Make it a law. You run, you get shot. Unless your proven deaf.
Would it work? If not, why so?
2007-10-02 11:24:32 · 27 answers · asked by urscreamin 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Law Enforcement & Police
Actually with driving your guilty until proven innocent. That's why they give you the option of going to court so you can ATTEMPT to prove your not guilty.
2007-10-02 11:28:48 · update #1
I'm not saying use lethal force.
2007-10-02 11:30:56 · update #2
I guess I should have explained myself better. What I mean is stop the person first then shoot them. Not shoot them while they're driving at dangerous speeds. I also don't mean use lethal force, a foot, arm, or calf would do.
2007-10-02 11:33:57 · update #3
Why not just shoot people WHO run from police?
Well, you would need to have the Bill of Rights and subseuent jurisprudence thrown out the window, first! THEN you can do stuff like this, Asker.
Don't TASE me, Bro! *laughter*
Were there SOME way to tase the person's car to stall it, THEN there wouldn't be a problem. Shooting out the tires is tres dangerous due to the use of firearms. Kenneth, below, cites some law and makes a lot of sense.
2007-10-02 11:27:32 · answer #1 · answered by ? 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Uh... no.
You use force on people as a last resort, and only if they're a threat. Lethal force after that.
Your idea is called "First Degree Murder".
EDIT:
"Actually with driving you're guilty until proven innocent. That's why they give you the option of going to court so you can ATTEMPT to prove you're not guilty."
This is false. Are you saying that police should only be shooting people who commit minor traffic violations? Then you're even more wrong then your original wrong statement.
"I'm not saying use lethal force."
Shooting people would be lethal force. This is stupid.
"I guess I should have explained myself better. What I mean is stop the person first then shoot them. Not shoot them while they're driving at dangerous speeds. I also don't mean use lethal force, a foot, arm, or calf would do."
That is lethal force. But I'm glad that you mean the people should only be shot after they are captured. Shooting for no reason at all, even better!
2007-10-02 18:28:17 · answer #2 · answered by enaronia 2 · 3⤊ 3⤋
Because our constitution states that you are Innocent until proven guilty. And some people will run from there own shadow, while other people are doing it to get away with something. Also it's a public safety risk, shooting at a moving target is hard enough but if driving a vehicle then the burden becomes the state(s) if the vehicle hits and kills a Innocent by stander.
Not only that but most Police Dept. are under orders by the insurance companies and the States or county attorneys that they are not allowed to shoot unless it's for self defense or a only solution, last resort.
Not to mention, I spent plenty of time in the military, in war shooting at people and killing them, and people don't understand how it affects the police officer and their family when a policeman or woman has to use deadly force to stop some one. It's a traumatic experience that you live with the rest of your life, Justified or not you will always think that you could have done something to prevent it!
2007-10-02 18:33:14 · answer #3 · answered by Randy W 5 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Do a web search on Tennessee v. Garner, the US Supreme Court ruled you can not shoot a fleeing felon.
Not to mention if you did kill him, you now had a car driving 100 miles an hour with a dead persons behind the wheel. Not very safe for anyone in the area.
2007-10-02 18:30:07 · answer #4 · answered by trooper3316 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
I made a very similar posts a while back, and I absolutely agree. The current police tactic of waiting until they crash into somebody and hurt them is totally wrong! Sometimes they're even shooting at police as they drive and still they do nothing!!! How much reason do you need?
Use assault rifles to take them out from the air, just like they would if I was running around a supermarket threatening to kill people and wouldn't drop my weapon.
The public deserves to be protected.
2007-10-02 19:02:40 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
People run from the law for many reasons not always felonies or even illegal in the first place. I know of one young man who was shot and killed for running a police roadblock. Why did he run the roadblock. He had half a roach in the ashtray.
2007-10-03 23:48:08 · answer #6 · answered by jjbetz@swbell.net 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That used to be law (technically still is in many states). However, the supreme court ruling of Tennessee vs. Garner made that unconstitutional. Without getting too much in the specifics, you can't shoot someone merely for running.
2007-10-02 19:09:35 · answer #7 · answered by Kenneth C 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
It would not work. Every man, woman, and child charged with a crime in these United States is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. They each are afforded the right of due process. Shooting them without provocation would by definition, be a crime in itself, and some would believe, punishment. Punishment prior to conviction is unconstitutional. I'm sure there are many who would wish to debate this issue. But you asked, and I answered.
2007-10-02 18:31:06 · answer #8 · answered by DocoMyster 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Of course, everyone is innocent until proven guilty by a court of law, so this law would be pretty difficult to pass..
2007-10-02 18:26:56 · answer #9 · answered by Joe M 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Running is a natural reflect in people. Shoot them on the spot?? You want a gestapo world, to have people in fear? It's dangerous and unwise. What if it's a mistake? What if that person is running for some other reason, or what if, or what if??? There are too many possibilities. And if someone was deaf, they'd know AFTER they shot him?! We are not animals, to shoot humans on the spot. I hope the world will never come to that. :/
2007-10-02 18:31:57 · answer #10 · answered by Drusillah 2 · 2⤊ 4⤋