I mean if they know hes a criminal that has just raped and killed a woman and hes running away . What year did they take away the right to fire on a fleeing suspect ?
2007-07-02 03:37:26 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law Enforcement & Police
Actually, if someone had just raped and killed a woman and the police had reasonable belief that the person they were chasing was the culprit, they can shoot him in the back. The Tennessee vs. Garner Supreme Court case was about shooting a fleeing felon that did not pose a risk if not immediately apprehended. In the case of a rape/murder, that person would pose a risk to society, thus justifying immediate apprehension through whatever force is necessary.
2007-07-02 03:51:33 · answer #1 · answered by thegubmint 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Under U.S. law the fleeing felon rule was limited in 1985 to non-lethal force in most cases by Tennessee v. Garner, [471 U.S. 1]. The justices held that deadly force "may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others."
A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead...however...Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force.
—Justice Byron White, Tennessee v. Garner
Fleeing felons may be followed into places not open to the public without a warrant if the officer is in "hot pursuit".
2015-05-18 08:07:26 · answer #2 · answered by User Unknown 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In Kentucky, if any person is witnessing a rape or attempt, it is considered justifiable homicide. If it's after the fact then it would not be. Immediate danger of serious physical injury or death must exist before a shooting is justifiable. The same rules apply to police office as the general public and are taught in concealed carry classes. The same rules apply to police officers as anyone else.
2007-07-02 03:47:46 · answer #3 · answered by kyghostchaser2006 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
They are not technically posing an immediate risk to the officer or others safety if they are running away. Since everyone is innocent until proven guilty - shooting them when they are not posing an immediate danger would be being judge and jury.
But I think that this law may vary according to the state.
2007-07-02 03:53:06 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
I wanna know why police officers are shooting people in the back NO LESS....they get a 3 day suspension most the times when they do..we have a case happened a couple weeks ago in Austin texas..a teen was shot twice in the back for no reason..
2007-07-02 03:56:34 · answer #5 · answered by pcbeachrat 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Rape and murder? If that's not a good enough reason to shoot someone in the back then there never was a good reason for anything.
2007-07-02 04:14:57 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
They still can, and it depends on the situation,,like a fleeing felon, and the fear of that felon commiting another crime,,by the way,,so far no dirtbag, has ever gotten away from my 4 legged land shark,,,,,,and believe me he loves to play ,,,
2007-07-02 04:10:02 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
because the "suspect", while fleeing, presents no direct danger to the officer
2007-07-02 07:05:00 · answer #8 · answered by mr.z28 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
because that suspect poses no direct threat to the officers life or anybody else's at that time, and they are innocent until proven guilty by a court of their peers
2007-07-02 03:43:56 · answer #9 · answered by hades 3 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Criminals have rights,the law was passed so they get to see who is shooting them.It just would not be right to get shot by a drive-by.They have such a surprised look on their face when they see who is shooting them.
2007-07-02 09:14:37 · answer #10 · answered by ronald m 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋