• 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!

Can a police officer shoot a fleeing felon?

Drowning Man said:
It's a troubling fact that police today more and more consider there to be a difference between themselves, and everyone else. They call it the "thin blue line".

They are training and have been indoctrinated to believe that their lives are more important than anyone else's. That everyone is guilty until proved innocent. That "officer safety"...no matter how much they stretch that phrase, trumps rights.

Police have a dangerous job. But they picked it. And their job isn't more dangerous than construction worker's, trucker's, farmer's, garbage man's or roofer's. Their fears shouldn't trump our rights.

Shooting someone in the back who just threw down their weapon, in just about any circumstance, should cost the cop their job...and probably their freedom as well.
Click to expand...

I often quote the same thing “policing isn’t the most dangerous job in the US” but if we’re being honest we have to ask whether that’s because they’re trained the way they are and whether if we got “kinder/gentler” cops more might get killed.

That doesn’t change my feelings on the subjects which mirror your’s. The job is taken voluntarily and so the police should assume the risks not the general populace who didn’t sign up to get shot at.

I have a retire cop sibling - younger brother. He spent much of his career in some of NYC’s worst neighborhoods. Talking about it one night with him he said something to the effect that for every bad guy he dealt with he knew there were hundreds of decent people living in the houses of his patrol area and that he reminded himself of that everyday before he started work but it was all too easy to lose sight of that while dealing with some of society’s worst.

That doesn’t excuse anything but we shouldn’t kid ourselves that the job, especially in big cities, is a cakewalk.
 
Last edited:
Drowning Man said:
Shooting someone in the back who just threw down their weapon, in just about any circumstance, should cost the cop their job...and probably their freedom as well.
Click to expand...

Show me an instance where an officer has shot a fleeing subject and gotten off. In almost every instance that has been given here, there have been other details that were conveniently left out, or the cop got in trouble for the mistake he/she made. The truth is, police in America are not actively looking to shoot people that don't need to be shot. Granted, there are bad cops who have wrongly shot suspects. But the narrative that American cops are a bunch of trigger-happy clowns just isn't true.
 
gino said:
Show me an instance where an officer has shot a fleeing subject and gotten off. In almost every instance that has been given here, there have been other details that were conveniently left out, or the cop got in trouble for the mistake he/she made. The truth is, police in America are not actively looking to shoot people that don't need to be shot. Granted, there are bad cops who have wrongly shot suspects. But the narrative that American cops are a bunch of trigger-happy clowns just isn't true.
Click to expand...

You're reading into my words a lot that just isn't there.
Have there been bad shootings where the cops got off scot-free? Absolutely. Tamir Rice is a good example. Aiyana Jones is another.

But, I never said that American cops are a bunch of trigger-happy clowns.

If you read up, there were at least a couple of people who responded to this thread saying that the cops SHOULD shoot people in the back who had dropped their weapons. Much of my response was to them.
 
Gaius46 said:
Yes that’s exactly what I meant to so. The police do not know. And even if they know the individual they still do not know whether he did what they suspect.
Click to expand...
The legal definition of a "fleeing felon" is someone suspected of a violent felony.
You may not like it, too bad.

You want to say a fleeing felon must have been convicted of the felony they are suspected of commiting, before before they can be considered a fleeing felon.
No such situation can happen.

You are free to invent your own meaning for words.
Do not expect rational, reasonable people to agree with you.
 
Originally Posted by Norml
If the courts have judged guilt, they are a felon, not simply a suspect.
Click to expand...
Drowning Man said:
A previous felony doesn't entail that they are guilty of any current or future action.
Click to expand...
Who cares?
There may have been no recent crime, of any kind.

A convicted felon, who is fleeing law enforcement, is a fleeing felon. Just because the crime was committed a year ago means nothing.

Often, a suspect is observed in the act of committing a felony. There is an ID, and the suspect is a known fleeing felon for a different crime.
Here is the fact that is beyond your understanding.
A suspect for one crime, may have been convicted for a different crime.
Have someone try to explain that to you.
You do know that there are non-violent felonies, right?
Click to expand...

More simple facts that escape your understanding.
Someone committing a non-violent crime, can flee, pull out a knife and threaten to stab someone. Wow, a non-violent crime can become violent. Have someone explain that to you.

The legal definition of fleeing felon is a suspect, who is fleeing the scene of a felony.
If that suspect is using a gun to shoot at people, it does not matter if the felony was violent.
Something else you do not understand.
 
Gaius46 said:
The fact that someone is a felon is irrelevant to whether he committed the crime that the police are chasing him for. Maybe he did it maybe he didn’t but until convicted by a competent court he is simply a suspect with respect to that crime.
Click to expand...

The legal definition of "fleeing felon" says they only have to be a suspect of a recent crime.
Police are expected to observe the law, not your made up definitions.
And yes some fleeing suspects are fleeing felons and some did whatever the police are chasing them for. But not all. And since we live in a society where innocence is presumed the police are legally and ethically mandated to treat them as innocent.
Click to expand...

When an innocent person threatens another person, or can be expected to be an imminent threat to others, police are expected to stop that innocent person, who is refusing to obey the lawful order of a police officer.

Innocent people are not permitted to threaten the safety of others.
Innocent people are expected to obey lawful orders.
 
Norml said:
The legal definition of a "fleeing felon" is someone suspected of a violent felony.
You may not like it, too bad.

You want to say a fleeing felon must have been convicted of the felony they are suspected of commiting, before before they can be considered a fleeing felon.
No such situation can happen.

You are free to invent your own meaning for words.
Do not expect rational, reasonable people to agree with you.
Click to expand...

Fair enough that’s a common law definition but it does not change the fact that the “fleeing felon” is still nothing more than a suspect as the definition of fleeing felon (as provided by wikipedia) points out.

As well the SC uses terms fleeing suspect and fleeing felon interchangably in Tennessee v Garner And since my point is that the suspect hasn’t been convicted of the crime you’re arguing a trivial semantic difference.

So in short the fleeing felon has not been the convicted of the crime the police are chasing him for and is presumed innocent and the police have an obligation to protect his life unless he threatens them or someone else.

Better?
 
Last edited:
Norml said:
The legal definition of "fleeing felon" says they only have to be a suspect of a recent crime.
Police are expected to observe the law, not your made up definitions.


When an innocent person threatens another person, or can be expected to be an imminent threat to others, police are expected to stop that innocent person, who is refusing to obey the lawful order of a police officer.

Innocent people are not permitted to threaten the safety of others.
Innocent people are expected to obey lawful orders.
Click to expand...

See previous about my “made up definition.” Fleeing felon is nothing more than a synonym for fleeing suspect and does not in any way imply that the person is an actual convicted felon.

Regarding your comments about innocent people threatening others I have never said otherwise. I’ve been clear in every post to you, including my most recent that presenting an imminent danger to the officer or someone else was an exception to the “don’t shoot a fleeing suspect rule” as pointed out by the SC in Tennessee v Garner.
 
Norml said:
Who cares?
There may have been no recent crime, of any kind.

A convicted felon, who is fleeing law enforcement, is a fleeing felon. Just because the crime was committed a year ago means nothing.
Click to expand...

Just shoot them, right? That’s your answer, anyway. As you say, “who cares?”

Norml said:
A suspect for one crime, may have been convicted for a different crime.
Click to expand...

Er....no ****, Sherlock... And so? It’s not a given. And I’m not sure what country you’re from, but where I live, everyone is innocent until proved guilty.

Norml said:
Someone committing a non-violent crime, can flee, pull out a knife and threaten to stab someone. Wow, a non-violent crime can become violent.
Click to expand...

It’s possible. Of course, a possibility isn’t good enough to shoot someone in the back as you seem to want.
BTW, when a cop fires a gun, it’s not to disable. They don’t “go for the legs”. They don’t try to shoot the gun out of someone’s hand. It’s not some cheesy action movie. They shoot to kill.

Norml said:
The legal definition of fleeing felon is a suspect, who is fleeing the scene of a felony.
Click to expand...

Yes, a SUSPECT. Being a suspect does NOT make one a felon. Again, that pesky presumption of innocence getting away of an itchy trigger finger, huh?

Norml said:
If that suspect is using a gun to shoot at people, it does not matter if the felony was violent.
Click to expand...

There is nothing in question posed in the OP about the suspect using a gun to shoot at people. It just said that the person threw away their gun.

Gun ownership isn’t illegal in much of the US. What if a murder had occurred 3 blocks away. An officer stops a guy in the area. They guy, rather than wanting to talk to the officer, throws away a gun that he is holding, and runs from the cops.

That would fit the circumstances of the OP and also would be a “fleeing felon”.

Under what you said:

Norml said:
I would like to see more fleeing felons with their legs shot out from under them, right at the kneecap.
Click to expand...

The guy should be shot at.

But, although there was a felony nearby, what if the guy was just walking in the area and had nothing to do with the crime?
And he legally owned a gun
And he was (maybe unwisely, but not illegally) trying to pull out his gun so that the cop would know he was armed when a bee started attacking him. He’s extremely frightened of bees and also very allergic. In a panic, he throws away his gun and starts running from the bee.

Was he a harm to someone else?
Was he doing anything illegal (even if stupid)?
Did he deserve to get shot?

But, I’m glad you’re there to cheer on cops shooting people. I’m sure we will all feel safer with people like you around.
 
Norml said:
I tried to find something in your post that relates to the OP, and I find nothing.

So why are the rules different for you?
Click to expand...

Not surprising, since you have digressed from actual argument since I addressed you.

Carry on.
 
Gaius46 said:
Fair enough that’s a common law definition but it does not change the fact that the “fleeing felon” is still nothing more than a suspect as the definition of fleeing felon (as provided by wikipedia) points out.

As well the SC uses terms fleeing suspect and fleeing felon interchangably in Tennessee v Garner And since my point is that the suspect hasn’t been convicted of the crime you’re arguing a trivial semantic difference.

So in short the fleeing felon has not been the convicted of the crime the police are chasing him for and is presumed innocent and the police have an obligation to protect his life unless he threatens them or someone else.

Better?
Click to expand...

You avoid some key points.
They may be a fleeing felon for various violent felonies.
Law enforcement makes decisions based on history beyond 30 minutes.

As for "presumed innocent", that refers to a court of law.
Not apprehension of a suspect.
A suspect is treater exactly like a guilty person, by those apprehending them.

A suspect can be incarcerated, innocent or guilty, same.
A suspect is handcuffed for transportation, innocent or guilty, same.
in many ways innocent and guilty are treated the same.

In many ways suspects are treated just like the guilty.
On the other hand, suspects are seldom treated equal to innocents.
In apprehension and handling, suspects are treated as potentially guilty, until their day in court (and preperation).

When a suspect threatens law enforcement, law enforcement acts exactly like the suspect is guilty of threatening a police officer. No one expects them to wait for a trial before they can legally defend themselves.
 
Norml said:
As for "presumed innocent", that refers to a court of law.
Not apprehension of a suspect.
A suspect is treater exactly like a guilty person, by those apprehending them.

A suspect can be incarcerated, innocent or guilty, same.
A suspect is handcuffed for transportation, innocent or guilty, same.
in many ways innocent and guilty are treated the same.

In many ways suspects are treated just like the guilty.
On the other hand, suspects are seldom treated equal to innocents.
In apprehension and handling, suspects are treated as potentially guilty, until their day in court (and preperation).

When a suspect threatens law enforcement, law enforcement acts exactly like the suspect is guilty of threatening a police officer. No one expects them to wait for a trial before they can legally defend themselves.
Click to expand...

Wrong.
Jail is not the same thing as prison.
Suspects can be detained 20 minutes (and in the location where they were first detained) before being arrested.
People arrested can only sit in jail for a limited amount of time before they must go to court and the charges must be presented. Granted the threshold is low, but a judge must agree to those charges, or the suspect is released.
After charged by a court, the suspect can bail out of jail.

All different from someone who is guilty.

As for the heat of the moment, yes, an officer can defend themselves and use force to detain or arrest but the person is still presumed innocent until that person has had their trial and declared guilty.

I don’t know where you got your law degree from, but it’s f-ing backwards.
 
Norml said:
You avoid some key points.
They may be a fleeing felon for various violent felonies.
Law enforcement makes decisions based on history beyond 30 minutes.

As for "presumed innocent", that refers to a court of law.
Not apprehension of a suspect.
A suspect is treater exactly like a guilty person, by those apprehending them.

A suspect can be incarcerated, innocent or guilty, same.
A suspect is handcuffed for transportation, innocent or guilty, same.
in many ways innocent and guilty are treated the same.

In many ways suspects are treated just like the guilty.
On the other hand, suspects are seldom treated equal to innocents.
In apprehension and handling, suspects are treated as potentially guilty, until their day in court (and preperation).

When a suspect threatens law enforcement, law enforcement acts exactly like the suspect is guilty of threatening a police officer. No one expects them to wait for a trial before they can legally defend themselves.
Click to expand...

I avoided nothing. You’re positions on this don’t reflect any kind of reality that I’m familiar with.

People are innocent until proven guilty and the fact that people can be put in detention prior to a bail hearing - and even after - doesn’t change that picture at all. A suspect is still a suspect until conviction in the eyes of the legal system and society. And that includes the police. You’re wrong.

Perhaps you should read up on things like habeus corpus and the purpose of bail. It might be enlightening.


“May be a fleeing felon for various violent felonies. Law enforcement makes decisions beyond the last 30 minutes.”


So here’s a novel idea. A guy who was convicted and did his time is still innocentnof some new crime until proven guilty and the police have an obligation to treat him as innocent.

And even if that weren’t the case how in hell does the cop know the history of some guy he’s chasing whose name he doesn’t even know?
 
Drowning Man said:
Wrong.
Jail is not the same thing as prison.
Suspects can be detained 20 minutes (and in the location where they were first detained) before being arrested.
People arrested can only sit in jail for a limited amount of time before they must go to court and the charges must be presented. Granted the threshold is low, but a judge must agree to those charges, or the suspect is released.
After charged by a court, the suspect can bail out of jail.

All different from someone who is guilty.

As for the heat of the moment, yes, an officer can defend themselves and use force to detain or arrest but the person is still presumed innocent until that person has had their trial and declared guilty.

I don’t know where you got your law degree from, but it’s f-ing backwards.
Click to expand...
I do not know who taught you to read, but they did not do very well.

I referred to incarceration. That is an inclusive term, that I used properly.
You then point out that not all the incarceration is the same.
Duh. That is why it is called incarceration.

You keep harping on this "innocent until proven guilty" , half truth.

Time to sort.

One of the most sacred principles in the American criminal justice system, holding that a defendant is innocent until proven guilty.

A defendant is a person accused of committing a crime in criminal prosecution or a person against whom some type of civil relief is being sought in a civil case.


So, is a suspect equal to a defendant?
No, they are not equivalent.

As the perp is hauled away in handcuffs, crying "I am innocent until proven guilty." , LEO replies, "Tell it to the judge." , alternately "You will have your day in court."

Suspects are neither neither fully innocent, nor fully guilty.
In different ways they are treated as both guilty, and innocent.

In court, as a defendant, before a judge or jury, they are fully innocent, until proven guilty.

Running from apprehension, at the scene of a violent felony, or a minor traffic offense, they are more guilty than innocent. Put a gun in their hands, and the stakes got raised another notch.
 
Gaius46 said:
I avoided nothing. You’re positions on this don’t reflect any kind of reality that I’m familiar with.

People are innocent until proven guilty and the fact that people can be put in detention prior to a bail hearing - and even after - doesn’t change that picture at all. A suspect is still a suspect until conviction in the eyes of the legal system and society. And that includes the police. You’re wrong.

Perhaps you should read up on things like habeus corpus and the purpose of bail. It might be enlightening.


“May be a fleeing felon for various violent felonies. Law enforcement makes decisions beyond the last 30 minutes.”


So here’s a novel idea. A guy who was convicted and did his time is still innocentnof some new crime until proven guilty and the police have an obligation to treat him as innocent.

And even if that weren’t the case how in hell does the cop know the history of some guy he’s chasing whose name he doesn’t even know?
Click to expand...

"Innocent until proven guilty" refers to defendants , and a suspect is only sometimes a defendant, and certainly not a defendant the first few hours after a crime.

In principle a suspect is innocent, but treated just like the guilty, no distinction.
In the eyes of the law, suspects are treated equally, guilty or innocent.
Yes, they must be treated as though innocent.
Yes, they must be treated as though guilty.
In front of a judge or jury, fully innocent.

Welcome to reality.
 
Again, what the duck are you talking about?

When guilty they don’t need reasonable suspicion to detain you. The guilty cannot sue the cops for false imprisonment.
When guilty they don’t read you your Miranda rights.
When guilty they don’t need probable cause to arrest you.
When guilty they don’t need to go to the judge and have the judge agree to the charges to continue to jail you.

You most certainly are considered innocent until proved guilty at ALL stages, not just in a court of law.
 
Drowning Man said:
Again, what the duck are you talking about?

When guilty they don’t need reasonable suspicion to detain you. The guilty cannot sue the cops for false imprisonment.
When guilty they don’t read you your Miranda rights.
When guilty they don’t need probable cause to arrest you.
When guilty they don’t need to go to the judge and have the judge agree to the charges to continue to jail you.

You most certainly are considered innocent until proved guilty at ALL stages, not just in a court of law.
Click to expand...

Guilt is only decided in a court of law.
If there has been no trial, and no guilty decision based on a trial, there are no guilty suspects/defendents.

Suspects are presumed innocent, but treated just like the guilty.
Equal treatment.
 
Norml said:
Guilt is only decided in a court of law.
If there has been no trial, and no guilty decision based on a trial, there are no guilty suspects/defendents.

Suspects are presumed innocent, but treated just like the guilty.
Equal treatment.
Click to expand...

You keep repeating that all you like. It doesn’t make it any more true.
 
Norml said:
"Innocent until proven guilty" refers to defendants , and a suspect is only sometimes a defendant, and certainly not a defendant the first few hours after a crime.

In principle a suspect is innocent, but treated just like the guilty, no distinction.
In the eyes of the law, suspects are treated equally, guilty or innocent.
Yes, they must be treated as though innocent.
Yes, they must be treated as though guilty.
In front of a judge or jury, fully innocent.

Welcome to reality.
Click to expand...

Suspects may be treated as if they are guilty in your view but that are not in fact guilty until conviction.


You aren’t guilty because you are arrested. You aren’t guilty because you’re in jail and can’t make bail. You aren’t guilty because you’re indicted. You aren’t guilty you are convicted.
 
Gaius46 said:
Suspects may be treated as if they are guilty in your view but that are not in fact guilty until conviction.


You aren’t guilty because you are arrested. You aren’t guilty because you’re in jail and can’t make bail. You aren’t guilty because you’re indicted. You aren’t guilty you are convicted.
Click to expand...

Everyone reading this knows what I know about this.

Innocent people become suspects in a felony.
Then they become a defendant.
They are incarcerated. If they are unable to make bail, they remain incarcerated until their trial, and all through their trial, until a decision is made.

During that time they are treated exactly like a guilty person. Same rules, same food, same freedoms, same lack of freedom. For 6 months treated exactly like a guilty person, until...

They are found innocent. Never convicted of any crime, but lived 6 months of their life as a guilty person.
Like I said, innocent in principle, but treated as a guilty person.

I know that, and so do you.

Suspects at the scene of a violent felony may be treated exactly like a guilty person, until the day they are cleared of all charges, or served their time.
That is all within the parameters of the concept "innocent until proven guilty".
 
Gaius46 said:
Suspects may be treated as if they are guilty in your view but that are not in fact guilty until conviction.


You aren’t guilty because you are arrested. You aren’t guilty because you’re in jail and can’t make bail. You aren’t guilty because you’re indicted. You aren’t guilty you are convicted.
Click to expand...

Everyone reading this knows what I know about this.

Innocent people become suspects in a felony.
Then they become a defendant.
They are incarcerated. If they are unable to make bail, they remain incarcerated until their trial, and all through their trial, until a decision is made.

During that time they are treated exactly like a guilty person. Same rules, same food, same freedoms, same lack of freedom. For 6 months treated exactly like a guilty person, until...

They are found innocent. Never convicted of any crime, but lived 6 months of their life as a guilty person.
Like I said, innocent in principle, but treated as a guilty person.

I know that, and so do you.

Suspects at the scene of a violent felony may be treated exactly like a guilty person, until the day they are cleared of all charges, or served their time.
That is all within the parameters of the concept "innocent until proven guilty".
 
Norml said:
Everyone reading this knows what I know about this.

Innocent people become suspects in a felony.
Then they become a defendant.
They are incarcerated. If they are unable to make bail, they remain incarcerated until their trial, and all through their trial, until a decision is made.

During that time they are treated exactly like a guilty person. Same rules, same food, same freedoms, same lack of freedom. For 6 months treated exactly like a guilty person, until...

They are found innocent. Never convicted of any crime, but lived 6 months of their life as a guilty person.
Like I said, innocent in principle, but treated as a guilty person.

I know that, and so do you.

Suspects at the scene of a violent felony may be treated exactly like a guilty person, until the day they are cleared of all charges, or served their time.
That is all within the parameters of the concept "innocent until proven guilty".
Click to expand...

Again, wrong.

Along with the other things that I wrote above about differences (Miranda rights, need reasonable suspicion to detain, need probable cause to arrest, etc...), I left out the biggest one. Someone merely arrested or indicted cannot be punished...including killed. The death penalty is still legal in some places, but only after the person has been deemed guilty. You seem to think the cops are justified in killing suspects because they are suspected and therefore in your eyes, "guilty". Wrong.
 
Norml said:
Everyone reading this knows what I know about this.

Innocent people become suspects in a felony.
Then they become a defendant.
They are incarcerated. If they are unable to make bail, they remain incarcerated until their trial, and all through their trial, until a decision is made.

During that time they are treated exactly like a guilty person. Same rules, same food, same freedoms, same lack of freedom. For 6 months treated exactly like a guilty person, until...

They are found innocent. Never convicted of any crime, but lived 6 months of their life as a guilty person.
Like I said, innocent in principle, but treated as a guilty person.

I know that, and so do you.

Suspects at the scene of a violent felony may be treated exactly like a guilty person, until the day they are cleared of all charges, or served their time.
That is all within the parameters of the concept "innocent until proven guilty".
Click to expand...

Treated like a guilty person is not the same as being a guilty person.

And the point that drives this home is bail. If they make bail they are not incarcerated.
 
Drowning Man said:
Again, wrong.

Along with the other things that I wrote above about differences (Miranda rights, need reasonable suspicion to detain, need probable cause to arrest, etc...), I left out the biggest one. Someone merely arrested or indicted cannot be punished...including killed. The death penalty is still legal in some places, but only after the person has been deemed guilty. You seem to think the cops are justified in killing suspects because they are suspected and therefore in your eyes, "guilty". Wrong.
Click to expand...

Yeah.
Learn to read.
You might find it helpful from time to time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom