North Carolina police officer shoots and kills fleeing suspect, sparks protest.

townhall.com...

Raleigh police did not give the race of either the officer or the dead man. But a black woman who identified herself as the victim's mother told local television the officer was white and that her son was shot in the back as he ran away.

Raleigh Police Chief Cassandra Deck-Brown told reporters that the suspect was running from an officer who sought to arrest him for a drug offense. He was shot near a convenience store just after 12 p.m. A gun was found near the body.

Just putting this here to show how the country is on edge. I sense another riot coming in the near future. Maybe people can do more than just chant and burn and loot.

a reply to: SharonGlass

I hope the officer does the right thing and resigns, so he may attempt to begin to deal with the fact that he killed someone who was running for their life.

I must say with so little information too, it would be hard to know if the suspect/victim had shown the cop his weapon or if that was his weapon at all... still, this does not justify shooting someone in the back.

My thoughts/well-wishes for those who lost someone one they loved, thanks for the share, I have the same hopes as you. If there is a protest here in NC let is be a meaningful one like the old civil rights movement, and not this excuse to act immorally in public that the BLM has become.

a reply to: hubrisinxs

This miscreant kept the police officer from gaining control of the situation by fleeing and refusing to obey orders.

Not having control of the situation leads to danger. Perhaps the death of the officer.

So by fleeing, the felon actively attempted to kill the officer.

As further proof, a gun was found near the body. What more do you want? Proof!

a reply to: Bedlam

I understand the logic. Well stated. Still, why not incapacitate instead of kill. If the officer had shot the suspect in the leg, then the suspect would have stopped running, and he would have a better chance of survival.

I would also like to note that shooting a firearm in a public space is always very dangerous and puts all those around the act in danger. What if the suspect had been running at a child the officer had not seen? The bullet could have passed through the suspect and killed the child.

I am not trying to say the officer should not try and apprehend a fleeing criminal, but to resort to lethal violence must be justified, and with such little information about the case, I am not trying to place any legal consequences on the officer. Still, as a human, he killed another human, and I feel the officer should not just justify that with the cold logic of a hardened soilder.

originally posted by: hubrisinxs
a reply to: Bedlam

I understand the logic. Well stated. Still, why not incapacitate instead of kill. If the officer had shot the suspect in the leg, then the suspect would have stopped running, and he would have a better chance of survival.

I would also like to note that shooting a firearm in a public space is always very dangerous and puts all those around the act in danger. What if the suspect had been running at a child the officer had not seen? The bullet could have passed through the suspect and killed the child.

I am not trying to say the officer should not try and apprehend a fleeing criminal, but to resort to lethal violence must be justified, and with such little information about the case, I am not trying to place any legal consequences on the officer. Still, as a human, he killed another human, and I feel the officer should not just justify that with the cold logic of a hardened soilder.

I'm not here to debate the topic, I just can't stand when people say something about the police just shooting someone in the leg or arms.

It's not going to happen, ever. Nobody trains to shoot at limbs, it's unrealistic and borderline impossible to hit a flailing limb in adrenaline mode. The police are not trained snipers.

You are taught to shoot center mass, not head, arm, neck, leg etc.

Can't risk missing and hurting bystanders, or simply missing at all, when being confronted by an armed assailant.

Not defending the actions of the officer in the OP, or the deceased. Just had to say that.

originally posted by: hubrisinxs
a reply to: Bedlam

I understand the logic. Well stated. Still, why not incapacitate instead of kill. If the officer had shot the suspect in the leg, then the suspect would have stopped running, and he would have a better chance of survival.

Was actually being sarcastic. Tennessee v Garner would seem to establish a legal bar against using deadly force on a fleeing suspect, the cop could be charged with something quite serious in federal court.

I'm sure that's why "a gun was found near the body".

Still, while shooting people in targeted parts of the body is the sort of thing you can do with a comparative lot of time and a really good rifle, it's not so easy with a sidearm. Given my Uzi and a long mag of 9mm on auto, it would be possible to sweep the feet and cause really significant but probably non-lethal injuries. But not so easy with a .40 on a fleeing target when you're wound up.

originally posted by: hubrisinxs
a reply to: Bedlam

I understand the logic. Well stated. Still, why not incapacitate instead of kill. If the officer had shot the suspect in the leg, then the suspect would have stopped running, and he would have a better chance of survival.

I would also like to note that shooting a firearm in a public space is always very dangerous and puts all those around the act in danger. What if the suspect had been running at a child the officer had not seen? The bullet could have passed through the suspect and killed the child.

I am not trying to say the officer should not try and apprehend a fleeing criminal, but to resort to lethal violence must be justified, and with such little information about the case, I am not trying to place any legal consequences on the officer. Still, as a human, he killed another human, and I feel the officer should not just justify that with the cold logic of a hardened soilder.

Shooting low under certain conditions is a good tactic. The standard shipboard repel boarders drill of the 1960's had one take one's Thompson, unclip the sling from the butt stock, stand on the end of the sling, turn the weapon on its side, and start firing bursts left. The recoil would take the weapon to the right while spraying bouncing bullets the length of the open deck which would tend to slow down anyone running along.

Without arguing the merits of this case, shooting in the legs or arms in an uncontrolled environment is not practical or safe for all concerned. Misses are easy and the bullets don't stop when they miss. Leg shots can readily be fatal given the arterial blood supply requirements for the legs as are shoulder and arm wounds to arteries that supply the arms, so all the TV and movies you have seen where people are shot in the extremities and just walk it off/limp it off are complete BS. Further, even if such a shot is eventually fatal, it does not stop the person. While bleeding out, a person can still inflict serious damage. The idea is knockdown and stopping actions.
Tasers have limited range and effectiveness. Bean bag rounds are an option if the officer knows he will need his shotgun or carries it all the time...not realistic. What to do? Stop dealing drugs while carrying guns around.

a reply to: pteridine

Shooting low under certain conditions is a good tactic. The standard shipboard repel boarders drill of the 1960's had one take one's Thompson, unclip the sling from the butt stock, stand on the end of the sling, turn the weapon on its side, and start firing bursts left. The recoil would take the weapon to the right while spraying bouncing bullets the length of the open deck which would tend to slow down anyone running along.

Interesting. First I had ever heard of that technique. Sounds like it could be effective for that particular situation.
Thanks for 'learnin me somethin'.

a reply to: Bedlam

So by fleeing, the felon actively attempted to kill the officer.

Had to edit after seeing it was sarcasm.

You had me going.

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: hubrisinxs
a reply to: Bedlam

I understand the logic. Well stated. Still, why not incapacitate instead of kill. If the officer had shot the suspect in the leg, then the suspect would have stopped running, and he would have a better chance of survival.

Was actually being sarcastic. Tennessee v Garner would seem to establish a legal bar against using deadly force on a fleeing suspect, the cop could be charged with something quite serious in federal court.

I'm sure that's why "a gun was found near the body".

Still, while shooting people in targeted parts of the body is the sort of thing you can do with a comparative lot of time and a really good rifle, it's not so easy with a sidearm. Given my Uzi and a long mag of 9mm on auto, it would be possible to sweep the feet and cause really significant but probably non-lethal injuries. But not so easy with a .40 on a fleeing target when you're wound up.

Supreme court said its perfectly legal to shoot fleeing suspect in the back IF they are a threat to the community. And apparently he was since he had a weapon. IF the boy was UN ARMED its not legal. SO its a very thin line here.

fortunatly this means no charges should be brought against the policeman if they follow the law.

originally posted by: pteridine

Without arguing the merits of this case, shooting in the legs or arms in an uncontrolled environment is not practical or safe for all concerned.

I was thinking more 'how would you hit a fleeing/attacking person in a limb, somewhat consistently' rather than 'what's a good thing to do'.

And the only way I know that's got even half a chance is to sweep low.

originally posted by: yuppa

Supreme court said its perfectly legal to shoot fleeing suspect in the back IF they are a threat to the community. And apparently he was since he had a weapon. IF the boy was UN ARMED its not legal. SO its a very thin line here.

Yeah...you can't really justify 'look, he had a weapon, so it's ok', though. If he didn't have it in hand at the time, you can't kill first and then retro-justify. "We found a gun near the body afterwards" sounds an awful lot like "I didn't see one before I shot him" to me.

originally posted by: SharonGlass
a reply to: Bedlam

You had me going.

It's the logic they use.

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: yuppa

Supreme court said its perfectly legal to shoot fleeing suspect in the back IF they are a threat to the community. And apparently he was since he had a weapon. IF the boy was UN ARMED its not legal. SO its a very thin line here.

Yeah...you can't really justify 'look, he had a weapon, so it's ok', though. If he didn't have it in hand at the time, you can't kill first and then retro-justify. "We found a gun near the body afterwards" sounds an awful lot like "I didn't see one before I shot him" to me.

Read th e case law on it. I read the decision too. they did say if th esuspect is believed to be a danger to others it i sperfectly legal to shoot them dead. No justification is needed beyond that. Do you know If th e cop didnt see the gun first?

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: pteridine

Without arguing the merits of this case, shooting in the legs or arms in an uncontrolled environment is not practical or safe for all concerned.

I was thinking more 'how would you hit a fleeing/attacking person in a limb, somewhat consistently' rather than 'what's a good thing to do'.

And the only way I know that's got even half a chance is to sweep low.

Too much chance of collateral damage with a sweep in a public area. I would guess that chances of hitting a leg increase if the aim is closer to the body as the motion there is less. This may result in a femoral artery hit and bleed out or a "worse than death" hit. Slick pilots in Viet-Nam used to put their steel pots [and steel plates] under their seat to make them feel better about shots from the ground.

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: yuppa

Supreme court said its perfectly legal to shoot fleeing suspect in the back IF they are a threat to the community. And apparently he was since he had a weapon. IF the boy was UN ARMED its not legal. SO its a very thin line here.

Yeah...you can't really justify 'look, he had a weapon, so it's ok', though. If he didn't have it in hand at the time, you can't kill first and then retro-justify. "We found a gun near the body afterwards" sounds an awful lot like "I didn't see one before I shot him" to me.

Read th e case law on it. I read the decision too. they did say if th esuspect is believed to be a danger to others it i sperfectly legal to shoot them dead. No justification is needed beyond that. Do you know If th e cop didnt see the gun first?

Beyond noting he didn't say it, but did "find one near the body", no. I would have expected him to say it up front if he had.

a reply to: pteridine

Pfft. All they do is grab the leg and say "Aaaa", then the EMT's show up and say it's a flesh wound.

eta: and again, I'm not saying it's a great tactic. It was in response to "why don't they just shoot them in the arm".