2006-09-08 22:34:37 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law Enforcement & Police
The short and simple answer is that the use of deadly force is authorized in defense of themselves or a third party where an imminent threat of serious injury or death exists, and all other reasonable alternatives fail or are impractical. There is an additional "fleeing felon" standard that applies, but it is pretty narrow as it applies to use of deadly force. My departments standard is that our 1st priority is the preservation of life. We cannot fire if innocent bystanders might be placed at risk if we do, or there is some other alternative. If you are serious about this question, the link below is a really good resource for an explanation of deadly force policy.
http://www.laaw.com/uodfs.htm
2006-09-08 22:57:31 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Its legal because the state claims the monopoly on the legitimate use of violence and the majority of people in the country accept this.
In England each case of police shooting is automatically referred to the Crown Prosecution Service (Like the District Attorney) and the Police Complaints Commision. They have to determine whether the circumstances were legitimate - like a clear danger to life.
However, it is still possible to sue the police through the civil court for unlawful killing - this has happened in the UK on a few occasions. I believe one of these was when a man was shot from behind as he walked down the street holding a plastic bag that contained a table leg. (someone had called the police thinking it was a rifle)
It is possible that the family of the Brazilian shot by police on suspicion of being a terrorist will be the subject of a civil claim by his family against the police and government.
2006-09-08 22:40:26 · answer #2 · answered by Bebe 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
The answer to this question changes with every situation. the basic answer is when an officer feels that his life or the life of an innocent is in eminent danger. for example, if a suspect has a weapon and the officer tells him to drop the weapon. the suspect continues in an irate manner to be aggressive toward the officer, refusing to obey the officers orders. the officer gives repeated orders to the suspect and the orders are ignored. if the officer at that time feels the suspect intends to do harm to the officer or to others, the officer has a right to shoot. however, anytime a shooting occurs it must be investigated and confirmed that the officer was in the right. the officer must be able to articulate why he felt there was no other alternative in handling the situation. my advise, don't disregard an officers orders. we tell you do something, do it. its safer that way
2006-09-08 22:43:37 · answer #3 · answered by fireone 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Depends on where you live. Usually when they are in danger of serious bodily harm or feel that their life is threatened. There are a couple of states which have a law still allowing a felon that is fleeing to be shot after a warning
2006-09-08 22:38:48 · answer #4 · answered by mark g 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It depends on the conditions. To save his life or the life of another person.
2006-09-08 22:42:02 · answer #5 · answered by bsure32 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Listen to Slicktop80 - he obviously speaks from experience, and he stated it perfectly.
2006-09-09 08:26:14 · answer #6 · answered by Curious1usa 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
when someones life is in danger
"life & death situation"
2006-09-08 22:40:18 · answer #7 · answered by oldaaronxxx 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
H3ll no but they do ne ways
2006-09-08 22:42:01 · answer #8 · answered by It Co$t To Be Around The Bo$$ 4 · 0⤊ 3⤋