Clarification: the rule on shooting fleeing felons
Commenter “cantinflas” asks a question:
I’m not going to defend this cop shooting 8(?) times at a guy’s back, but what is the precedent you’re trying to set here, Neo?
Are you claiming that if you’re not an “extremely dangerous felon” and the police are trying to detain you, if you get away from the cop, are unarmed, and have your back turned to the cop, you have the right to get away scot free? Basically, you’re saying if you can Run Away from a cop, you can get away with any crime because any effort to stop your pursuit using a weapon is unlawful and wrong.
Actually, what I’m saying is that this is obviously too much firepower considering the offense and the situation. Period. The confrontation they had had wasn’t violent (as it was described, anyway), his offense wasn’t at all serious, he was fleeing, and the guy shot 8 times, hitting him 5.
But I’m not applying my opinion; I’m talking about the law. In this case, I happen to agree with the law, as well. Here are the rules:
The Supreme Court held in a 1989 case, Graham v. Connor, that the appropriateness of use of force by officers “must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene,” rather than evaluated through 20/20 hindsight.
That standard is designed to take into account that police officers are frequently asked to make split-second decisions during fast-evolving confrontations, and should not be subject to overly harsh second guessing…
A seminal 1985 Supreme Court case, Tennessee vs. Garner, held that the police may not shoot at a fleeing person unless the officer reasonably believes that the individual poses a significant physical danger to the officer or others in the community. That means officers are expected to take other, less-deadly action during a foot or car pursuit unless the person being chased is seen as an immediate safety risk.
In other words, a police officer who fires at a fleeing man who a moment earlier murdered a convenience store clerk may have reasonable grounds to argue that the shooting was justified. But if that same robber never fired his own weapon, the officer would likely have a much harder argument.
“You don’t shoot fleeing felons. You apprehend them unless there are exigent circumstances ”” emergencies ”” that require urgent police action to safeguard the community as a whole,” said Greg Gilbertson, a police practices expert and criminal justice professor at Centralia College in Washington state.
That’s the reason the condemnation of Slager was strong from all quarters, including the police.
Police always have to make split-second judgment calls, and that can be extremely difficult. It’s part of the job, however. They should not be hampered from doing their job, but neither are they given carte blanche to be trigger-happy.
You can tell people to never fight or struggle with an officer, and not to defy him or mouth off. Wait till you get a lawyer and have the lawyer defy him and mouth off, if necessary. That’s common sense and good advice. But a lot of people, especially those who are in any sort of trouble with the law (including relatively minor trouble, such as Scott’s) are going to try to flee. You don’t want cops killing them all. There are ways to determine when it is okay to shoot and when it is not okay to shoot, and unless there are some huge surprise revelations in this case, it clearly should have been a “not okay to shoot” case.
Slager showed awareness of this when he—as has been reported—appears to drop something near Scott’s body in the video, after the shooting. If he was planting evidence (the taser?), it indicates awareness of guilt and an attempt at a coverup.
Let’s see. The cop in question had:
1) his car
2) his wallet
2a) his money, credit cards
2b) his drivers license
The later quite conveniently giving the cop his home address. Also, there’s this magical thing that is accessible to most police in the field even in N. Charleston: radio. No one, not even Steve McQueen in a muscle car is faster than a radio call.
At worst, he could have used his cell phone. I know, new fangled technology all over the place.
When you catch up to him later, charge him with resisting arrest with violence and possibly battery on a police officer. No getting away scott free.
Also, I’m of the opinion that a 33 year old officer should be a bit faster than a 50 something year old man. He could have chased him on foot.
I have tried to find Bio on slager & come up pretty empty, just that he went to high school in
NJ, so it appears he is not a southern good ole boy & like his victim Scott he served in the Coast Guard, Also has had a career waiting tables before getting on this police force.
Dosen t have a long career in police work, seems he just joined up in 2009.
This seems like such a flagrant take down, why didn t Slager run after Scott & tackle him?
Death penalty for running from a cop ???
Shocking disrespect for life & (if it is borne out) that he planted evidence to support his narrative
very jaded, derelict police behavior in an officer
still relatively *new* to the career. What could we have expected from in a few more years down the line ??? We ve probably saved several lives taking him out now !
Heroin dealers in New Orleans used ten year olds as delivery vehicles for their foil-wrapped bindles of smack. Not only were the BG’s (Baby Gangsters) immune to serious prosecution but imagine a cop who wasn’t on the Olympic track team trying to catch one. Like catching a cottontail on a miniature-golf course.
When possession with intent to distribute is a Life-Without-Parole rap, as heroin was in Louisiana during the time I’m familiar with, giving thousand-dollar tips to productive fourth-graders is a cheap way of doing business.
Not advocating gunning down The Little Rascals. Just trying to keep the discussion aligned with what really comes up.
In order to balance the numbers we lowered the standards for police and changed the idea that the people come first… before this change, police were willing to risk themselves as part of their job, its a manly thing. but after this change, that was considered sexist, and if they did that, the women would look bad. so the police became more military and more punative with the focus on police safety over public safety, and lowered standards to get people in to avoid the political issues. there have been several studies, one i linked to a while back that showed the more women on the force, the more civilian shootings… because the more women, the more its the public that has to pay not the woman police officer.. its a point of training which ALL go through now..
you see, the idea was to even out the playing field. male officers could or used to fight such a suspect and put him on the ground. but females cant do that, so the switch was to using threat of gun, or tasers, and or pepper spray… but the truth is, men are made not to be so easily pushed aside by non physical means.
it also came with more training to be more mean and escalatory. that is, diffusion through escalation… you can see this on cop shows where the police officer starts making threats to change a minor situation into a major felony…
when people are used to physical confrontations, being physical does not bother them as much and they dont get as angry and they dont build up rage. but when the system puts all these other methods in place and your trained not to use your physical advantage, then what?
what do you do when they are running away and you have nothing but these tools and threats and are not used to using your physical advantage? well, you dont run after the person like in 1970s cop shows, you stand your location and reach into your bat belt and pull out the tool that works… first the taser… if that dont work then the gun… if that dont work, then what?
think of what the alternative is. X commits crime, officer confronts.. the whole thing does not go the way academics designed it to work, and the man runs away.
there are three choices
1) shoot him to stop him, and then cuff and make a report
2) run after him and tackle him and get reprimanded or in trouble
3) let him run away as you watch
they cant use their male advantage
they cant let them run away without action
they shouldnt shoot them
the thing is that such a thing creates a very very large anger and resentment situation. this was more than a crime, this was a situation in which this criminal and their lack of compliance put the officer in a stressful situation in which the officer had no good way to handle it!!!!!!!! and this anger focuses on the person or persions whose lack of cooperation and so forth endangers his career, his marraige, his kids education in years coming, and so on
is it any wonder that they had to lower standards for women to get them on the force, and then once the standards were lower and their hands tied, substandard males showed up while the able ones did not want to be in a no win situation.
so all in all, we have substandard police, some of them immigrants who bring with them the illegal nature of police in other countries (something americans have little truck with and understanding), and it has to do with lower standards and protecting the image of the people who the standards were lowered for.
Agree as to the law and, in this case, the illegality of using deadly force.
However, any focus upon ‘8 shots fired’ is mistaken ignorance. We often hear complaints as to the number of shots fired, hindsight offered as to some vague lesser number being appropriate.
That the cop should never have fired in the first place is a separate issue. That the cop apparently planted ‘evidence’ is a separate issue. That the cop lied in his reportage of the incident is a separate issue.
A ‘justified’ shooting presumes at least highly probable danger either to the officer or the public and, lives may well depend upon making certain that the wrongdoer is incapable of a further threat.
So, once you start to pull the trigger, you don’t stop until the threat is neutralized.
The cop did stop firing as soon as Scott fell to the ground. Slager did not fire too many times. He fired until the suspect was incapable of further flight.
That is indeed irrelevant to this case, since the shooting was unjustified but is relevant to many of the incessant complaints about cops firing ‘too many’ times.
Finally after all these months, the left has finally found a genuine unjustified police shooting. The problem is that there are already laws covering excessive force like this case, so there is no need for protests or marches, all anyone needs to do is to let the courts work this out. Ironically the left will probably protest less about this legitimate case that about the fabricated cases because this policeman will be charged and probably will be found guilty while the previous policemen were not charged. That’s really why the left is up in arms, because policemen who use justified deadly force are getting away with it.
GB is correct about playing up the number of shots fired. Its not that easy to hit a moving target with a rifle from a stable firing position. A handgun whlie the target is moving and the shooter is moving… it was pure luck that 5 out of 8 actually connected.
However, based on the swift reaction of the cop’s superiors, he certainly looks guilty of at least manslaughter. This reminds me of the Staten Island case; death due to petty infractions. Dying over minor tax issues and child support are tragedies.
Artfldgr:
Police still chase and tackle suspects. I assume it happens less often when the officer is a female, but male officers certainly do it. Female officers are trained to do it, though (see this). I have no idea how often they actually do it.
Even the use of tasers can get police in trouble (male or female), since they can kill in rare instances. There is no absolutely safe way to take down a suspect, but police are required to use what seems appropriate under the circumstances—and chasing and tackling is often appropriate, and is used. It’s not just in old movies. See this. Of course, in that video, there’s more than one cop giving chase. It certainly helps to have assistance. Slager appears to have been alone, but called for backup afterward.
parker:
You are correct that this resembles the Staten Island case in that the violation was petty. But there’s a huge difference–the SI cops weren’t shooting at anyone. They were using a technique to take him down that ordinarily doesn’t kill or even hurt, and he was hurt in part because of specific pre-existing health problems he had. There is some dispute about whether he was technically in a forbidden chokehold (answer: probably), but I don’t think there’s any question their aim was to subdue him and not hurt him. Even chokeholds don’t usually cause such damage. But in this case, Slager was shooting in a way that had a high probability of grave injury or death, and that’s exactly what happened.
Geoffrey Britain:
How many shots were fired isn’t especially relevant in this case (or with Wilson), but eight shots were indeed fired, and five did indeed hit him.
To elaborate on a comment in a prior thread:
Laws vary from place to place, but here in Pennsylvania if I caught someone breaking into my house and shot him, I would be within my rights, and there’s a good chance that no charges would be filed against me.
If, on the other hand, he turned and fled when he saw me and I shot him in the back as he was running down the driveway, that would be a different story. I might well be looking at a manslaughter charge, at least.
Shooting him eight times in the back? I’m pretty sure I would go to prison for that. That’s hard to spin as self-defense. Not to mention the risk of stray bullets hitting nearby houses and their occupants.
All of which goes to show that owning and using a firearm is a serious responsibility, and there is little room for error due to poor judgement or a momentary adrenaline rush.
When people die over minor ‘crimes’ the circumstances are of minor importance.
I was a road deputy for 14 years. I was not there, and only have the evidence as provided by the Media. At this time, I have no opinion on the matter, as I don’t have enough data to form a valid one. We shall see what the investigation uncovers.
Cop Threatens To Put Biker In Jail For [rightfully] Calling His Partner a F##### idiot.
The cop: “All I want you to do is apologize for what you called my brother, the guy I go into battle with every day”
There you have it….
Here.
Mismatch, Firefighters should be cops and vice versa.
Eight shots… isn’t that the entire magazine for some semi-automatic pistols?
Yiikes!
1. The cop was rotten and poorly trained. He should go to jail for what he did.
2. Cops are “government”. The more power and freedom to execute they are given or take, the more oppressive they will be. We either rein them in or we will live in a Police State.
3. The guy would be alive if he didn’t run. There’s a rule every sane and decent person knows: You don’t run from the cops. It NEVER ends well.
4. This will be politicized so that more people will run from more cops, and more bad things will happen either them getting harmed or criminals getting away.
These discussions about the legality of particular killings by police are valuable and interesting, but somewhat misleading.
More significant and hardly discussed is the fundamental transformation of the relationship between citizens and police (and other law enforcement officers).
I realize this is OT and apologize.
TY Artful for positing some ideas on the transformation.
We have become a more retributive society. The answer is always harsher treatment and harsher punishment. More and more people have become comfortable casting the first stone. (This, btw, has very much to do with the decades long ongoing leftist propaganda project “Millions of American Goldsteins”).
This harsh retributive spirit is reflected in law enforcement, the law enforcement which affects by far the most people.
Safety and public order have long since been surpassed as an actual, animating justification for a lot of law enforcement.
Forget about your lawyer having much of a say in court, let alone mouthing off. It is hopelessly naive to think the harsh, disrespectful and often perjurious behavior of the police will be addressed. That is just asking for more gruel.
The harsh disrespectful treatment by police – – the judge and jury mentality – – is all part of the retributive spirit. The punishment begins immediately. Oh, and it feels so good, like a jihadi with allah’s blessing.
This psychology needs to be examined, with police killings and throughout police culture.
The law also needs to be re-examined very seriously with respect to justification and the “fast-moving” license to kill which every police officer understands means, he just can’t be caught on tape.
The “fast-moving” rationale plays a part in officers regarding and treating citizens as assholes.
New legal approaches are needed to examine constitutional violations (by separate, unelected courts?) and to monitor police behavior.
But as long as we as a society are comfortable with casting the first stone, we can expect more legally lawless behavior by police leading to a more law of the jungle lawlessness.
But as long as we as a society are comfortable with casting the first stone, we can expect more legally lawless behavior by police leading to a more law of the jungle lawlessness…
Policing can exist when overall lawless behavior is within a certain range … after that it becomes kick ass to keep “them” in line, military police style.
Speaking of which ….
}}} his offense wasn’t at all serious
And how do you know this, Neo? More critically, how does the officer on the scene know it?
The officer had EVERY reason to believe the suspect was guilty of AT LEAST the (presumed) Felony of Grand Theft Auto. As another commenter on another site noted, “suppose the trunk held the bodies of a couple of dead children?”
The suspect was also guilty of assault and battery of a police officer. Probably ALSO a felony in SC.
So we have a felon fleeing despite showing a willingness to commit violence on a COP in order to escape.
And if he hadn’t fled? He’d probably be alive right now and either sitting in jail or maybe even out on bail.
The guy was guilty of felony stupidity, if nothing else.
I’m not letting the cop off — I’m saying, let the courts do their jobs after the pull together all the facts.
And I say this as someone who HAS experienced *actual* police brutality. Not severe brutality, but certainly an excessive use of force in comparison to my actions.
IGotBupkus:
There was a possibility of theft of the auto, but not a strong suspicion, and no reason at that point to believe he was guilty of it, nor is auto theft a serious enough offense to warrant shooting of the suspect. Scott told him he was in the process of purchasing the car, which is reasonable. What’s more, Slager already knew Scott’s identity because he had his driver’s license, and he would have had the license plate of the car as well. As for the imagined corpses in the trunk—since Scott left the car and ran away, and there was absolutely NO reason to think there were corpses in the trunk, that’s absurd. If there were corpses in the trunk, he would have driven away with them. In addition, there was a passenger in Scott’s car.
Also, it wasn’t assault and battery of any seriousness. If you watched the video, it’s a question of Scott trying to get something out of Slager’s hands, a slight struggle that doesn’t involve any violence. That’s all I saw, anyway, and that’s the way it’s been described in the descriptions I’ve read. He’s not doing anything violent to Slager, nor is he tasering him; and then he runs away.
This is what the witness who shot the video said:
It is almost the opposite fact situation from Ferguson.
From other police and experts on the law:
The law does not justify shooting someone running away under these circumstances.
I’m not a lawyer; so someone who knows more please weigh in.
But, isn’t “murder” a bit much? Wouldn’t “manslaughter” be more appropriate?
My (very limited) understanding is that murder usually involved some sort of “premeditation” whereas manslaughter would more of a spur of the moment thing.
In other words this cop didn’t plan ahead to kill him when he made the traffic stop. Things just got out of hand (was it an adrenaline rush? poor training? etc.)
I’m not trying to defend what the cop (or the victim did); it is just that all the talking heads on TV seem to focus on nothing but race and leave out other relevant facts. So, we rarely get to learn the truth.
charles:
“Predmeditation” can be formed in the couple of seconds it takes to pull a trigger. It’s a tricky concept; see this.
Wouldn’t “manslaughter” be more appropriate?
That’s why you don’t plant evidence and engage in corruption to cover it up. Because it shows intent, even though Nixon may not have ordered the break in, that’s what people think he did. They could not get him on previous intent, whether he intended it or not. The FBI and journalists working for the Leftist alliance, could get him on something else, after the fact.
The officer had EVERY reason to believe the suspect was guilty of AT LEAST the (presumed) Felony of Grand Theft Auto.
What would an incompetent power mad fool know about things outside what his Union tells him?
The idea that the ossifer is competent, makes you wrong on Step 1. Everything else after that, is meaningless.
Walter Scott Shooting: Enhanced Video Shows Officer Slager With Taser Darts…