If the person in question had a violent history. Or was going for a vehicle, which could contain a weapon or be used as a weapon. Or if their path of travel would take them indoors or near the general populace.
Depending on the state, a violent felon just fleeing is enough of a threat to the general public to justify shooting them, as well.
just for further information regarding this
a civilian generally has a "duty to retreat" when engaged in a hostile situation. Deadly force is only authorized in a couple situations, depending on the state those generally include, having no where to retreat, retreating being blocked for some reason, someone else's life being at risk such that them retreating would allow said other person to be potentially killed, etc
some states have laws like "you are not expected to retreat out of your own home" or laws like "your car is an extension of your home, you do not have to retreat from it" allowing for defense rather than retreat in such situations as well.
further, if the person that was causing the threat to your body and life retreats or otherwise ceases to become a threat to your body and life or the body and life of others there is basically no situation deadly force is allowed. Shooting someone in the back is basically a slam dunk case for any prosecutor to turn a murder charge.
this doesnt, however, apply to officers of the law. the conduct of officers is, as with the above, variable by state and county and city and such however, you'll basically never find a situation in which an officer is required to retreat like the above for civilians, and generally officers have the allowance for deadly force to be applies in a situation where, even when appearing to be in a state of retreating, a violent suspect that has showcased a threat to lives is not submitting to arrest.
The logic being that, they could easily end up in a "house siege" situation where the threat enters a home or office or whatever inhabited location and causes risk to body and life of the people inside, taking them as hostages, harming them in an attempt to get away or secure a means of violence, etc. Famousone mentioned the situation in which them running for a vehicle could be housing a weapon, the vehicle itself is also an extremely deadly weapon, even just a car chase could kill a bystander.
Even "duty to retreat" isn't a general thing. In a lot of states and a hell of a lot of counties nobody has any kind of legal obligation to leave anyplace they're allowed to be. In the eyes of sensible people, there's not even a moral case for running away or cooperating under duress or threat of unlawful force.
The way I personally see it, whether you retreat, cooperate, or use force is entirely dependent on the tactical situation. It's always better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.
But yes, even in such immoral places where someone is required to retreat or cooperate, law enforcement has duties and responsibilities not to. Again, dependent on tactical situation.
what pisses me off is typically officers put their taser in a cross-draw holster to AVOID this. so unless she didn’t follow this common-sense practice she deliberately drew her pistol. and should own up to it, because it might have been justifiable.
true enough. it isn’t fair to monday-morning QB, and considering many departments’ tendencies to enforce training on lethal use of force and not as much on non-lethal, her training could have just defaulted. but it’s upsetting nonetheless, and some might say it was deliberate. it admittedly was my first thought and any lawyer would run with it.
Any good defense lawyers would be able to paint a picture of a world where police training defaulted to non-lethal in the face of life-threats: A lot of dead cops.
Just speaking from military training, I have messed up grabbing my knife of sidearm just in training. And after a quiet 25 year career, I'm very much willing for this to shake out in court.
Granted, that is, Maxine doesn't decide to sully yet another trial by inciting riots and threatening the jurors and their city. Again.
Still, I can only really feel bad for her.
Depending on the state, a violent felon just fleeing is enough of a threat to the general public to justify shooting them, as well.
a civilian generally has a "duty to retreat" when engaged in a hostile situation. Deadly force is only authorized in a couple situations, depending on the state those generally include, having no where to retreat, retreating being blocked for some reason, someone else's life being at risk such that them retreating would allow said other person to be potentially killed, etc
some states have laws like "you are not expected to retreat out of your own home" or laws like "your car is an extension of your home, you do not have to retreat from it" allowing for defense rather than retreat in such situations as well.
further, if the person that was causing the threat to your body and life retreats or otherwise ceases to become a threat to your body and life or the body and life of others there is basically no situation deadly force is allowed. Shooting someone in the back is basically a slam dunk case for any prosecutor to turn a murder charge.
The logic being that, they could easily end up in a "house siege" situation where the threat enters a home or office or whatever inhabited location and causes risk to body and life of the people inside, taking them as hostages, harming them in an attempt to get away or secure a means of violence, etc. Famousone mentioned the situation in which them running for a vehicle could be housing a weapon, the vehicle itself is also an extremely deadly weapon, even just a car chase could kill a bystander.
The way I personally see it, whether you retreat, cooperate, or use force is entirely dependent on the tactical situation. It's always better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.
Just speaking from military training, I have messed up grabbing my knife of sidearm just in training. And after a quiet 25 year career, I'm very much willing for this to shake out in court.
Granted, that is, Maxine doesn't decide to sully yet another trial by inciting riots and threatening the jurors and their city. Again.