Police Officer Defending Himself With a Gun? Policy?!?

Question

An officer has pulled over a driver and is questioning the driver outside of the car. Does a policeman have the right to shoot a suspect if attacked by an unarmed person all of a sudden? I don't see many night sticks on police these days. I have also never seen a cop fire on (or off screen) an unarmed person in the hundreds of police car cam videos shown on tv and the Internet. What is the usual department policy?

Answer 1

Most departments train their officers to use what is referred to as a "use of force continuum" That is that the officer can respond to any action equally or one step higher. If the suspect says I gonna kick you butt the officer can reply back with words or step up to pulling pepper spray or a baton in anticipation of the forwarned attack.

If a person is found holding a shovel and acting angered or threatening the officer can pull his baton or step up to his pistol, but can only act on the actions of the suspect. If the person just stands there or turns and runs he has no justification shooting. If the person raises the shovel as to strike with it or lunges at the officer or another person he has justification to use deadly force since the suspect now has the means (shovel=weapon), motive (anger and threatening action) and opportunity (the proximity to the officer or another person where they can cause great bodily injuries with the weapon). Once all of those are present the officer can use deadly force.

One exception (there are ALWAYS exceptions) is if the officer has been rendered near incapacitation and would be unable to defend themselves (from a car wreck, wounded during a fight, tased or pepper sprayed) the officer can use deadly force to stop a confrontation wher ethey could receive great bodily harm or be killed.

Answer 2

I'm not a cop and this isn't legal advice.

I saw a man and woman police officer padding a man down and were placing the cuffs on him. He hauled off turned and punched the man cop and ran. The man cop got up immediately in pursuit on foot. The lady cop got in the car did a 180 and used the car to sort of block aid the man running. Like he had a choice get out of the way of the car or get hit by it. He was captured. I called the police and they didn't even need me as a witness because it was all video taped.

Also if the guy who punched the officer and ran got hurt with the patrol car I think he got what was coming to him.

A police officer can only use deadly force if his life or someone else's life is about to be ended. When the officer makes a traffic stop they call in the plate number, make, model and description.

They're careful and have weapons like pepper spray, telescoping batons and even tasers.

What is the usual department policy? If somone is trying to kill you or kill someone else or harm you or harm someone else prevent them from suceeding it and use the least amount of force to end the assault.

Answer 3

I read the article different. It said that the student was tazed for resisting the officer, not for using the cell phone. If it had been that, then article would have mentioned that cop walked up to student on cell phone w/o saying anything at all & then tazed student. I also missed the part where the school had become part of a police state. I read that this was a local city police officer who was enforcing the schools policies (voted on by elected officials). So if the point of the story is to obey governing policy, respect officials serving to uphold policies & to not resist arrest, then I'm all for that. The article read that the teen was in the wrong to begin with & then made things worse by not following the officer to the school office. What part of this teens behavior was okay? Should he have been allowed to think that he does not have follow societal rules & then think that he is above the law? Nope, I think it best that he learn that there are consequences to actions right now B4 he's let out on the world as an adult.

Answer 4

Most 'modern' police departments don't employ the "force continuum". Having levels and steps is technical and only looks good on paper. A officer can use any reasonable level of force, based only upon the knowledge at hand during the incident, to stop a threat. There is no escalation (do this, if it doesn't work, then do this) necessary. An officer can shoot an "unarmed" person based on articulable circumstances (drugs, pending incapacitation, attempts to take the officers sidearm, crowd size and actions, etc.) if the officer can articulate that deadly force was justified. It is that simple.

Answer 5

Every circumstance and every situation is different for each officer. The use of a firearm is deadly force. An officer needs to be able to articulate his/her reason to use deadly force. Officers today are taught a force continuum that defines the different levels of force. While effecting an arrest an officer can exceed the level of force by one level in order to carry out the arrest. As a defendants level rises, the officers can increase one above that of the defendant. This does not negate the need to rise directly to deadly force if the situation requires it. Also departmental policy reads that an officer may be justified to use deadly force if his life or the life of another is in jeopardy. This is just a brief summary, our actually policy is several pages.

Pappy: What rock did you crawl out from under? This isn't an us against them. If an officer somewhere left you with a bad impression, you need to grow up and get over it. Not all cops are bad.

Answer 6

Since they are already armed to the teeth with tasers, mace, firearm, batons, expanding batons, nunchukas, and who knows what other contraband the cop is carrying, are they not a ticking time bomb? Since EVERY cop has a flashlight they could get rid of all that HIGHLY ILLEGAL weaponry they carry around to bully people with. Although there are many attacks that are brought about by the actions of the police that is not a justification for either side to get stupid. The violence is escalated anytime a cop palms his pistol; baton, flashlight, etc..Most cops know that they will be jumped for such things. Once a suspect tries to reach anything the cops escalate the assinine behavior by calling it a threat. I wonder what they consider their unsnapping a holster? That is more than safety it is a threat of the worst kind. Most of the cops shot on duty are shot by someone who had no firearm until they were drawn by the cop. There's no excuse for a cop to draw on unarmed people. I'm not attempting to justify shootings on either side. I'm attempting to show the reasons that a lot of this happens. Cops do fire on unarmed people. They even jump in front of cars then yell attempted murder and open fire. A cops successful attempt at ignorance is no excuse for a firefight with an unarmed man. Ever see a cop run over a suspect? I know you have. But, none of the cops on the scene yell attempted murder do they? Ever seen the Broward county sheriff yell stop or i'll shoot you in the back? In the next frame he is standing over the man with a paiur of ILLEGAL nunchukas. HMMMMM!!!! As long as cops use these BS tactics things can only go one way. BTW, don't you know that any tape of a shooting would be confiscated immediately? There's absolutely no way they want that sort of publicity. It's a good thing for newspapers. Stories everyday about your topic. A few weeks ago right down the road from me an unarmed man was shot in the back while fleeing on foot. The cop claims the man wrestled for his pistol and the cop had a bullet wound in his leg. Turns out it was self-inflicted.

Answer 7

Using a pistol in self-defense is considered Deadly Force, and you must be able to justify the use of Deadly Force. Being attacked by an unarmed man is not justification for the use of Deadly Force (with the exception of an unarmed man high on PCP), especially with so many non-lethal methods of dealing with the situation.

Now...it also depends on how you define "unarmed". A lot of seemingly harmless objects can be deadly and considered weapons and fulfill the clauses of Deadly Force (a danger to yourself or fellow police officers or to any bystanders). A person wielding The Club is no longer unarmed - he is armed and dangerous, just as dangerous as someone with a firearm or knife.

And nightsticks have been replaced (for the most part) with expandable batons (such as the ASP 21). These are more convenient in most situations since they quickly (often on the draw) expand from 6" (or so) to 18" and collapse back down to their smaller carry size with one good hard push against concrete.

Answer 8

All circumstances are different. Drugs can change the 110 pound weakling into an inferno. The police are getting non-lethal weapons to help but sometimes, they don't work. Since you watch the cop shows, you should notice the resistance to use deadly force. Even that macho cop does not want a death on his record or his mind.

Answer 9

Deadly force can only be employed when there is a threat of deadly force being levied against you. This is a universal law for using dealy force, either for the cops, or for civilians.

Answer 10

Many read like this:

An officer may discharge their firearm when deadly force is objectively reasonable in self defense or defense of another person's life.