• 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!

Policy Would Allow Cops To Shoot At Fleeing Cars

The future of law enforcement
dreddss.jpg


You're bringing back my lost youth! I used to collect that comic when I was a kid.

/nerd confession off
 
Police officers are certainly allowed to defend themselves, but shooting at a fleeing suspect that is not shooting at an officer should not be allowed. We aren't talking about some dude firing his shotgun at the police attempting to get away. Few people if any would disagree with the police officer defending himself in such a case. What we are talking about is the police officer shooting at a suspect who is not firing back.


Shooting isn't the only way to threaten/murder/death/kill/harm/injure/frustrate/maim an officer. Any assault on an officer should be met with weapons fire, immediately.


Any person that will willingly harm/kill a cop present's an even larger threat to the general public and should be terminated.
 
A moving target, going let's say 30 mph, you can't see the actual target, and if you miss, even if you hit the car, you've got a significant chance of hitting an innocent bystander. As a responsible gun owner, do you take that shot? Now let's also say they're returning fire, so now you've got to avoid the bullets, which chances are would distract you. Honestly, you think that anyone with less than military sniper training could take said shot responsibly?

In the normal course of events, snipers don't usually fire on moving targets. The range at which they operate, and the vision-limiting effects of telescoping sights, makes moving targets problematic.

Moving targets can be engaged with open sights, or with the new red-dot "holographic" sights.

If I'm standing on the side of the road and a car goes past me laterally at 30mph, I can't hit the driver at the moment the car passes me, the lateral movement is too great. After the car has passed, or before, relative lateral movement is reduced due to the angle. If i can see through the windshield and see the location of the driver, and I have a weapon capable of pentrating the windshield consistently, yes I can probably hit him. I'd prefer a semi-auto rifle for that task.

If he's shooting back, that adds a factor. I'm not going to shoot while I am moving, at a moving target. If I have cover and I am exposing only my head and hands to fire while aiming, I'll take the shot and try to put the incoming fire out of my mind.

If there are bystanders in the line of fire, either between me and the target, or beyond the target, I will not take the shot, because yes I could miss. That would also apply in most cases whether the target was moving or not.

I have taken a shot on a live moving target, where there were houses beyond the target. The reason I took the shot is because I had a good angle and the round was going into the ground if I missed. I had about a half a second to make that call.
 
Last edited:
Shooting isn't the only way to threaten/murder/death/kill/harm/injure/frustrate/maim an officer. Any assault on an officer should be met with weapons fire, immediately.


Any person that will willingly harm/kill a cop present's an even larger threat to the general public and should be terminated.

True, the officer should be allowed to defend himself, but that isn't the argument. We are talking about a suspect fleeing the scene, and who may not be firing a weapon or threatening the officer's life in any way. The suspect is simply fleeing.

If he's guilty, then let a court of law determine that. The officer's job is simply to arrest the suspect in such a case, not to play judge, jury, and executioner.
 
You know, if your community decided they don't want police shooting fleeing perps under any circumstances, no matter how egregious, then fine: lots of luck with that. I'd just like everyone to understand the surrounding issues and make a well-informed judgement; one which isn't tainted with misunderstandings and overstatements.

My community doesn't have a problem with it, when the perp is a known danger to the community. To each his own.
 
Last edited:
True, the officer should be allowed to defend himself, but that isn't the argument. We are talking about a suspect fleeing the scene, and who may not be firing a weapon or threatening the officer's life in any way. The suspect is simply fleeing.

If he's guilty, then let a court of law determine that. The officer's job is simply to arrest the suspect in such a case, not to play judge, jury, and executioner.

If the subject attempts to harm/kill an officer, then he presents a clear and present danger to civilians, therein must be stopped at all costs.
 
You know, if your community decided they don't want police shooting fleeing perps under any circumstances, no matter how egregious, then fine: lots of luck with that. I'd just like everyone to understand the surrounding issues and make a well-informed judgement.

My community doesn't have a problem with it, when the perp is a known danger to the community. To each his own.

'Under any circumstances', no, as there are plenty of circumstances where the officer should use deadly force. If the officer's life is in danger, for instance, or someone else's life is in danger. You and I could both sit down and come to an agreement there. Apparently we part ways on the police officer shooting at a suspect simply for fleeing the scene.

It's fine if you believe that our laws should be re-written so that suspects are automatically guilty until proven innocent, and that police should be allowed to act as judge, jury, and executioner. I disagree, however, and would prefer guilt or innocence to be decided as per the methodology of our legal system derived from our Constitution and subsequent court cases thereof.
 
If the subject attempts to harm/kill an officer, then he presents a clear and present danger to civilians, therein must be stopped at all costs.

And if he doesn't and simply flees, then he does not represent a threat to the officer. He's innocent until proven guilty. Let the courts decide if he is, in fact, actually guilty. The officer's job is simply to detain the individual fleeing, not to execute him.
 
Last edited:
'Under any circumstances', no, as there are plenty of circumstances where the officer should use deadly force. If the officer's life is in danger, for instance, or someone else's life is in danger. You and I could both sit down and come to an agreement there. Apparently we part ways on the police officer shooting at a suspect simply for fleeing the scene.

It's fine if you believe that our laws should be re-written so that suspects are automatically guilty until proven innocent, and that police should be allowed to act as judge, jury, and executioner. I disagree, however, and would prefer guilt or innocence to be decided as per the methodology of our legal system derived from our Constitution and subsequent court cases thereof.


Tennessee v Garner, 471 US 1 (1985)

"The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable... where the officer has probable cause to believe the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm... or there is probable cause to believe he has committed a crime involving infliction or threatened infliction of serious bodily harm, deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape."

Supreme Court Case Briefs in ... - Google Books



As I said, it isn't quite as cut and dried as some are making it out to be. The Supreme Court doesn't think it is being "judge jury and executioner" to stop a fleeing felon who is reasonably believed to have committed a violent crime.
 
Last edited:
And if he doesn't and simply flees, then he does not represent a threat to the officer. He's innocent until proven guilty. Let the courts decide if he is, in fact, actually guilty. The officer's job is simply to detain the individual fleeing, not to execute him.

No, he doesn't represent a threat to the office, but he represents a threat to anyone else he may encounter, therefore the need to neutralize that thraet. But, hey, if you're innocent, don't run!
 
Supreme Court Case Briefs in ... - Google Books



As I said, it isn't quite as cut and dried as some are making it out to be.

Re-read what I wrote, brother. "'Under any circumstances', no, as there are plenty of circumstances where the officer should use deadly force. If the officer's life is in danger, for instance, or someone else's life is in danger." (Post #86) The court case you cited agrees with me here:

"The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable. It is not better that all felony suspects die than that they escape. Where the suspect poses no immediate threat to the officer and no threat to others, the harm resulting from failing to apprehend him does not justify the use of deadly force to do so. It is no doubt unfortunate when a suspect who is in sight escapes, but the fact that the police arrive a little late or are a little slower afoot does not always justify killing the suspect. A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead. The Tennessee statute is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes the use of deadly force against such fleeing suspects.

It is not, however, unconstitutional on its face. 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. Thus, if the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape, and if, where

Page 471 U. S. 12

feasible, some warning has been given. As applied in such circumstances, the Tennessee statute would pass constitutional muster."
Source: TENNESSEE V. GARNER, 471 U. S. 1 (1985) -- US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez

Where we apparently disagree is on someone who is suspected of a felony who flees the scene; indeed, the very first line of my quote from Tennessee vs Garner puts that issue to rest - "The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable. It is not better that all felony suspects die than that they escape. Where the suspect poses no immediate threat to the officer and no threat to others, the harm resulting from failing to apprehend him does not justify the use of deadly force to do so."
 
No, he doesn't represent a threat to the office, but he represents a threat to anyone else he may encounter, therefore the need to neutralize that thraet. But, hey, if you're innocent, don't run!

Not necessarily. Could be a kid with some marijuana, or someone who didn't commit a felony, yet is guilty of some misdemeanor. Or it could be someone who is guilty of nothing.

We'll let the courts decide, not the police.
 
Remember kids, if you're not guilty, you have no reason to flee...but you already weren't thinking too clearly when you decided to run from the cops for something as trivial as being stoned and possessing an 1/8 of weed. Oh well. Fight versus flight is a bitch, ain't it?

Oh, and if you are guilty and have no intentions of letting the cops catch you? Make sure to bring your assault rifles. If they're gonna blame you for the civilians the cops shoot while chasing you (kinda like how you get blamed for them causing accidents in a car chase), you now have every reason to cut loose. What difference does a few more counts of murder make?
 
Re-read what I wrote, brother.... Where we apparently disagree is on someone who is suspected of a felony who flees the scene; indeed, the very first line of my quote from Tennessee vs Garner puts that issue to rest - "The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable. It is not better that all felony suspects die than that they escape. Where the suspect poses no immediate threat to the officer and no threat to others, the harm resulting from failing to apprehend him does not justify the use of deadly force to do so."

Okay, did you read this bit carefully?

Thus, if the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape, and if, where
feasible, some warning has been given.

If there is probable cause to believe a suspect has committed a crime involving the use or even threat of serious physical harm, deadly force may be used to stop him from escaping if necessary.

That's all I've been saying. Possibly there has been some miscommunication somewhere.

G.
 
Okay, did you read this bit carefully?



If there is probable cause to believe a suspect has committed a crime involving the use or even threat of serious physical harm, deadly force may be used to stop him from escaping if necessary.

That's all I've been saying. Possibly there has been some miscommunication somewhere.

G.

Ahh, so you believe the same as I do, then? That felonious suspects should not be shot at, but those felonious suspects who represent a danger to the community and/or the officer should be dealt with in whatever way deemed appropriate by the officer at the time. Maybe it was a miscommunication between us somewhere down the line.

Fortunately for us both, I have the perfect remedy. I thought i read somewhere that you haven't given up cigars yet, right? In that case, here is my solution:

1. We continue this debate after picking out the finest cigars from your humidor.

2. We proceed to light our cigars and discuss the matter at hand.

3. I 'borrow' one of Reverend Hellhound's finest bottles, with the promise that one day I shall repay him. I proceed to drain said bottle of contents. You are certainly welcome to partake.

4. We come to an agreement or compromise on this particular issue. Either that or we discuss the finer points of cooking barbeque.

Who says liberals and conservatives can't meet in the middle? :cool:
 
Last edited:
Get ready. Storm trooper's comin'.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCHtw6WbbnM"]YouTube - Texas Monthly Talks TED NUGENT[/ame]
 

Interesting video... and I agree with this guy as far as the persons ability to defend themselves. If a person chooses to remain disarmed, then they are at risk of being put at the mercy of a criminal (which is still a relatively slim chance)... So, I believe that a person has the right to REASONABLY defend themselves (six shots in the chest may or may not be reasonable level of defense)...

Howver, police is a different issue, so, should be mandated to do everything in their power to bring the perpetrator to justice... the reason that I disagree with cops having the right to shoot down people fleeing is that it's ripe for abuses... to extrapolate out you would end up with some sort of 'judge dredd' scenario where the cops are the judges, and when need be the executioners.
 
Most of the idiots running from cops on TV are ex-cons not wanting to go back to prison. I wonder what that actual ratio is, in the real world.

Perhaps we should surgically implant GPS homing devices in all ex-cons. A chip that can pin-point, through global satellites, exactly just who is in the fleeing vehicle and, well, everywhere they go afterward.

Then, just let car go. Come back and get the guy later that night. Or tomorrow. He can run but he can't hide.

THEN shoot him. :rofl
 
Most of the idiots running from cops on TV are ex-cons not wanting to go back to prison. I wonder what that actual ratio is, in the real world.

Perhaps we should surgically implant GPS homing devices in all ex-cons. A chip that can pin-point, through global satellites, exactly just who is in the fleeing vehicle and, well, everywhere they go afterward.

Then, just let car go. Come back and get the guy later that night. Or tomorrow. He can run but he can't hide.

THEN shoot him. :rofl

Hey why stop there... why not make it a remote activated cyanide chip so that if they try to run again you just remote detonate their chip...

Wait... why even stop there... let's put these cianide chips into everyone and if you are found to be doing something that 'offends' government, then they can just detonate those chips...

Or better yeat... lets put a chip in everyones brain which scans your mind and if you even THINK of committing a crime that brainwave sets off the chip.... that would stop ALL crime everywhere.
 
I think you're on to something here.

You should run for Sheriff. :mrgreen:
 
Not necessarily. Could be a kid with some marijuana, or someone who didn't commit a felony, yet is guilty of some misdemeanor. Or it could be someone who is guilty of nothing.

We'll let the courts decide, not the police.

If they're innocent, then there's no need to run.
 
If they're innocent, then there's no need to run.

This is true... you shouldn't run, especially with a fat cop cause he'll make you pay extra for making him work hard.

The thing is, shooting a suspect should be saved as a last resort, or if he's trying to attack the cops or something... but even then, a car that's fleeing should be stopped first and then determining if shots should be fired.

As for running on foot... if we're talking about someone escaping from a bank robbery... that still has the pile of money on him... well, I thought it was fire a warning shot first and then you can shoot him if he keeps running... but in that case 'susptect' is used loosely. In that case it's a very different use to say shooting at a suspect... cause a person that's running because of a petty warrant is stupid and probably deserves the beating he'g get, but unless he goes the extra step and attacks the cops, should be arrested not killed.

There's a reason why cops are supposed to be tested for the quality of their character... with some of the seeming 'roid rage' cops out there nowadays, it seems that the standards may have been lowered.
 
Back
Top Bottom