It varies by the state for the specific language, but they are all the same in idea.
justifiable homicide is the taking of another's life when that individual is about to commit a felony or is in the act of commiting a felony. A defender must take reasonable precaution not to take another's life. For instance, a defender has a gun, an attacker a knife and there is 100 feet between them (run first). A homicide is not justifiable when a felony has been committed at an earlier time and no immediate danger exists (someone breaks an entering, then leaves the property, the homeowner chases him down the street and shoots him). The requirements for defense against the crimes of manslaughter/murder and the civil tort of wrongful death are different because of the hurdle of reasonable doubt for the criminal case.
Keep in mind that police have special protection and a crime against a police officer may be a felony, while the same action against an ordinary citizen may not be (punching, menacing).
Any time that a police officer slays another human being, there is an investigation to determine if the cop acted within the law.
Grand theft auto, and eluding arrest are felonies, which is why police can be seen drawing their weapons while apprehending suspects in the act of these crimes.
The freedom of information act entitles you to obtain a copy of your specific jurisdiction's rules.
2006-06-07 03:14:11
·
answer #1
·
answered by Discipulo legis, quis cogitat? 6
·
1⤊
1⤋
There are several landmark court cases that restrict use of deadly force by law enforcement. Each law enforcement entity has written rules pertaining to the use of deadly force, but most will have as a minimum that deadly force will only be used to prevent an escape from jail or prison, if immediate threat to life is present or threat of serious bodily harm. A police office is supposed to use only that force that is absolutely necessary to effect an arrest or prevent a crime. Deadly force is always the choice of last resort.
2006-06-16 02:54:41
·
answer #2
·
answered by Modest intellect 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Article 35 describes the use of force continuum for police in New York. It is pretty close to other use of force continuums in the Country but not exactly the same.
Basically the police are expected to remain safe by staying one level higher than the danger.
Lowest to Highest the chart is more or less as follow...
1 - police presence - display of force option - body language / demeanor / Identification of authority
2. - verbal communication - direct orders / questioning / persuasion
3. - physical contact - escort - directional contact
4. - physical control - joint takedown, pressure points, electronic stun device, pepper spray
5. - serious physical control - impact weapons, focused blows,
6. - deadly - any force readily capable of cuasing death or serious physical injury
It is up to the officer to take many other things into consideration when using the continuum. If a 7 year old has a knife would an officer be justified in shooting him? probably not... If a 6 foot man has a knife would he be shot? probably... that's why officers train because every situation is different and they need to know what can be done and when....
2006-06-07 10:28:18
·
answer #3
·
answered by okchico 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
It needs to be the same as it is emplyed in the miltary - lets face it - our police force has the option to use deady force against its own people - more lliberaly tham we employ in a combat zone in the military. Thats Right?and that goes across all levels of force applied and ideed so it is. And if that my friends doesnt convince you of an evil precense let me add this - we in the military carryoung out dangerous operations remotely in foriegn land even sometimes within site of the enemy, would make apoint well known that we did not even "load" our guns - unless we were convinced our lives were in danger and in no case did we consider even remotely the use of deadly force for any other circumstance this against organized heavily armed forces e=opposing us. How in the world do we accept anything more than that of deadly force agsinst our own sons and daughters. What the hell is going on here.
2006-06-20 08:10:39
·
answer #4
·
answered by sandwavessunwater 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
in the job of being a police deadly force is the last line of force to be used.......a police can not use deadly force on a fleeing felon....unless he is known to have committed a serious crime agianst another person, ....If the person committing the crime is trying to do bodily harm to the police or others..deadly force can be used.....If the person is committing a crime and people are in fear of their life..then deadly force can be used...
Deadly force is the last step that a police wants to take.......it must always be justifiable!
2006-06-14 14:30:49
·
answer #5
·
answered by destine4_69 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Deadly force is the force a person uses to cause death or serious bodily harm
Deadly force is justified only under conditions of extreme necessity, and only as a last resort, when all lesser means have failed, or cannot reasonably be employed
2006-06-20 11:56:10
·
answer #6
·
answered by Darthritus 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
In NYC, deadly force can be used to save the life of a person in imminent danger of being killed; prevent a rape, protect property that might be destroyed by terrorists;ie: subway station, kidnappings and saving theirs and the live sof fellow officers.
2006-06-17 21:18:59
·
answer #7
·
answered by bulldog 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Step 1: yell at subject
Step 2: spray with mace
Step 3: beat until senseless
Step 4: repeat as desired
Step 5: sprinkle crack
2006-06-21 01:45:54
·
answer #8
·
answered by Steve W 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
a police officer told me they are allowed to use deadly force when all other alternatives-such as non-lethal force, fails
2006-06-19 18:36:24
·
answer #9
·
answered by Calvin L 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
it's whatever good at that time.....police hide behind there badge.......that's the question what is deadly force?
2006-06-20 14:10:04
·
answer #10
·
answered by fartman 6
·
0⤊
0⤋