The legal standard for the use of deadly force by law enforcement

[EternalFantasies]

hehehe...


And the point being: this is people's lives, and deaths kind of matter. It's not a 4th amendment or tax cuts debate...

The only reason for these acts to take place, is not a standard, or racism, etc.

It's people's degeneration and what's become permissible and possible.

 

[richard_daily]

Well, it certainly doesn't disprove the element of racism among individual police officers, but it severely undercuts the theory of racism among trial or grand juries if they are acting in
accord with the legal standard of that state -- no matter how archaic that standard may appear to be.

But, yeah, my thesis is about unreasonable expectations of a legal standard with which average citizens are not familiar and therefore find other substitute motivations and explanations.

Masking state-sanctioned murder behind the rule of law doesn't stop making it murder.

Jim Crow still exists, and he exists for a reason.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Do you remember the episode where Friday was in a laundromat and fired on a gunman? He spent a full day (as I recall) trying to locate the slug because department policy required EACH and EVERY round to be accounted for. If that were to apply in real life today, how much time would officers be out there looking for the 20 or 30 rounds they fired at a fleeing subject as often happens?

I don't know if this was that episode or not, but I saw one in which Friday went into a laundromat and saw somebody trying to break open a change dispenser. He called on the guy to surrender, and the guy turned and fire a shot. Friday returned fire and hit him. However, the burglar's slug disappeared and he claimed he had not shot at Friday, although he did have a pistol. Later, the slug was found lodged in a wall. It had passed under a shelf and jarred the shelf up and remained in the wall behind the shelf, which had then settled back into place, covering the spot where the slug had entered the wall. It matched the burglar's gun, and Friday was exonerated.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Masking state-sanctioned murder behind the rule of law doesn't stop making it murder.

Jim Crow still exists, and he exists for a reason.

I'll simply re-quote part of what I said in my second post here and then ask you the $64,000 question:

What is an officer’s REASONABLE fear for his safety in light of a suspect’s refusal to comply with an officer’s demands to display his hands, drop a weapon or other object, assume a particular posture either standing, kneeling or lying prone, for the purpose of affecting an arrest or merely conducting a safe and secure on-site interrogation? Neither you nor I would be justified in shooting someone simply because he had his hands in his pockets. Are you sure that is a criminal standard you wish to hold to police officers either responding to a crime scene or when a routine traffic stop has “gone bad?”

To hold that police officers are above or justifiably immune from state criminal sanctions related to assault and murder is itself an abomination of law.

To recognize that that those same criminal sanctions, when justly applied to police officers, are going to involve significantly different legal standards than when applied to you and me reflect no such dysfunction.

And if you’re going to solve systemic problems of LAW with respect to law enforcement procedures in the use of lethal force, you’d better be far more properly equipped to parse the legal details regarding the permutations inherent in law enforcement procedure and real-life circumstances than the average person is thusly imbued.

What then is YOUR suggested legal standard that properly balances the life of the responding police officer and that of the criminal suspect he encounters when that officer is engaged in protecting the lives and property of innocent civilians in the community? And, yes, this question presumes that the criminal suspect may also be one of those same innocent citizens.

Please come up with the collection of words that precisely defines what is reasonable for all concerned in the majority of law enforcement scenarios.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Masking state-sanctioned murder behind the rule of law doesn't stop making it murder.

Jim Crow still exists, and he exists for a reason.

Really? Care to point out exactly where?


And if it's not different when the state approves, you must consider taxation robbery then correct???

 

[Colonel Hogan]

And if it's not different when the state approves, you must consider taxation robbery then correct???

^^^^^^ Head shot.

 

[richard_daily]

I'll simply re-quote part of what I said in my second post here and then ask you the $64,000 question:



What then is YOUR suggested legal standard that properly balances the life of the responding police officer and that of the criminal suspect he encounters when that officer is engaged in protecting the lives and property of innocent civilians in the community? And, yes, this question presumes that the criminal suspect may also be one of those same innocent citizens.

Please come up with the collection of words that precisely defines what is reasonable for all concerned in the majority of law enforcement scenarios.

Police should be obligated to use the minimum amount of force (up to and including lethal) required to stop a real threat. Not a perceived threat, but an actual, substantiated, and immediate threat to life.

As an individual private citizen, that's my responsibility. Why should we hold police to a lower standard than an individual citizen?

 

[BotanyBoy]

Police should be obligated to use the minimum amount of force (up to and including lethal) required to stop a real threat. Not a perceived threat, but an actual, substantiated, and immediate threat to life.

As an individual private citizen, that's my responsibility. Why should we hold police to a lower standard than an individual citizen?

Immediate threat = perceived threat...you don't have time to do a peer-reviewed study, fill out all the paperwork and document the threat for later verification. You either react and neutralize the perceived threat, or you roll the dice and find out if the suspect is about to squeeze it or not. In a real world situation there is no in-between, you either make that call or you don't. You literally have a second, if you're lucky, maybe two to decide if you're going to peel some caps.

If that really is the standard you must meet as an individual citizen, which I doubt, that's because you live in the shithole known as Chiraq...run by a bunch of glue eating morons. Most of the country however isn't like that, sans a few bubbles of crazy like Chiraq of course.

And once again if it's not different when the government does it you MUST consider taxation robbery then correct?

 

[richard_daily]

Immediate threat = perceived threat...you don't have time to do a peer-reviewed study, fill out all the paperwork and document the threat for later verification. You either react and neutralize the perceived threat, or you roll the dice and find out if the suspect is about to squeeze it or not. In a real world situation there is no in-between, you either make that call or you don't. You literally have a second, if you're lucky, maybe two to decide if you're going to peel some caps.

If that really is the standard you must meet as an individual citizen, which I doubt, that's because you live in the shithole known as Chiraq...run by a bunch of glue eating morons. Most of the country however isn't like that, sans a few bubbles of crazy like Chiraq of course.

And once again if it's not different when the government does it you MUST consider taxation robbery then correct?

No, immediate threat, doesn't mean perceived threat... For example, if you have PTSD, you perceive threats where there are none. Also, perceived thread greatly varies depending on experience and training.

Here's why it matters:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/11/us/wv-cop-fired-for-not-shooting--lawsuit/index.html

This is a combat veteran, who was fired to NOT killing a man who was clearly suicidal. He handled the situation correctly, calmly, and professionally. The back up that arrived did not. Ronald Williams is dead because of that.

He was fired for not murdering a man who was holding an unloaded pistol, and that information had been relayed to dispatch.

 

[Aglaopheme]

I would like to see the stats on police shootings for states that have changed their laws from the more broadly stated "felony" and those that have not. I wonder if it makes a difference?

 

[richard_daily]

I would like to see the stats on police shootings for states that have changed their laws from the more broadly stated "felony" and those that have not. I wonder if it makes a difference?

In general, the police aren't required to keep or provide stats on use of force. It's time for a change.

Taxpayers are spending billions of dollars on settlements from bad shots by cops, and nothing is changing. Even if you just look at this from a financial standpoint, this system is completely broken.

 

[BotanyBoy]

No, immediate threat, doesn't mean perceived threat.

In the real world outside of mental batin' for the sake of legal philosophy, it does.

All immediate threats are perceived, not substantiated, because immediate.

By the time you've substantiated, it's either too late or it's not a threat.

There is only reaction to the perception of threat in the here and now.

If it's no different when the government does it, then taxation is robbery isn't it?

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Police should be obligated to use the minimum amount of force (up to and including lethal) required to stop a real threat. Not a perceived threat, but an actual, substantiated, and immediate threat to life.

As an individual private citizen, that's my responsibility. Why should we hold police to a lower standard than an individual citizen?

So, whether you realize it or not (and I'm betting "not") you've given us no less than FIVE separate legal standards:

1. a threat that is "real" rather than falsely "perceived."

2. the reality of the threat must be "substantiated."

3. the substantiated threat must be "immediate" rather than delayed or potential.

4. the real, substantiated, immediate threat must "threaten life" rather than mere physical harm (for the purpose of item 4, I am going to assume you mean the use of lethal force, and that you did NOT intend to hold a "real, substantiated, immediate threat to life" as the minimum standard for the use of any non-lethal force such as the use of mace, taser or physically striking or restraining a suspect). While I am giving you the benefit of the doubt here, I would simply remind you that these are the nit-picky, detailed-driven conversations that must be engaged and resolved when writing law. Because the point is to live (and die) by whatever "consensus" about these standards "we" achieve.

5. In the case of any and all force, only the "minimum required" is authorized in order to "stop" the above threat.

That's a hell of a legal standard you've come up with there.

Now all you have to do in order to fairly adjudicate it (as either prosecutor, judge or jury) is to come up with definitions and additional standards that enable you to weigh all conceivable law enforcement scenarios in order to:

1. Objectively identify "reality" versus "perception." Do hands hidden in pockets or behind other visual obstacles and the failure to display them at the order of the officer represent a real or perceived threat?

2. Arbitrarily determine if an otherwise "real" threat nonetheless fails the test of "substantiation" if the gun pointed at the officer turns out to be unloaded or is simply a very realistic looking toy?

3. Define the time frame that establishes "immediacy."

4. Properly decide whether a "real, substantiated, immediate threat" is or isn't "life threatening." How close does the officer have to be to a knife wielding suspect in order to have his life threatened? If the suspect is holding a knife to a potential victim's throat, may the officer approach from behind and, without warning, use lethal force against the suspect? Because concurrent with or immediately subsequent to the warning, the victim may be dead.

5. Stipulate at least sample scenarios and the appropriate forceful responses to illustrate the "required minimums."

And finally this:

As an individual private citizen, that's my responsibility. Why should we hold police to a lower standard than an individual citizen?

Because as a private citizen you don't have a legal responsibility to serve as an "officer of the court" to prevent crime and arrest and detain violators of the law as do police officers. That responsibility places them at great risk when protecting themselves, and YOU, from said violators. That risk takes place on a daily basis. You have certain legal protections, or your criminal liability may be mitigated based on your benevolent motivations, if you CHOOSE to get involved, but generally you are absolved of that responsibility. The value subjectively placed on the lives of these public servants and the innocent lives such as YOURS that they seek to protect is such that we have generally consented to an arguably LOWER legal standard of "negligence" when they make tragic mistakes on our behalf.

That's why. And that is indisputably what the law does.

Now we, as a society, can collectively impose whatever standards of professional conduct we want on these servants. And, to take your suggested standards as an example, we can then go and try to recruit someone to take the job at the same rate of pay with the knowledge that they can go to jail as a criminal felon on the basis of honestly fucking up on any of the five factual elements you've prescribed.

Frankly, if you weren't going to give ME a better benefit of the doubt than that, I'd tell you to take that job and shove it. How about you? Would YOU sign up for that?

 

[Liar]

In the real world outside of mental batin' for the sake of legal philosophy, it does.

All immediate threats are perceived, not substantiated, because immediate.

By the time you've substantiated, it's either too late or it's not a threat.

There is only reaction to the perception of threat in the here and now.

Dude, you can't accuse someone of mental batin' for the sake of philosophy, and then lay down a Plato's Cave argument.

While technically correct, you're kind of missing the point. Yeah it's about perception. (Except of course when it isn't and perception is a post fact construction to cover one's ass, but that's hard to prove.) You can precieve things wrong. Now... shouldn't police officers, given their legal authority and leeway to act upon their preceptions, be held to a high standard when it comes to not precieving things wrong?

 

[Wats_butthole]

Believe it or not, he does a great deal.


The jury's still out on you though i'm afraid.

(hey - i'm honest)

Shaddap, queefy.

 

[richard_daily]

So, whether you realize it or not (and I'm betting "not") you've given us no less than FIVE separate legal standards:

1. a threat that is "real" rather than falsely "perceived."

2. the reality of the threat must be "substantiated."

3. the substantiated threat must be "immediate" rather than delayed or potential.

4. the real, substantiated, immediate threat must "threaten life" rather than mere physical harm (for the purpose of item 4, I am going to assume you mean the use of lethal force, and that you did NOT intend to hold a "real, substantiated, immediate threat to life" as the minimum standard for the use of any non-lethal force such as the use of mace, taser or physically striking or restraining a suspect). While I am giving you the benefit of the doubt here, I would simply remind you that these are the nit-picky, detailed-driven conversations that must be engaged and resolved when writing law. Because the point is to live (and die) by whatever "consensus" about these standards "we" achieve.

5. In the case of any and all force, only the "minimum required" is authorized in order to "stop" the above threat.

That's a hell of a legal standard you've come up with there.

Now all you have to do in order to fairly adjudicate it (as either prosecutor, judge or jury) is to come up with definitions and additional standards that enable you to weigh all conceivable law enforcement scenarios in order to:

1. Objectively identify "reality" versus "perception." Do hands hidden in pockets or behind other visual obstacles and the failure to display them at the order of the officer represent a real or perceived threat?

2. Arbitrarily determine if an otherwise "real" threat nonetheless fails the test of "substantiation" if the gun pointed at the officer turns out to be unloaded or is simply a very realistic looking toy?

3. Define the time frame that establishes "immediacy."

4. Properly decide whether a "real, substantiated, immediate threat" is or isn't "life threatening." How close does the officer have to be to a knife wielding suspect in order to have his life threatened? If the suspect is holding a knife to a potential victim's throat, may the officer approach from behind and, without warning, use lethal force against the suspect? Because concurrent with or immediately subsequent to the warning, the victim may be dead.

5. Stipulate at least sample scenarios and the appropriate forceful responses to illustrate the "required minimums."

And finally this:



Because as a private citizen you don't have a legal responsibility to serve as an "officer of the court" to prevent crime and arrest and detain violators of the law as do police officers. That responsibility places them at great risk when protecting themselves, and YOU, from said violators. That risk takes place on a daily basis. You have certain legal protections, or your criminal liability may be mitigated based on your benevolent motivations, if you CHOOSE to get involved, but generally you are absolved of that responsibility. The value subjectively placed on the lives of these public servants and the innocent lives such as YOURS that they seek to protect is such that we have generally consented to an arguably LOWER legal standard of "negligence" when they make tragic mistakes on our behalf.

That's why. And that is indisputably what the law does.

Now we, as a society, can collectively impose whatever standards of professional conduct we want on these servants. And, to take your suggested standards as an example, we can then go and try to recruit someone to take the job at the same rate of pay with the knowledge that they can go to jail as a criminal felon on the basis of honestly fucking up on any of the five factual elements you've prescribed.

Frankly, if you weren't going to give ME a better benefit of the doubt than that, I'd tell you to take that job and shove it. How about you? Would YOU sign up for that?

I'll respond to the rest later, but police officers do NOT have an obligation to prevent crime, or to act to protect you or I. You know this, I'm sure.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

I'll respond to the rest later, but police officers do NOT have an obligation to prevent crime, or to act to protect you or I. You know this, I'm sure.

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/h1O6BcVbWDY/hqdefault.jpg

 

[Que]

I'll respond to the rest later, but police officers do NOT have an obligation to prevent crime, or to act to protect you or I. You know this, I'm sure.

Not incurring liability does not equal not having responsibility. It is, literally, their job to do so. We, as a society, expect them to do so as best they can during each fluid encounter.

 

[Wats_butthole]

I see the tranny meth hasn't worn off yet. What's that, 86hrs straight?

 

[Rightguide]

I'll respond to the rest later, but police officers do NOT have an obligation to prevent crime, or to act to protect you or I. You know this, I'm sure.

Yes, of course, they get paid to fuck off all day like you do, right?

 

[EternalFantasies]

Well, if he doesn't come up with a good set of words to describe the kind of law we need to have to manage this matter 'better', anyone else can?

Can you Colonel Hogan?


I'm afraid you may very well end up being frustrated with it and find that it will always revolve around the judgement of the officer.

And we are back to the quality of that officer's perception, kind of training and necessary evaluations to earn his/her badge.


And might I remind Sean's intervention, how indeed, what you're suggesting is for the law to come and zero in further on details which is indeed a commie / police state can of direction - and one that won't work as per the above.

 

[richard_daily]

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/h1O6BcVbWDY/hqdefault.jpg

You are a lawyer, correct? How do you not know this.

DeShaney v. Winnebago County
Castle Rock v. Gonzales

etc etc...


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/p...ot-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html

So your argument that cops have to protect us, so then they need a lower standard of conduct doesn't hold water.

 

[richard_daily]

Yes, of course, they get paid to fuck off all day like you do, right?

I'm not surprised that you're that stupid... I would be surprised if Hogan is that stupid though.

 

[Que]

Again:

Not incurring liability does not equal not having responsibility. It is, literally, their job to do so. We, as a society, expect them to do so as best they can during each fluid encounter.

You are a lawyer, correct? How do you not know this.

DeShaney v. Winnebago County
Castle Rock v. Gonzales

etc etc...


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/p...ot-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html

So your argument that cops have to protect us, so then they need a lower standard of conduct doesn't hold water.

Liability does not equal the expectations of the citizenry.

Strip those protections from police officers doing their jobs and see how many police officers you get.

 

[richard_daily]

So, whether you realize it or not (and I'm betting "not") you've given us no less than FIVE separate legal standards:

1. a threat that is "real" rather than falsely "perceived."

2. the reality of the threat must be "substantiated."

3. the substantiated threat must be "immediate" rather than delayed or potential.

4. the real, substantiated, immediate threat must "threaten life" rather than mere physical harm (for the purpose of item 4, I am going to assume you mean the use of lethal force, and that you did NOT intend to hold a "real, substantiated, immediate threat to life" as the minimum standard for the use of any non-lethal force such as the use of mace, taser or physically striking or restraining a suspect). While I am giving you the benefit of the doubt here, I would simply remind you that these are the nit-picky, detailed-driven conversations that must be engaged and resolved when writing law. Because the point is to live (and die) by whatever "consensus" about these standards "we" achieve.

5. In the case of any and all force, only the "minimum required" is authorized in order to "stop" the above threat.

That's a hell of a legal standard you've come up with there.

Now all you have to do in order to fairly adjudicate it (as either prosecutor, judge or jury) is to come up with definitions and additional standards that enable you to weigh all conceivable law enforcement scenarios in order to:

1. Objectively identify "reality" versus "perception." Do hands hidden in pockets or behind other visual obstacles and the failure to display them at the order of the officer represent a real or perceived threat?

2. Arbitrarily determine if an otherwise "real" threat nonetheless fails the test of "substantiation" if the gun pointed at the officer turns out to be unloaded or is simply a very realistic looking toy?

3. Define the time frame that establishes "immediacy."

4. Properly decide whether a "real, substantiated, immediate threat" is or isn't "life threatening." How close does the officer have to be to a knife wielding suspect in order to have his life threatened? If the suspect is holding a knife to a potential victim's throat, may the officer approach from behind and, without warning, use lethal force against the suspect? Because concurrent with or immediately subsequent to the warning, the victim may be dead.

5. Stipulate at least sample scenarios and the appropriate forceful responses to illustrate the "required minimums."

And finally this:



Because as a private citizen you don't have a legal responsibility to serve as an "officer of the court" to prevent crime and arrest and detain violators of the law as do police officers. That responsibility places them at great risk when protecting themselves, and YOU, from said violators. That risk takes place on a daily basis. You have certain legal protections, or your criminal liability may be mitigated based on your benevolent motivations, if you CHOOSE to get involved, but generally you are absolved of that responsibility. The value subjectively placed on the lives of these public servants and the innocent lives such as YOURS that they seek to protect is such that we have generally consented to an arguably LOWER legal standard of "negligence" when they make tragic mistakes on our behalf.

That's why. And that is indisputably what the law does.

When the law does not serve the people it's intended to serve, it's time to change it. We are well past that point in regards to policing.

I appreciate that you think I don't know basic legal terminology, and while I may not be as versed in it as you are, I do have at least some slight modicum of understanding of what I was saying. I didn't just pull it out of thin air. To imply otherwise is rather arrogant on your part.

A substantiated threat would be one that can be held by the "average" person. So if a person is walking with their hands in their pocket, that is NOT a substantiated threat. If someone pulls their hands out of their pocket and has a knife, that WOULD be a substantiated threat.

Police should not be allowed assume the worst of the people they are sworn to protect (but are under no obligation to do so).

Should an officer apply lethal force without first going through the checklist of assessing the facts and gathering information BEFORE acting?

I would argue not.

There are several high profile cases of cops rolling up and blasting away while their squad cars are still moving, without gathering facts, and in flagrant disregard for the safety of those around them (such as a little girl in the back of a car), against people who for all intents and purposes were NOT lethal threats.

Laquan McDonald is one that comes to mind.
http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/loca...-Fatally-Shooting-Chicago-Teen-352231921.html

Ronald Williams is another:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/09/1...s-fired-for-not-shooting-armed-black-man.html

and Philando Castille is yet another:
http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/20/us/philando-castile-shooting-dashcam/index.html

If you don't think that there is a problem, then you need to look at your own bias on the matter.