It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

police can use deadly force to stop fleeing people

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 04:36 PM
link   
this was in the news paper i came across.

story.news.yahoo.com.../latimests/20041214/ts_latimes/supremecourtmakesittoughertosuepolice

i think the supreme court needs lay off the wild west movies.to think that a cop can use deadly force on an unarmed person does not sit well with me.criminal or not .the only time deadly force is needed is when the other person is trying to kill you or going to kill someone else in the process.to not be able to make cops follow a certain kind of law makes it easy to shoot anyone they feel without any punishment of there false actions.only thing i can say if this becomes across the board law in all police agencies we might all think about arming are shelves to protect us from this stupid decision.remember the 10 foot law officers and dont shoot everything that moves.

[edit on 14-12-2004 by flukemol]




posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 04:48 PM
link   
"police can use deadly force to stop fleeing people" Ya know...I have always thought that it's a very good idea, that when a police officer yells "STOP"....that you damn well stop!



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Ya know...I have always thought that it's a very good idea, that when a police officer yells "STOP"....that you damn well stop!


Damn right...otherwise, it's simply "thinning the herd". Darwin at it's best right there...

I believe in most places the suspect must be thought to be involved in a felony though...(i.e. he couldn't shoot a fleeing purse-snatcher, etc.)



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 04:59 PM
link   
Where I live,I believe the way it works is the police can shoot a fleeing suspect if they are known to have commited a violent crime and are likely to do so again if they are not stopped immediately. Or something to that effect.



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
I believe in most places the suspect must be thought to be involved in a felony though...(i.e. he couldn't shoot a fleeing purse-snatcher, etc.)


Agreed, but doesn't that allow for alot of shoot first ask questions later? You know, kind of "Yeah he snatched her purse, but he also kinda fit the description of a known Jewel Thief we've been pursuing for some time".

The trigger happies will be loving it...



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 05:05 PM
link   
HAHA


Sorry I am laughing, but if the patriot acts, National ID card, and concentration camps was not enough, this REALLY takes the cake!



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 05:21 PM
link   
this court case happened in canada and was just finished in court lately.

www.injusticebusters.com...

the people who got justice for this are very unhappy about this ruling.



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 05:41 PM
link   
Its another indication of the sickening decline of morals world wide. shooting a fleeing person is not on, if it was you or i shooting a fleeing burgular in the back, we go to jail for murder, but not the cops? Dangerous precedent, theres enuff trigger happys as it is! Cops in vic australia are notorious for "shoot anyway" tactics.



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 06:24 PM
link   
From the article:


"Qualified immunity shields an officer from suit when she makes a decision that, even if constitutionally deficient, reasonably misapprehends the law governing the circumstances she confronted," the court wrote. Brosseau saw Haugen as "a disturbed felon, set on avoiding capture" who may have plowed his car into others in his path, the court said.


The justices seem (seem being the operative word) to be drawing a line noting that Haugen was a felon. To be perfectly clear - he was wanted on felony no bail warrants at the time of this incident. I do not believe this same standard would apply to your average joe schmo who decides to run rather than pull over for a speeding ticket. There seems to be great emphasis placed on the individual facts and circumstances of this particular case.

Just my thoughts on this,
B



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 07:22 PM
link   
In NYS...you CANNOT shoot a fleeing felon...period...if this guy is "fleeing" and shooting at people in the process...yes...but then in essence...he isnt fleeing...he's running while committing more violent felonies...but police in NYS cannot shoot someone just to catch them...no...



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 07:27 PM
link   
.
Aren't police officers trained to use alternate methods when a suspect flees?

How about shooting out the tires of a fleeing vehicle?

How throwing something at a fleeing suspect's legs [a bola would be ideal] if the officer is unable to outrun & tackle them, or at least shooting them in the leg?

It sounds like police only think to use deadly force in all cases.

Why aren't we looking for alternative methods for subduing suspected criminals?

We must be the dumbest species around.

When an innocent un-armed man is shot to death in his own bed and bedroom by an invading officer, it makes me wonder if one reason one should own a gun is to defend yourself from the police.

Shoot and kill the suspect first. Then determine if the corpse was innocent or not.

America is evil. Those who impose and force it on others are and share that evil too.
.



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 10:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by flukemol
this was in the news paper i came across.

story.news.yahoo.com.../latimests/20041214/ts_latimes/supremecourtmakesittoughertosuepolice

i think the supreme court needs lay off the wild west movies.to think that a cop can use deadly force on an unarmed person does not sit well with me.criminal or not .the only time deadly force is needed is when the other person is trying to kill you or going to kill someone else in the process.to not be able to make cops follow a certain kind of law makes it easy to shoot anyone they feel without any punishment of there false actions.only thing i can say if this becomes across the board law in all police agencies we might all think about arming are shelves to protect us from this stupid decision.remember the 10 foot law officers and dont shoot everything that moves.

[edit on 14-12-2004 by flukemol]


As reckless of a statement as that is, I feel the same way.

I mean, what other choice would there be?

If this keeps up, I can small a revolution.
There are many people who won't take this kind of behavior.

What ever happened to "to serve and protect"?


How about "to enslave and oppress"?

[edit on 14-12-2004 by Critical_Mass]



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 10:53 PM
link   
Police with the ability to shoot and kill a fleeing mother? or anyone. They sell drugs, shoot them, even though it comes from us.

Think where this law can take them along with the Patriot Act I and II, The government is stripping it all away right infront of you, and you just agree.




posted on Dec, 15 2004 @ 12:39 AM
link   
I would hope that most of the time they make good decisions and only do this when someone is clearly a danger to the community. I suspect that there are some that are going to shoot just because they can. In the scheme of things sometimes the person that shoots the fleeing suspect is the real criminal in the eyes of god.

This reminds me of the movie "Butch Cassidy & the Sundance Kid" where they did many robberies & never killed anyone. Then they decided to go straight & became payroll security guards and they had to kill people. Thus they went back to being criminals because they felt it was better than killing people for a living.


Originally posted by Gazrok

I believe in most places the suspect must be thought to be involved in a felony though.


The real problem here when they shoot someone whether fleeing a felony or not is that the police are acting as judge, jury & executioner.

Lots of people run - have you ever watched cops where idiots run for stupid reasons. I think it's just the human thing to do - I still remember OJ's run in LA.



[edit on 15-12-2004 by outsider]



posted on Dec, 15 2004 @ 02:11 AM
link   
Well I was a police officer guys and the only time you are allowed to use deadly force is if the perpetrator is trying to kill or seriously injure the police officer or someone else. You are never allowed to shoot someone who is fleeing or even resisting arrest. Unless someone is attacking the police officer or someone else with a weapon and trying to kill them, you cannot shoot them period, whether they're a felon or just robbed a bank, etc. Now if someone is running and has a gun, you still can't shoot them, unless they fire at you or point the gun at you. This goes for every state and every law enforcement agency.



posted on Dec, 15 2004 @ 10:56 PM
link   
Thanks for your perspective Led and I sure that's the case in most areas, but not in the state of Washington.


Seattle Times
On Feb. 21, 1999, Officer Rochelle Brosseau of Puyallup shot Kenneth Haugen as he fled in his Jeep to avoid being arrested on drug charges and for questioning in a burglary in Puyallup.

The Supreme Court's 8-1 opinion said that although "Brosseau's actions fell in the hazy border between excessive and acceptable force,"



posted on Dec, 18 2004 @ 01:36 AM
link   
I myself have a great deal of cops in my family. The stories they tell shed a great deal of light on police brutality and corruption. It seems, for many in law enforcment, that there is a point where one has seen and dealt with too much. At that point, the enither no longer care or attempt to make a difference in his or her own way. That's where you get rogues from, that's what we're giving the police the right to become, rogues.

If it became legal for an officer to fire upon any individual who has commited a crime and only because they're running nationwide, unspeakable events would undoubtfully occur due to the ruling.

With protocol "refined" in such a way, a cop could easily kill you only because he/she doesn't like you, or because you know something which incriminates them. Internal Affairs would be an even more so useless agency, whether or not you think they could get any worse.

Corruption would skyrocket and always remain unprooven as witnesses would end up "running" from the police and "force" the police to shoot and more than likely, kill the "fleeing suspect.'

In the future you will find that because of such rulings, the police are now capable of doing anything and everything they desire. Our rights are being revoked for "our safety." When the obvious future for our civilization becomes reality, it may be too late. When that time comes, I will stand on the side of freedom regardless of the probability of success.

As the t-shirt I am wearing says, "When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty."



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join