RE: Officer involved shooting death, sue for wrongful death or civil rights violations?

Question

State of Arizona/Defendant is unarmed and surrenders and shooting continues after a fatal wound, resulting in further fatal shots.

Answer 1

Let us assume that everything you have indicated is complete and true.

1) Unarmed - this alone will tell that the suspect is not armed and may not be posing a significant threat against the officers, civilian bystanders, nor himself.

2) Surrenders - this would mean that the suspect willfully submits himself/herself to the authority of the officers.

3) Shooting continues after the fatal wound - well the other respondent in this question is right, there can only be one fatal wound. The succeeding shots were done against the cadaver at this point. This will however show the intent of the officers with regards to disabling a suspect. A lawyer can argue that the intentions were with treachery.

Civil rights violations, based from the above statements, maybe called for.

Answer 2

O'kay, how can you have more than one fatal shots? If the first shot was fatal, then the person is dead. No matter how many other times the person gets shot, they will always be dead.

As to the issue of wrongful death, if the fatal shot occurred before the suspect put his/her weapon down, then the officer perceived that there was still an imminent threat. If the person put their weapon down, then it becomes a matter of perception by the officer. If the suspect was still coming at the officer, the officer has every right to believe that this person has another weapon and is trying to get close enough to use it. If the suspect is lying face first on the ground and complying with everything the officer says, then it is a bad shooting.

Wrongful deaths and excessive force cases are hard to prove in a court of law because it is a judgement call by the officer. No one wants to tell police that they do not have a right to defend themselves.

Answer 3

Did the suspect fire first, did the suspect pull a weapon on the officers first? If the suspect initated the exchange of fire, there is no cause for a wrongful death suit. Officers are trained to act with DEADLY FORCE when you present them with a situation that puts thier life or the lives of others in jeopardy. If you pull a gun on an officer and get shot twenty times, that is your own fault.

To add on if the suspect pulled the weapon and/or fired the weapon, then was shot by police, and then tried to surrender while police are still firing, you have to assume that it will take a few seconds for officers to respond to a suspect trying to surrender, during which suspect could be shot multiple times. If someone opens fire on you, you will clearly empty your weapon in thier direction to eliminate the threat. This is a well documented phenomena. I personally believe there is no case here.

Answer 4

you're saying the police officer fired at an unarmed person. The question would be, why then did the officer fire? Did he see something on the victims person which led the officer to fire, believing his life or the life of another was is jeopardy? A police officer when faced with a deadly situation has split seconds to decide on whether to "shoot or don"t shoot". If he shoots it will take the judicial system years to decide if he was justified or not.