When *can* cops legally use deadly force?


kerb

pinche gringo
I've always just kind of assumed that the rules would be the same as for someone with a concealed carry permit. e.g. the cop would need to perceive a lethal threat.

Is that the case though? Can a cop shoot you for not following instructions (whether intentionally or because of disability?) Or for the simple act of running away?
 

He can NOT shoot you for not following his instructions. Deadly force can only be used as a last resort to prevent the suspect/perp from causing serious bodily harm or death to the officer or persons/civilians around the area.
If you have a disability calmly explain your limitations. If you start acting like an ass, ranting and raving about your rights, expect to be treated accordingly. Failure to follow police instruction, resisting arrest, tripping and falling and hurting yourself.
A little bit of respect goes a long way, and not making the officer feel threatened, or feel that you're a threat will make it easier on both of you.
 
He can NOT shoot you for not following his instructions. Deadly force can only be used as a last resort to prevent the suspect/perp from causing serious bodily harm or death to the officer or persons/civilians around the area.
If you have a disability calmly explain your limitations. If you start acting like an ass, ranting and raving about your rights, expect to be treated accordingly. Failure to follow police instruction, resisting arrest, tripping and falling and hurting yourself.
A little bit of respect goes a long way, and not making the officer feel threatened, or feel that you're a threat will make it easier on both of you.

That's a relief. Some of the stuff I've seen recently was starting to make me wonder. Dash cam video, helmet video, etc.

I could be interpreting your response incorrectly, but you appear to have a case of attitudiosis. Did my original post offend you in some way? Perhaps it wasn't intended but reading your response I get the distinct impression that I'm being talked down to. It's been my experience that respect is a two way street.
 
In most general terms, theoretically, WE shoot to defend ourselves or immediate family/associates. The cop may shoot to defend society: he shoots the fleeing felon if he believes that person is likely to harm society. You and I cannot shoot the perp we come upon who has just raped and murdered our child, if he is fleeing. He is not a threat. The fact he'll do it again does not make us equal to the cops.

I'd say that in many cases, respect was a two way street. But those old line Peace Officers have mostly retired. I miss them. Today, many "serve to Intimidate and Subjugate," and acting as if you believe you are equals is enough to cause a severe escalation of force.

Laws and theory aside, my observations of late suggest that any police shooting is a "good shoot" if the officer involved says the magic words "I was in fear for my life." The exception to this is politics, racial or otherwise. Recently, in Seattle, we had a cop kill a well known local Native American street person woodcarver. From accounts by the few witnesses not yet intimidated or silenced, it appears the shootee was unaware of the shooter before the fatal bullets hit him from the side, being more than half deaf, usually somewhat beered up and often wearing headphones. The cop yelled at him to drop his small woodcarving knife, then opened fire and killed him, as the carver was moving at right angles to the cop's approach. No threatening actions ever took place. But the ONLY reason this one is not a "good" shoot and the cop will face an inquest and maybe even trial, is that his victim was Native American and the tribe is making a lot of noise. Politics trumps just about everything. Big city Police Chiefs are polticians, and they WILL throw cops to the wolves to make themselves look good.

But in general, yes, the cops can shoot you if they wish. And if there's video recorded of illegal actions on their part, it will disappear or somehow turn out to be damaged (ask the people at that Las Vegas Costco...).
 
Here is an example of when I learned not to trust the Police. My father was at sea in the Navy, my mother has never drove, I would drive and we would go get groceries from the Commissary, While in a line of stopped traffic a lady backed out of her and her husbands business on the Strip in Charleston SC, She hit my fathers car and left the seen, we got her tag number, and went to the Police Station to file a complaint. There were four of us kids in the car, we told the Police what had happened, before we left the Police Station the Police called the Store owner a said that four kids had reported the incident to them and asked him what he wanted them to do about it. The Police cannot be trusted is the lesson that we learned that day.
 
In Texas there are 5 levels of response. Officer is allowed to use one step higher than the threat presented to him or her. That's the official answer. I will let you figure out the unofficial answer.
 
Also remember that if a cop wants to use less than leathal force, he can do so at anytime by saying the magic words, "Stop resisting." If your arm snaps or your shoulder gets dislocated, the cop will claim that (s)he didn't hear a bone break or a joint pop, and will continue to apply pressure to the injury all while yelling, "Stop resisting."

I watch the police videos on tv quite a bit, and for the most part they seem to act way more patient than I think I could, but on occasion they go from normal to a$$hole too quickly. I would not want their job, I don't think I would have the patience.
 
In most general terms, theoretically, WE shoot to defend ourselves or immediate family/associates. The cop may shoot to defend society: he shoots the fleeing felon if he believes that person is likely to harm society. You and I cannot shoot the perp we come upon who has just raped and murdered our child, if he is fleeing. He is not a threat. The fact he'll do it again does not make us equal to the cops.

Dead on correct BUT I would add that some states allow detention until competent authority arrives.
 
Hey kerb: I just got thru your intial thread question and did not examine other repliers but the answer is right there in your own question. If you or I cannot shoot, the LEO cannot shoot--period/end of story. Oh, he can shoot but just like you and me, there will or should be consequences for discharging his firearm and certainly consequences for actually harming or killing someone w/o clear "imminent danger". If a police dept wants to excuse such behaviour, I pity the poor citizens living there because they will have to put up with this crap and they will be paying more in taxes once the civil case is settled.
 
Actually, the rules are pretty much the same for a police officer and a citizen legally armed.

The difference is that the DA (and most juries) will trust a police officer's judgement of the need for deadly force more than they will a LAC. A police officer is going to be assumed correct unless there is clear proof he/she acted badly. The LAC had better have a witness or clear physical evidence.
 
Also remember that if a cop wants to use less than lethal force, he can do so at anytime by saying the magic words, "Stop resisting." If your arm snaps or your shoulder gets dislocated, the cop will claim that (s)he didn't hear a bone break or a joint pop, and will continue to apply pressure to the injury all while yelling, "Stop resisting."

Kind of like giving a Cardiac Thump to someone in arrest...................:laugh:
 
So you are saying that if Lon Horuchi had been an average person he still would have gotten off shooting an unarmed female holding a baby?

I have noticed that you have a terrible habit of starting with "So you are saying..." and then putting in what you wish the other person had said. I am sure you are not purposely being dishonest, but that practice would make some people wonder.

The cases are apples and oranges...actually more like apples and i-beams. Name me a situation where a non police officer would have received official clearance to take a shot in the first place. And Horuchi's shot was never characterized as one of self-protection.

Considering the rules laid out to Horuchi (which I personally believe were just plain wrong on about 5 different levels...starting with the setting of the siege itself), it becomes a question of judgement. I believe my post (to which you responded but chose to cut that section) stated that "The difference is that the DA (and most juries) will trust a police officer's judgement...".
 
LOL. I thought that I coined that phrase, largest street gang in America. I remember getting a nasty PM right after that here.

Cops can shoot you any time they can get away with it. Who's word will a judge take in a court room? Yours, or a cops? Especially if you're dead?

Link Removed
 
Ruby Ridge..
When I think about what happened there it still pisses me off even years after the fact.
 

New Threads

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
49,543
Messages
611,260
Members
74,964
Latest member
sigsag1
Back
Top