    > legislative branch has produced first and foremost the constitution This is prima facie wrong. The legislature is co-equal with the executive and judiciary. “We the people” are the technical authors of the Constitution.
    - TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
      When was the last time "We the people" changed the Constitution in a technical way that left no room for interpretation by SCOTUS?
- fitblipper 6y ago
  Sadly the division responsibility of the government branches do not match what you are taught in 6th grade government class. The overwhelmingly VAST majority of laws are passed by the executive branch. The common law system uses judicial precedence to determine how to rule in cases which can also be considered establishing law. The legislative branch has the purse strings and motivation to not take a hard stance for or against any piece of legislation.
  - JumpCrisscross 6y ago
    > VAST majority of laws are passed by the executive branch Through delegated lawmaking. When agencies overstep those boundaries, the courts have been more than happy to strike them down. And to be fair, my statement should have included the executive. It should not include the judiciary, who have a more limited--albeit equally powerful--role in our government.
    - zamfi 6y ago
      Historically in the US, the judiciary has interpreted laws, and those interpretations are codified as case law and create precedents that bind future court actions in many, if not most, cases. We could argue about scope, but we can’t really argue about whether the power exists. And that’s to say nothing of SCOTUS, which gets to interpret complex notions like “freedom”, “liberty”, “search”, “privacy” and so forth as used in the constitution, laws passed by congress, etc.
      - JumpCrisscross 6y ago
        Correct, common law courts make law. That doesn't mean they decide if a thing is right or just or moral or okay. Coloring within the lines versus drawing new ones. The boundary is blurry. But blurry doesn't mean nonexistent.
honksillet 6y ago
There are several (many?) cases where given a certain set of circumstances officers are allowed to shot an unarmed fleeing individual. One that immediately jumps to mind is an inmate attempting escape from prison. Even in blue states correctional officers have legal authority to shoot prisoners attempting escape. (PS I’m not a police officer or a CO.) these are laws on the books. They can be changed (if you think they should be).
- kmonsen 6y ago
  Thanks, I was mostly just wondering what the law is and what could have happened here. I don’t think police, or correctional officer, should ever shot at someone running away. Perhaps I’m naïve.
- tremon 6y ago
  In my mind, an escaping convict is not the same as a "fleeing suspect" though (the term the GP used). A convict has already had its day in court, so the presumption of innocence doesn't apply.
  - williamtwild 6y ago
    Not everyone in jail have had thier day in court. I dont know if there are different rules for different types of incarceration facilities.
    - packetlost 6y ago
      Jail and prison are often used interchangeably by general society, but they actually refer to different things. Jail is generally temporary place of confinement for those awaiting trial or for minor crimes with short sentences. Prison, on the other hand, is a more "permanent" incarceration facility where inmates have been tried and convicted of crimes. Source: https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/jail-vs-prison-difference https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/jail-vs-prison...
      - 6y ago
grecy 6y ago
A friend was an LAPD detective for 30 years. He was involved in two fatal shootings, and we talk a lot about his days on the beat. He said, without exception, the only time he can draw and use his firearm is if "he had immediate fear for his own life (or the life of another)" - he said they're trained to say those exact words when questioned about why they used lethal force. Shooting someone because they're running away, or swearing, or not cooperating is VERY strictly not allowed. Whenever I hear of a person shot running away, or a person with their hands in the air I suspect there will be very big problems.
- sdenton4 6y ago
  It would go a loooooong way if the cops in this country would stop reflexively circling the wagons and actually make it abundantly clear that this kind of thing is unacceptable. Without firings and prosecutions for this kind of thing, the 'bad apples' see that it is in fact acceptable: They just need to say the magic words, that they feared for their lives, just like they were trained to.
- sneak 6y ago
  > A friend was an LAPD detective for 30 years. He was involved in two fatal shootings, and we talk a lot about his days on the beat. If he shot and killed two people, you should say he shot and killed two people. This weird circular speech around cops killing people ("officer-involved shooting") is one of the reasons it continues to be so common. So long as they have a magic phrase for evading responsibility, we'll remain in the situation of having to deal with killer cops.
- curryst 6y ago
  That will almost certainly vary from state to state. Texas allows it's citizens to use lethal force in a number of non-life-threatening scenarios. One of which is to protect your own property. You can shoot someone in the back provided they were stealing from you. There was a case in the early 2010s where a guy paid a prostitute, she refused to render services and to give his money back, and he shot her to get his money back. It was ruled a lawful shooting. https://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/jilted-john-acquitted-texas-prostitute-death-article-1.1365975 https://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/jilted-john-acquitted... I would be extremely surprised if the police were restricted to using less force than your average joe.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
austincheney 6y ago
> Is it OK to shoot fleeing suspects? That question lacks validating context. According to activity in Atlanta last year the answer is generally no even if the suspect remains armed and in prior moments was in a physical altercation with police. However, if the suspect remains an imminent threat to anyone, such that they continue to point their weapon at people as they are fleeing then I would say they remain an active imminent threat and thus can be shot by law enforcement. That is an extraordinarily narrow and unlikely scenario though. Either way it is a rush judgment call in the field and all shootings between people demand investigation. People, even police, are not above the law and are not granted special exceptions of hostility, but they are obligated to put themselves at risk for the protection of all parties which warrant additional considerations in review.
- hbt 6y ago
  >> People, even police, are not above the law and are not granted special exceptions of hostility, That's literally what qualified immunity provides; in addition to all the special laws they lobby for that undermine the rule of law e.g investigating themselves, reviewing footage of their crime prior to giving testimony etc.
  - austincheney 6y ago
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_immunity https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_immunity Qualified immunity is a shield from civil suits not criminal liability. For example if paramedics are performing life saving functions and the injured party still dies those paramedics shouldn’t be at risk of law suit attempts to save life. The consequence is paramedics would let people die without life saving actions in full knowledge that in most circumstances their actions would prevent death because there is great personal financial liability for performing their jobs in some rare circumstances.
    - hbt 6y ago
      >> Qualified immunity is a shield from civil suits not criminal liability. "generally requires civil rights plaintiffs to show not just a clear legal rule, but a prior case with functionally identical facts." https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/publications/insights-on-law-and-society/volume-21/issue-1/qualified-immunity/ https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/publicat... It's not a crime if there is no precedence; cannot establish precedence because there is no precedent. Sounds like immunity to me; but please, feel free to point me to the high number of court cases of criminal cops held accountable in a court of law. You should also send that to the american bar association; they are clearly wasting their time pursuing criminal justice reform for the complete lack of accountability.
harimau777 6y ago
I took a use of force course from the criminal justice department in college. What they said is that originally (maybe until sometime in the 40s?) it was legal for police to shoot a fleeing suspect if the crime was a felony. That has since changed and it is now only legal to shoot a fleeing suspect if they pose an immediate safety threat. For example, if the suspect was armed and fleeing into a populated area.
- kmonsen 6y ago
  Thanks!
- rufus_foreman 6y ago
  1985: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_v._Garner https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_v._Garner

duxup 6y ago

Well SCOTUS isn't addressing any of that, just ruling that she can sue. Now she gets a case and can try to prove "unreasonable".

JumpCrisscross 6y ago

> Is it OK to shoot fleeing suspects? This is the job of the legislature (EDIT: and elected executive). Not the court. The court decides if it’s legal. Blurring those lines is how you ruin the rule of law.

boomboomsubban 6y ago
If nothing else, the freedom to not get shot is fairly obviously protected under the ninth amendment. It's probably also covered by the "unreasonable" part of "unread seizure." Either way, it is well within the scope of the courts.
- JumpCrisscross 6y ago
  > the freedom to not get shot is fairly obviously protected under the ninth amendment These issues are complicated. If you think something is fairly obvious, you are missing colour. (My feelings are different for a legislator.) My freedom to not get shot interferes with your freedom to be protected by police. Until recently, criminals were hanged by county legal functions. That line has shifted. Policing in America is too violent, but it is not apparent that it is illegally violent.
  - XorNot 6y ago
    The problem there is that it's already been ruled the police do not have to protect you. So I don't know how you square that with the idea that someone has a freedom to be protected by police, who in turn are free to elect not to do that.
  - michaelmrose 6y ago
    Our cops are with disturbing regularity murdering our citizens and robbing them on the highway. The majority of civil asset forfeitures are small potatoes stolen by cops without a charge leveled. We halfway between Western Europe and a corrupt former soviet republic.
    - JumpCrisscross 6y ago
      This is a great polemic, but irrelevant to the law. I believe we need laws prohibiting what’s going on. I don’t think we turn the courts into unelected legislators to do that.
      - caslon 6y ago
        Courts are already unelected legislators; the least they could do is enforce the Constitution.
      - DubiousPusher 6y ago
        And what does that mean? For 170 odd years the constitution has guaranteed people representation in court. But until Gideon v. Wainwright in 1963, if you were broke, your chances of getting any kind of representation varies greatly from one state or county to the next. Finally, a fairly activist court decided to interpret that right as a specific literal individual civil right. And one of the most well known aspects of our court system is born. One which we tout every time we question the ethical qualifies of other countries. But why did it take so long. Why, when the court was less activist could this not be read literally and universally as we so clearly think it reads today. If it's just about," interpreting the constitution" and if there was some better time when judges knew their place, why couldn't they see it? You can say the same about aspects of the first amendment, the second, the fourth and many others. Practically everything we say is great about the American legal system and our civil liberties owes to a judge acting a bit like an activist primarily between the years of 1930 and 1970.
- danjaco 6y ago
  The real kicker here is "unreasonable." Cops shooting a fleeing suspect assuming that person is "dangerous" will be found reasonable. Cops shooting someone who talks back at them is already resisting arrest.
michaelmrose 6y ago
The legislative branch has produced first and foremost the constitution. It is just and lawful. Even dissenting justices find this lawful thus it is remarkable that you should disagree. The court should consider the constitution, state law, and the body of relevant cases
- JumpCrisscross 6y ago
  > legislative branch has produced first and foremost the constitution This is prima facie wrong. The legislature is co-equal with the executive and judiciary. “We the people” are the technical authors of the Constitution.
  - TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
    When was the last time "We the people" changed the Constitution in a technical way that left no room for interpretation by SCOTUS?
fitblipper 6y ago
Sadly the division responsibility of the government branches do not match what you are taught in 6th grade government class. The overwhelmingly VAST majority of laws are passed by the executive branch. The common law system uses judicial precedence to determine how to rule in cases which can also be considered establishing law. The legislative branch has the purse strings and motivation to not take a hard stance for or against any piece of legislation.
- JumpCrisscross 6y ago
  > VAST majority of laws are passed by the executive branch Through delegated lawmaking. When agencies overstep those boundaries, the courts have been more than happy to strike them down. And to be fair, my statement should have included the executive. It should not include the judiciary, who have a more limited--albeit equally powerful--role in our government.
  - zamfi 6y ago
    Historically in the US, the judiciary has interpreted laws, and those interpretations are codified as case law and create precedents that bind future court actions in many, if not most, cases. We could argue about scope, but we can’t really argue about whether the power exists. And that’s to say nothing of SCOTUS, which gets to interpret complex notions like “freedom”, “liberty”, “search”, “privacy” and so forth as used in the constitution, laws passed by congress, etc.
    - JumpCrisscross 6y ago
      Correct, common law courts make law. That doesn't mean they decide if a thing is right or just or moral or okay. Coloring within the lines versus drawing new ones. The boundary is blurry. But blurry doesn't mean nonexistent.

honksillet 6y ago

There are several (many?) cases where given a certain set of circumstances officers are allowed to shot an unarmed fleeing individual. One that immediately jumps to mind is an inmate attempting escape from prison. Even in blue states correctional officers have legal authority to shoot prisoners attempting escape. (PS I’m not a police officer or a CO.) these are laws on the books. They can be changed (if you think they should be).

kmonsen 6y ago
Thanks, I was mostly just wondering what the law is and what could have happened here. I don’t think police, or correctional officer, should ever shot at someone running away. Perhaps I’m naïve.
tremon 6y ago
In my mind, an escaping convict is not the same as a "fleeing suspect" though (the term the GP used). A convict has already had its day in court, so the presumption of innocence doesn't apply.
- williamtwild 6y ago
  Not everyone in jail have had thier day in court. I dont know if there are different rules for different types of incarceration facilities.
  - packetlost 6y ago
    Jail and prison are often used interchangeably by general society, but they actually refer to different things. Jail is generally temporary place of confinement for those awaiting trial or for minor crimes with short sentences. Prison, on the other hand, is a more "permanent" incarceration facility where inmates have been tried and convicted of crimes. Source: https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/jail-vs-prison-difference https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/jail-vs-prison...
    - 6y ago

grecy 6y ago

A friend was an LAPD detective for 30 years. He was involved in two fatal shootings, and we talk a lot about his days on the beat. He said, without exception, the only time he can draw and use his firearm is if "he had immediate fear for his own life (or the life of another)" - he said they're trained to say those exact words when questioned about why they used lethal force. Shooting someone because they're running away, or swearing, or not cooperating is VERY strictly not allowed. Whenever I hear of a person shot running away, or a person with their hands in the air I suspect there will be very big problems.

sdenton4 6y ago
It would go a loooooong way if the cops in this country would stop reflexively circling the wagons and actually make it abundantly clear that this kind of thing is unacceptable. Without firings and prosecutions for this kind of thing, the 'bad apples' see that it is in fact acceptable: They just need to say the magic words, that they feared for their lives, just like they were trained to.
sneak 6y ago
> A friend was an LAPD detective for 30 years. He was involved in two fatal shootings, and we talk a lot about his days on the beat. If he shot and killed two people, you should say he shot and killed two people. This weird circular speech around cops killing people ("officer-involved shooting") is one of the reasons it continues to be so common. So long as they have a magic phrase for evading responsibility, we'll remain in the situation of having to deal with killer cops.
curryst 6y ago
That will almost certainly vary from state to state. Texas allows it's citizens to use lethal force in a number of non-life-threatening scenarios. One of which is to protect your own property. You can shoot someone in the back provided they were stealing from you. There was a case in the early 2010s where a guy paid a prostitute, she refused to render services and to give his money back, and he shot her to get his money back. It was ruled a lawful shooting. https://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/jilted-john-acquitted-texas-prostitute-death-article-1.1365975 https://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/jilted-john-acquitted... I would be extremely surprised if the police were restricted to using less force than your average joe.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

austincheney 6y ago

> Is it OK to shoot fleeing suspects? That question lacks validating context. According to activity in Atlanta last year the answer is generally no even if the suspect remains armed and in prior moments was in a physical altercation with police. However, if the suspect remains an imminent threat to anyone, such that they continue to point their weapon at people as they are fleeing then I would say they remain an active imminent threat and thus can be shot by law enforcement. That is an extraordinarily narrow and unlikely scenario though. Either way it is a rush judgment call in the field and all shootings between people demand investigation. People, even police, are not above the law and are not granted special exceptions of hostility, but they are obligated to put themselves at risk for the protection of all parties which warrant additional considerations in review.

hbt 6y ago
>> People, even police, are not above the law and are not granted special exceptions of hostility, That's literally what qualified immunity provides; in addition to all the special laws they lobby for that undermine the rule of law e.g investigating themselves, reviewing footage of their crime prior to giving testimony etc.
- austincheney 6y ago
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_immunity https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_immunity Qualified immunity is a shield from civil suits not criminal liability. For example if paramedics are performing life saving functions and the injured party still dies those paramedics shouldn’t be at risk of law suit attempts to save life. The consequence is paramedics would let people die without life saving actions in full knowledge that in most circumstances their actions would prevent death because there is great personal financial liability for performing their jobs in some rare circumstances.
  - hbt 6y ago
    >> Qualified immunity is a shield from civil suits not criminal liability. "generally requires civil rights plaintiffs to show not just a clear legal rule, but a prior case with functionally identical facts." https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/publications/insights-on-law-and-society/volume-21/issue-1/qualified-immunity/ https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/publicat... It's not a crime if there is no precedence; cannot establish precedence because there is no precedent. Sounds like immunity to me; but please, feel free to point me to the high number of court cases of criminal cops held accountable in a court of law. You should also send that to the american bar association; they are clearly wasting their time pursuing criminal justice reform for the complete lack of accountability.

harimau777 6y ago

I took a use of force course from the criminal justice department in college. What they said is that originally (maybe until sometime in the 40s?) it was legal for police to shoot a fleeing suspect if the crime was a felony. That has since changed and it is now only legal to shoot a fleeing suspect if they pose an immediate safety threat. For example, if the suspect was armed and fleeing into a populated area.

kmonsen 6y ago
Thanks!
rufus_foreman 6y ago
1985: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_v._Garner https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_v._Garner