• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

When do you consider it acceptable for police to shoot an unarmed suspect?

When are officers allowed to shoot a suspect?

  • Only when the suspect is armed

    Votes: 5 55.6%

  • When the suspect is acting in a manner to cause people to fear for their safety

    Votes: 6 66.7%

  • at the officer's discretion

    Votes: 1 11.1%

  • to prevent the flight of a suspect

    Votes: 1 11.1%
  • Total voters
    9
  • Poll closed .
EMNofSeattle

EMNofSeattle

No Russian ever called me deplorable
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2014
Messages
51,768
Reaction score
14,180
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
I want to get a sense as to when people believe police use of deadly force should be authorized, there's been a lot of discussion about this in the last year, I am interested to see what other people actually think about the topic versus what the law says.

you may select multiple answers.
 
Should have voted B C and D but didn't know it was multiple..

I have no problem with them shooting a fleeing killer at all.. Shoot away..

Pretty much shoot anyone you think is about to harm anyone or the police themselves.. Shoot em..
Or a very dangerous person trying to run away.. Shoot

Not complying with orders and reaches in his pocket? Shoot..
Instead of showing their hands they grab for anything, shoot..

Get the picture?
 
EMNofSeattle said:
I want to get a sense as to when people believe police use of deadly force should be authorized, there's been a lot of discussion about this in the last year, I am interested to see what other people actually think about the topic versus what the law says.

you may select multiple answers.
Click to expand...

Where is the "when they are a minority and the cop is white" option?
 
EMNofSeattle said:
I want to get a sense as to when people believe police use of deadly force should be authorized, there's been a lot of discussion about this in the last year, I am interested to see what other people actually think about the topic versus what the law says.

you may select multiple answers.
Click to expand...
None of your options cover the current principles that apply in most jurisdictions; The officer needs to have a reasonable belief that the target poses an immediate threat of harm to them or others and that deadly force is the only option available to prevent that.

The "reasonable belief" seems to be the source of a lot of difficulties. It strikes me as the only practical approach but it does make assessing an incident afterwards more difficult. I don't think there is any way to make it simple and clear-cut (short of the answer being "never" or "whenever they want").
 
EMNofSeattle said:
I want to get a sense as to when people believe police use of deadly force should be authorized, there's been a lot of discussion about this in the last year, I am interested to see what other people actually think about the topic versus what the law says.

you may select multiple answers.
Click to expand...

First, the Police are trained to deal with the criminal element and should not scare as easily as the average citizen, ergo should never shoot because they feel frightened when no weapon is present.
Second, Police are trained marksmen, ergo should shoot to injure when a suspect flees.
Third, shooting is not a discretionary option.
Fourth, if a suspects actions present the actual threat to the lives of citizens, driving a car into a crowd, chain sawing a tree onto citizens, etc. That is a good time to shoot. To injure if the car is stopped. To injure if the chain saw is not actually cutting a tree. etc.
Fifth, Police shoot center mass and ergo are not sued by survivors because there are seldom survivors. The dead don't speak.
Sixth, if you give Police too much power and firepower, you will get a Police State.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
I want to get a sense as to when people believe police use of deadly force should be authorized, there's been a lot of discussion about this in the last year, I am interested to see what other people actually think about the topic versus what the law says.

you may select multiple answers.
Click to expand...

Your poll is incomplete. At the very least you should have included "Other."

A prime reason to use deadly force is to prevent the serious injury or death of oneself or another. Simple fear for one's safety is insufficient, as there may still be the option of flight.

As a corollary I'd submit it is appropriate when an officer is alone with no time to wait for aid while dealing with a suspect that is violently aggressive and too large and/or strong to deal with any other way.

A suspect doesn't have to be armed with a weapon to kill or maim someone, it can be done with some other tool or main strength.
 
Last edited:
EMNofSeattle said:
I want to get a sense as to when people believe police use of deadly force should be authorized, there's been a lot of discussion about this in the last year, I am interested to see what other people actually think about the topic versus what the law says.

you may select multiple answers.
Click to expand...

None of those.
 
DaveFagan said:
First, the Police are trained to deal with the criminal element and should not scare as easily as the average citizen, ergo should never shoot because they feel frightened when no weapon is present.
Second, Police are trained marksmen, ergo should shoot to injure when a suspect flees.
Third, shooting is not a discretionary option.
Fourth, if a suspects actions present the actual threat to the lives of citizens, driving a car into a crowd, chain sawing a tree onto citizens, etc. That is a good time to shoot. To injure if the car is stopped. To injure if the chain saw is not actually cutting a tree. etc.
Fifth, Police shoot center mass and ergo are not sued by survivors because there are seldom survivors. The dead don't speak.
Sixth, if you give Police too much power and firepower, you will get a Police State.
Click to expand...

This is a good example of where little education amongst society is a problem, if the situation doesn't warrant killing the suspect a gun is not the appropriate tool. so shoot to injure is simply a bad idea all around. If you use a gun to disable somebody without killing them that is negligence.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
I want to get a sense as to when people believe police use of deadly force should be authorized, there's been a lot of discussion about this in the last year, I am interested to see what other people actually think about the topic versus what the law says.

you may select multiple answers.
Click to expand...

Simple. If the suspect reasonably presents an imminent threat of causing death or great bodily harm to the officer or someone else in the immediate vicinity.
 
DaveFagan said:
First, the Police are trained to deal with the criminal element and should not scare as easily as the average citizen, ergo should never shoot because they feel frightened when no weapon is present.
Second, Police are trained marksmen, ergo should shoot to injure when a suspect flees.
Third, shooting is not a discretionary option.
Fourth, if a suspects actions present the actual threat to the lives of citizens, driving a car into a crowd, chain sawing a tree onto citizens, etc. That is a good time to shoot. To injure if the car is stopped. To injure if the chain saw is not actually cutting a tree. etc.
Fifth, Police shoot center mass and ergo are not sued by survivors because there are seldom survivors. The dead don't speak.
Sixth, if you give Police too much power and firepower, you will get a Police State.
Click to expand...
There is no appropriate shoot to injure"! :doh

That's why it's called "deadly force".

It's either appropriate, or not.

You wanna' shoot to injure? Use a TASER!
 
Lutherf said:
Simple. If the suspect reasonably presents an imminent threat of causing death or great bodily harm to the officer or someone else in the immediate vicinity.
Click to expand...
My words exactly; you beat me to it!
 
EMNofSeattle said:
I want to get a sense as to when people believe police use of deadly force should be authorized, there's been a lot of discussion about this in the last year, I am interested to see what other people actually think about the topic versus what the law says.

you may select multiple answers.
Click to expand...

Interesting question. The more interesting one is why in a country of 80 Millions has only 296 homicides, police shot about 40 shots pa at people in the last years and killed only 10 or fewer pa.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
I want to get a sense as to when people believe police use of deadly force should be authorized, there's been a lot of discussion about this in the last year, I am interested to see what other people actually think about the topic versus what the law says.

you may select multiple answers.
Click to expand...



From my time at the Academy, long ago:

If you know the subject has committed a violent or armed felony
if you reasonably believe the subject's escape will seriously endanger the public
if the subject is armed and dangerous or has just attempted murder/rape/assault with a deadly weapon

As best I recall... and my instructor concluded with "and if you do it, you'd BETTER be right..."


This was over 20 years ago now.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
I want to get a sense as to when people believe police use of deadly force should be authorized, there's been a lot of discussion about this in the last year, I am interested to see what other people actually think about the topic versus what the law says.

you may select multiple answers.
Click to expand...

Sorry but the poll is terrible in my opinion. None of those fit but some could with more info. There's already rules for this that are sorta universal to my knowledge (I could be wrong). It's usually along the lines of committing a felony with a deadly weapon, like rape, assault, threatening assault or murder with a weapon. If the person is dangerous enough (has a weapon or is a terrorist) and shooting them is done to prevent the death/harm of others. Stuff like that. I think there's 3-5 of them and they are pretty sound.
 
Goshin said:
From my time at the Academy, long ago:

If you know the subject has committed a violent or armed felony
if you reasonably believe the subject's escape will seriously endanger the public
if the subject is armed and dangerous or has just attempted murder/rape/assault with a deadly weapon

As best I recall... and my instructor concluded with "and if you do it, you'd BETTER be right..."


This was over 20 years ago now.
Click to expand...

Yeah there they are, I was just talking about these rules but I didn't know them, thanks!
 
LaylaWindu said:
Yeah there they are, I was just talking about these rules but I didn't know them, thanks!
Click to expand...



I'm probably not quoting them word-for-word correctly, but that was the gist. The wonder is I can remember much of anything from over 20 years ago... :D
 
Goshin said:
I'm probably not quoting them word-for-word correctly, but that was the gist. The wonder is I can remember much of anything from over 20 years ago... :D
Click to expand...

HA! I understand, thank you anyway, I was basically making mine up because though I read it I couldn't remember.
 
I think I may be the only one that selected "to prevent flight". Normally, my instinct would be "No" to this one although I actually can imagine circumstances that where I would have no problem with it such as catching someone red handed that definitely could harm others and they bolt. But the real reason I answered yes was seeing that as an option and actually having a police officer tell me it was legal to shoot a fleeing suspect. Apparently, there IS such a thing as a Fleeing Felon Rule if you can believe the Wiki... I am sure some Law Enforcement Officers will set me straight if I am wrong on this.

At common law, the fleeing felon rule permits the use of force, including deadly force, against an individual who is suspected of a felony and is in clear flight. Force may be used by the victim, bystanders, or police officers. According to David Caplan "Immediate stopping of the fleeing felon, whether actually or presumably dangerous, was deemed absolutely necessary for the security of the people in a free state, and for maintaining the "public security." ... " Indeed, it has been said that the social policy of the common law in this matter was not only to threaten dangerous felons and hence deter them, but was also to induce them to "surrender peaceably" if they dared commit inherently dangerous felonies, rather than allow them to "escape trial for their crimes."
Click to expand...

Apparently, there is even case law to support this.
 
DaveFagan said:
First, the Police are trained to deal with the criminal element and should not scare as easily as the average citizen, ergo should never shoot because they feel frightened when no weapon is present.
Second, Police are trained marksmen, ergo should shoot to injure when a suspect flees.
Third, shooting is not a discretionary option.
Fourth, if a suspects actions present the actual threat to the lives of citizens, driving a car into a crowd, chain sawing a tree onto citizens, etc. That is a good time to shoot. To injure if the car is stopped. To injure if the chain saw is not actually cutting a tree. etc.
Fifth, Police shoot center mass and ergo are not sued by survivors because there are seldom survivors. The dead don't speak.
Sixth, if you give Police too much power and firepower, you will get a Police State.
Click to expand...
If you knew anything about the use of weapons you would realize just how silly most of those ideas of yours are.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom