If they feel their life is in danger?
2006-12-11 06:37:38 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law Enforcement & Police
Yes... How do you know this? Your source? Yes doesn't say anything but you want two points.
2006-12-11 06:44:01 · update #1
Samething for no.
2006-12-11 06:44:18 · update #2
If they feed their own life or fellow officer's life is in imminent danger, they are allowed to shoot first "in defense". Danger here includes by any sort of weapon, including an automobile (such as about to be ran over) or a gun (having a gun pointed at you or your partner).
Another possibility is when they feel the suspect is about to harm a bystander or a hostage. They don't need to ID themselves in that case either. The job is saving lives. It must be "imminent danger" though.
They better be able to justify the shoot later, or the review board will tear them apart.
2006-12-11 07:17:30 · answer #1 · answered by Kasey C 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Lets put it this way. If the time allows and you have the oppurtunity to shout "Police Officer" and dispaly credentials. However if someone tries to run you over with a car then I guess you shoot first in self defense.
Most officers are not faced with a situation that happens as lickety-split as that. Mosy UC's are on narcotic details and either go in on raids wearing raid jackets or if they have to affect an arrest pull badges and ID cards on chains from beneath their body armor. Now some PD's may have different rules for UC operations but in every policy the safety of the officer, the public and believe it or not...the moron who you're trying to pinch...comes first and foremost.
plus...to the dummy ebeyes. Police don't plan on blasting people 50 times. We aren't always cool under fire like your TV shows and movies portray. It happens. Sorry but that's the way it goes. Personally it would have been better if they just squeezed one off and put it right between his running lights huh? Then there would be such a hoopla. Yeah...right.
2006-12-11 08:18:06 · answer #2 · answered by Quasimodo 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Of course not. Self-preservation is the most basic of human rights. But they'd better darned well be ready to justify their actions.
The initial rush to judgment in these cases always seems led by people who forget that policemen are people, too. There is an investigation into these matters, and howling before the investigation is done is foolish. Don't trust the investigation? What's the alternative? Maybe we should just not have police at all. New York did, after all, exist for a long time before there was a NYPD. We could all carry pistols and be responsible for our own protection, and we'd have nobody but ourselves to blame.
2006-12-11 07:23:19 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
some of you people on here kill me ....there is so many people especially African Americans out here who have been racially profiled , beat up, or gunned down for no apparent reason and all you people do is try to say it is justified under law it says that cops are not suppose to shoot at a moving vehicle that is what the Mayer and the Commissioner of New York said... yes they need to identify themselves because like in the Sean Bell case they might of thought the cop was trying to shoot them or robbed them a lot of undercover officer look like regular people... but the question that i have for all of you do you need to shoot someone 40 or 51 times?especially to so call stop a car... this has happened to many times.... and i only talk about two cases in just NYC
2006-12-11 07:34:54 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
You asked a broad question, I'll give you a broad answer. Maybe. There is no "yes" or "no" answer to any and all possible scenarios where a undercover officer should identify themselves before using deadly force.
2006-12-11 07:00:42 · answer #5 · answered by Judge Dredd 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
For us up here, we do not need to, but would certainly prefer to. Certain provisions in various police acts endow a police officer with the right to return fire or fire upon someone as necessary, regardless of identification or not. They are legally empowered to do so, and protected by those laws.
2006-12-11 11:11:05 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
If they are in danger of thier life, they should try to ID themself first but thier safty or the safety of someone else is always the first important item.
2006-12-11 08:39:03 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Indeed they do have to identify themselves if they expect alledged perpetrators to obey their commands. Without identification, you don't know who you are dealing with.
2006-12-11 07:48:15 · answer #8 · answered by WC 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
yes
2006-12-11 06:41:53 · answer #9 · answered by Jodi 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
NO
2006-12-11 06:43:40 · answer #10 · answered by zombiefighter1988 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋