• 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?

Scorps2000

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 21, 2019
Messages
396
Reaction score
66
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
I was trained in law enforcement back in the day, 1980. I was told, if the felon drops the gun and is not a threat to anyone do not shoot.

It seems to me that has changed, has it and if so when?
 
I was trained in law enforcement back in the day, 1980. I was told, if the felon drops the gun and is not a threat to anyone do not shoot.

It seems to me that has changed, has it and if so when?


Is There A Federal Legal Standard To Judge The Appropriateness Of Police Use Of Force?
Yes. The Supreme Court held in a 1989 case, Graham v. Connor, that the appropriateness of use of force by officers "must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene," rather than evaluated through 20/20 hindsight.


United States Supreme Court

TENNESSEE v. GARNER(1985)
No. 83-1035
Argued: October 30, 1984Decided: March 27, 1985
TENNESSEE v. GARNER | FindLaw




Use of force

The Supreme Court has ruled on numerous occasions on police use of force as it relates to the Fourth Amendment, but the two most important cases are probably Graham and Garner. Let’s review both.

1. Graham v. Connor

In Graham, the Supreme Court established what has become known as the “objectively reasonable standard” when it held that “the ‘reasonableness’ of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.” When it comes to UOF cases, Graham is probably the most important, and yet following a high-profile use of force, this case is almost never mentioned — nor is it likely to be well understood — by the mainstream media.

If we could change one thing in the minds of the press, the public, and the politicians, it would likely be to give them a thorough education on Graham. I put Graham at number one for a reason. It’s time for police to take back the narrative. It is imperative that police go beyond simply including Graham in Citizens Academies. It has to be articulated in press conferences, PSAs, and elsewhere.

2. Tennessee v. Garner

In Garner, the court held that when a police officer is pursuing a fleeing suspect, he or she may NOT use deadly force to prevent escape “unless the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.” This decision, which reversed a Tennessee statute which allowed the use of deadly force on any fleeing felon — even those who posed no imminent danger to anyone — has helped inform the creation of UOF policy across the country. Officers who use deadly force on a fleeing felon must be able to articulate probable cause that the subject posed a significant threat of death or serious physical injury at the time of the use of force.

When there is media coverage of a video of a cop shooting someone in the back, police executives and experts need to explain why that officer might have reasonably believed that person posed a significant threat of death or serious physical injury.

5 Supreme Court Cases The Police And The Public Should Know | PoliceOne
 
I don’t know about 1980 but Tennesse v Garner was decided in 85-87 something like that and it held that the police cannot shoot a fleeing felon unless the officer has probable cause to believe that the felon poses a serious threat to the officer or others.

My observation is that departments and prosecutors generally bend over backwards to give the officer the benefit of the doubt.
 
If there's a chance the felon can get away and potentially harm an innocent, I don't have a problem with shooting them.
 
There have been quite a few examples recorded on video showing cops shooting fleeing persons. So to the question posed by the thread title, yes, a cop can shoot fleeing citizens. It happens all the time.

They can taze innocent people and club them too.

Is this question real?
 
I was trained in law enforcement back in the day, 1980. I was told, if the felon drops the gun and is not a threat to anyone do not shoot.

It seems to me that has changed, has it and if so when?

In California, we are at the point in most cities that all the perp has to do is run. Cops rarely chase due to legal jeopardy. You can’t trust eye witnesses in the ghetto, so if they don’t surrender voluntarily, cops just don’t bother to avoid hostile review boards and lawsuits.
 
In California, we are at the point in most cities that all the perp has to do is run. Cops rarely chase due to legal jeopardy. You can’t trust eye witnesses in the ghetto, so if they don’t surrender voluntarily, cops just don’t bother to avoid hostile review boards and lawsuits.

Well, shooting at a moving target in crowded environments (which you described) is always risky. Walls are not bulletproof, people are everywhere. So the bar *should* be high IMO in determining if it's worth shooting a fleeing suspect. IMO they should be alot stricter on the determination if the suspect presents a true *imminent* threat to public safety.
 
If a peace officer gives you a series of lawful orders, and you repeatedly refuse to obey, and attempt to prevent your lawful arrest, I consider you to be a threat to my wellbeing.

If you refuse to obey a police officer, I sure know that no pleading from me will prevent any assault on my body or my property.

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

It bothers me that a car jacker, with an infant in the back seat of their stolen car, thinks they should be able to hop out and evade arrest by going in the wind. I would rather they be laying on the ground bleeding. Breathing or not, as the case may be.

Accountability does not mean an end to common sense.

Some people do not realize that when they refuse a lawful order, they immediately put their life in danger. Bad things may happen.
 
I was trained in law enforcement back in the day, 1980. I was told, if the felon drops the gun and is not a threat to anyone do not shoot.

It seems to me that has changed, has it and if so when?
I'm sure laws and policies vary in different jurisdictions but I think the general principle is (and long has been) that deathly force is justified to prevent threats of serious injury or death. Any given situation will be unique and it's perfectly possible that a suspect who is fleeing and/or has dropped a weapon could still be legitimately deemed to pose a serious threat.

I'm curious what leads to believe anything has significantly changed. You might see lots of reports about particular incidents in the media these days but that doesn't necessarily mean they're more common, only that they're more commonly and widely reported.
 
It would have to be an extreme case. Someone jumping the fence into a day-care facility who may or not be armed...possibly.

But just some cop weighed down by years of eating doughnuts and doesn't feel like catching the suspect? Nope.

I believe the standard is what is "objectively reasonable" in terms of that person being a threat to others.
 
I just graduated from a Law Enforcement Academy last year. No shooting unless you can verbalize why you or someone else was in immediate danger. I'd be surprised if there were any shooting a fleeing felon incidents in the US in the last several years or more...
 
I just graduated from a Law Enforcement Academy last year. No shooting unless you can verbalize why you or someone else was in immediate danger. I'd be surprised if there were any shooting a fleeing felon incidents in the US in the last several years or more...

I guess you need to be surprised...

YouTube
YouTube
YouTube
YouTube
YouTube

Just a 5 second search. There are many more examples.
 
I guess you need to be surprised...

YouTube
YouTube
YouTube
YouTube
YouTube

Just a 5 second search. There are many more examples.

The Walter Scott case immediately came to mind when I read the comment above. Had it not been for that young mans cell phone capture, I have no doubt that the ex cop, (now a convict) would have skated by on his lies. Instead, he not only ended Scott's life, he screwed his own, his wife's life and his unborn child (at the time).
 
The Walter Scott case immediately came to mind when I read the comment above. Had it not been for that young mans cell phone capture, I have no doubt that the ex cop, (now a convict) would have skated by on his lies. Instead, he not only ended Scott's life, he screwed his own, his wife's life and his unborn child (at the time).

Agreed.

Yeah, that was a bad one. Especially because it looked like the cop tried to frame Scott afterwards.
 
If a peace officer gives you a series of lawful orders, and you repeatedly refuse to obey, and attempt to prevent your lawful arrest, I consider you to be a threat to my wellbeing.

If you refuse to obey a police officer, I sure know that no pleading from me will prevent any assault on my body or my property.

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

It bothers me that a car jacker, with an infant in the back seat of their stolen car, thinks they should be able to hop out and evade arrest by going in the wind. I would rather they be laying on the ground bleeding. Breathing or not, as the case may be.

Accountability does not mean an end to common sense.

Some people do not realize that when they refuse a lawful order, they immediately put their life in danger. Bad things may happen.


You arent very familiar with the use of firearms, are you? Legally or practically...or ethically?
 
BTW, isn't "fleeing felon" a bit presumptuous? How about "fleeing suspect"?

The cops aren't judge, jury and executioner...or aren't supposed to be, anyway.
 
BTW, isn't "fleeing felon" a bit presumptuous? How about "fleeing suspect"?

The cops aren't judge, jury and executioner...or aren't supposed to be, anyway.

Yes you’re right. I unthinkingly used the same language as the OP in my post even though the opinion I cited correctly uses “suspect.” Egregious on my part. apologies.
 
If there's a chance the felon can get away and potentially harm an innocent, I don't have a problem with shooting them.

There’s always a chance. Just as there’s always a chance the sun won’t rise tomorrow. Taken at face value your statement would give police unrestricted authority to shoot someone who’s fleeing. Is that what you really meant to say?
 
If a peace officer gives you a series of lawful orders, and you repeatedly refuse to obey, and attempt to prevent your lawful arrest, I consider you to be a threat to my wellbeing.

If you refuse to obey a police officer, I sure know that no pleading from me will prevent any assault on my body or my property.

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

It bothers me that a car jacker, with an infant in the back seat of their stolen car, thinks they should be able to hop out and evade arrest by going in the wind. I would rather they be laying on the ground bleeding. Breathing or not, as the case may be.

Accountability does not mean an end to common sense.

Some people do not realize that when they refuse a lawful order, they immediately put their life in danger. Bad things may happen.

Really? If the suspect doesn’t speak English? If the suspect is mentally disabled? If the suspect is a scared kid and unthinkingly reacts by running?

They all deserve to be shot because they scare you?
 
Is There A Federal Legal Standard To Judge The Appropriateness Of Police Use Of Force?
Yes. The Supreme Court held in a 1989 case, Graham v. Connor, that the appropriateness of use of force by officers "must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene," rather than evaluated through 20/20 hindsight.


United States Supreme Court

TENNESSEE v. GARNER(1985)
No. 83-1035
Argued: October 30, 1984Decided: March 27, 1985
TENNESSEE v. GARNER | FindLaw




Use of force

The Supreme Court has ruled on numerous occasions on police use of force as it relates to the Fourth Amendment, but the two most important cases are probably Graham and Garner. Let’s review both.

1. Graham v. Connor

In Graham, the Supreme Court established what has become known as the “objectively reasonable standard” when it held that “the ‘reasonableness’ of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.” When it comes to UOF cases, Graham is probably the most important, and yet following a high-profile use of force, this case is almost never mentioned — nor is it likely to be well understood — by the mainstream media.

If we could change one thing in the minds of the press, the public, and the politicians, it would likely be to give them a thorough education on Graham. I put Graham at number one for a reason. It’s time for police to take back the narrative. It is imperative that police go beyond simply including Graham in Citizens Academies. It has to be articulated in press conferences, PSAs, and elsewhere.

2. Tennessee v. Garner

In Garner, the court held that when a police officer is pursuing a fleeing suspect, he or she may NOT use deadly force to prevent escape “unless the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.” This decision, which reversed a Tennessee statute which allowed the use of deadly force on any fleeing felon — even those who posed no imminent danger to anyone — has helped inform the creation of UOF policy across the country. Officers who use deadly force on a fleeing felon must be able to articulate probable cause that the subject posed a significant threat of death or serious physical injury at the time of the use of force.

When there is media coverage of a video of a cop shooting someone in the back, police executives and experts need to explain why that officer might have reasonably believed that person posed a significant threat of death or serious physical injury.

5 Supreme Court Cases The Police And The Public Should Know | PoliceOne
Interesting reading here. GRAHAM v. CONNOR | FindLaw From Graham v Connor.

"....(d) The Johnson v. Glick test applied by the courts below is incompatible with a proper Fourth Amendment analysis. The suggestion that the test's "malicious and sadistic" inquiry is merely another way of describing conduct that is objectively unreasonable under the circumstances is rejected. Also rejected is the conclusion that because individual officers' subjective motivations are of central importance in deciding whether force used against a convicted prisoner violates the Eighth Amendment, it cannot be reversible error to inquire into them in deciding whether force used against a suspect or arrestee violates the Fourth Amendment. The Eighth Amendment terms "cruel" and "punishments" clearly suggest some inquiry into subjective state of mind, whereas the Fourth Amendment term "unreasonable" does not. Moreover, the less protective Eighth Amendment standard applies only after the State has complied with the constitutional guarantees traditionally associated with criminal prosecutions. Pp. 397-399....."

Not sure I like it from a public policy perspective , but I do understand the legal logic here. This explains some stuff especially how we have ended up with these rather warped police training manuals and morally ambivalent lethal force results. I had completely blamed harsh economics in city and county budgets and the pressures of legislative campaigning for something that this section of this decision justified and validated throughout the country.

To my credit I never blamed it on the nature of police officers. I knew that cops were fighting against their instincts when they gave fire, as often as they were surrendering to them.

Constitutional review will not bring back proper balance. Legislative political pressures a and executive fiscal pressures coincide to deny the same.
 
Last edited:
I was trained in law enforcement back in the day, 1980. I was told, if the felon drops the gun and is not a threat to anyone do not shoot.

It seems to me that has changed, has it and if so when?

That's the question there. If the felon is going to get away, and the officer has reason to believe that they will be a threat to someone else, then I believe they can shoot still. Ultimately, it's still their own fault as the culmination of their own choices in life. No one put them in that situation of being a hardened criminal that hurts other people but themselves.

May as well shed tears for ISIS members that get bombed while sleeping in their houses at night.
 
That's the question there. If the felon is going to get away, and the officer has reason to believe that they will be a threat to someone else, then I believe they can shoot still.

Actually, the standard is beyond just the officer's reason to believe. It is "objectively reasonable", which is a harsher standard than simply the officer having reason to believe.

Ultimately, it's still their own fault as the culmination of their own choices in life. No one put them in that situation of being a hardened criminal that hurts other people but themselves.

You're presuming a lot, here. First, as I noted above, when someone runs, even if they are suspected of a heinous crime, that doesn't automatically make them a "hardened criminal that hurts other people". One of the founding principles of our country is that we are all innocent until proved guilty.
Second, some people shot in the back by police have done nothing more than deciding to run. Hardly a "hardened criminal". Hell, folks have been shot when they laid on the ground with their hands up...
YouTube

May as well shed tears for ISIS members that get bombed while sleeping in their houses at night.

This is as extreme as some people who call the police "blue ISIS". I don't buy it from either side.
 
You're presuming a lot, here. First, as I noted above, when someone runs, even if they are suspected of a heinous crime, that doesn't automatically make them a "hardened criminal that hurts other people". One of the founding principles of our country is that we are all innocent until proved guilty.
Second, some people shot in the back by police have done nothing more than deciding to run. Hardly a "hardened criminal". Hell, folks have been shot when they laid on the ground with their hands up...
YouTube

You're changing the topic of the OP, which is a standoff between the police and an armed criminal and then the criminal drops their gun and they currently aren't a threat of shooting others. If they do that and then submit to arrest, then they most definitely shouldn't be shot. If they then run, the officer has to figure out of that person is still an immediate threat to others. Them dropping their gun is merely a selfish act of self-preservation. Them running is a selfish act trying to escape the consequences of their actions.
 
I was trained in law enforcement back in the day, 1980. I was told, if the felon drops the gun and is not a threat to anyone do not shoot.

It seems to me that has changed, has it and if so when?

A police officer can shoot anyone. Whether or not the officer will have to answer to society for the decision to shoot is another matter.
 
You're changing the topic of the OP, which is a standoff between the police and an armed criminal and then the criminal drops their gun and they currently aren't a threat of shooting others.

I don't know how the cop determines that the person with the gun is a felon...but lets say that the person is and the cop knows it. That doesn't necessarily make them a criminal now, right? Felons can legally own guns in some areas, right?

BTW, not all felons are necessarily, "hardened criminal that hurts other people", right? Someone could be charged with jaywalking, taken to jail, and then escapes from prison. That is a felony...

If they do that and then submit to arrest, then they most definitely shouldn't be shot. If they then run, the officer has to figure out of that person is still an immediate threat to others. Them dropping their gun is merely a selfish act of self-preservation. Them running is a selfish act trying to escape the consequences of their actions.

Yes, and neither selfish acts warrant an officer shooting them in the back, necessarily. Actually, probably not because they have given up a huge means by which they could use to harm others.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom