bushmaster1313
Member
If it looks like the convicted murderers on the run are running or driving away, can police shoot to kill?
Last edited:
Can police shoot convicted murderer escapees?
- Thread starter bushmaster1313
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
Brian41
Member
I would imagine it depends on the fleeing felon laws in NY are and expect someone will come along soon to explain them.
I would think though if an officer felt threatened he could shoot to kill no problem or at least stop the threat. I could hardly imagine any officer would be challenged much taking these two out.
I know little about NY law only to know to not take my guns there nor speed as a ticket cost me a huge amount there once.
I would think though if an officer felt threatened he could shoot to kill no problem or at least stop the threat. I could hardly imagine any officer would be challenged much taking these two out.
I know little about NY law only to know to not take my guns there nor speed as a ticket cost me a huge amount there once.
okiegtrider
Member
Oddly, a Correcectional Officer has more 'freedom' to shoot an escaping prisoner than a Police Officer does. However, once the escaping prisoner has cleared the prison grounds, his status (and his rights) revert back to that of a private citizen. Statutory shoot / don't shoot policies & procedures take effect, leaving the correctional officer out of the loop.
Faulkner
Member
This is what I found after a quick look:
Under U.S. law the fleeing felon rule was limited in 1985 to non-lethal force in most cases by Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. The justices held that deadly force "may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others."
"A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead...however...Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force." —Justice Byron White, Tennessee v. Garner
Fleeing felons may be followed into places not open to the public without a warrant if the officer is in "hot pursuit.
Under U.S. law the fleeing felon rule was limited in 1985 to non-lethal force in most cases by Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. The justices held that deadly force "may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others."
"A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead...however...Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force." —Justice Byron White, Tennessee v. Garner
Fleeing felons may be followed into places not open to the public without a warrant if the officer is in "hot pursuit.
The answer is yes, a convicted murderer is a felon; they do pose a threat to the public so if they try to evade law enforcement they can be shot. In reality, if an officer initially observes these escapees without a weapon, they will draw down on them, yell to them to display hands in some manner, and then secure them. If they run, they can be shot.
CAJUNLAWYER
Member
Police can ALWAYS shoot ti kill. It's the paperwork afterwards that usually gets them in hot water.
In this case, if it isn't legal, it ought to be!
GatorFarmer
Member
Some competent State Supreme Courts, such as Michigan's, have long ago ruled that Tenn. Vs. Garner was a civil case and did not alter the state's existing fleeing felon rule.
OP
bushmaster1313
Member
"Draw down״?
Rogue Wizard
Member
They should head to Baltimore....
Tenn vs Garner.... for those that wonder...
Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)[1], was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that, under the Fourth Amendment, when a law enforcement 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."
Tenn vs Garner.... for those that wonder...
Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)[1], was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that, under the Fourth Amendment, when a law enforcement 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."
Last edited:
wittmeba
US Veteran
I think if you apply the rules from RW post, it would be safe to say the escapees pose a very serious deadly threat to anyone they may run into therefore deadly force would be justified.
I don't see where the Tenn. ruling applies. These guys aren't fleeing suspects, they're fleeing convicted murderers who absolutely pose a threat of death or serious bodily harm.
I'm sure it's not legal to just gun them down, especially if they're surrendering, but I can't see them surrendering.
I'm sure it's not legal to just gun them down, especially if they're surrendering, but I can't see them surrendering.
I don't know of any state that forbids shooting a violent fleeing felon who refuses to stop and all other means of apprehension have failed or are likely to fail.
A bit about TN V. Garner. It was a civil case. It did not make it a crime to shoot a non-violent fleeing felon. It merely said that the person who shoots a non-violent fleeing felon could be held civilly liable.
After TN V. Garner, most states made it a CRIMINAL offense to shoot a non-violent fleeing felon, through state criminal legislation.
After TN V. Garner, virtually all police departments made it a violation of department policy to shoot someone in contradiction of TN V. Garner. Who wants to get sued?
HOWEVER. There are some states that did NOT pass legislation that criminalized a shooting in violation of TN V. Garner. So.....Say you shoot a fleeing car thief in one of these states. You can be sued, but not charged criminally. Don't shoot them if they're not fleeing though. That's called murder. Or at least manslaughter, even in one of these few states where it is not a violation of criminal law to shoot a non-violent fleeing felon who refuses to stop when you tell him to.
A bit about TN V. Garner. It was a civil case. It did not make it a crime to shoot a non-violent fleeing felon. It merely said that the person who shoots a non-violent fleeing felon could be held civilly liable.
After TN V. Garner, most states made it a CRIMINAL offense to shoot a non-violent fleeing felon, through state criminal legislation.
After TN V. Garner, virtually all police departments made it a violation of department policy to shoot someone in contradiction of TN V. Garner. Who wants to get sued?
HOWEVER. There are some states that did NOT pass legislation that criminalized a shooting in violation of TN V. Garner. So.....Say you shoot a fleeing car thief in one of these states. You can be sued, but not charged criminally. Don't shoot them if they're not fleeing though. That's called murder. Or at least manslaughter, even in one of these few states where it is not a violation of criminal law to shoot a non-violent fleeing felon who refuses to stop when you tell him to.
joeintexas
US Veteran
I bet they were just turning their lives around. Given just a few more decades. ......
I don't know of any state that forbids shooting a violent fleeing felon who refuses to stop and all other means of apprehension have failed or are likely to fail.
A bit about TN V. Garner. It was a civil case. It did not make it a crime to shoot a non-violent fleeing felon. It merely said that the person who shoots a non-violent fleeing felon could be held civilly liable.
After TN V. Garner, most states made it a CRIMINAL offense to shoot a non-violent fleeing felon, through state criminal legislation.
After TN V. Garner, virtually all police departments made it a violation of department policy to shoot someone in contradiction of TN V. Garner. Who wants to get sued?
HOWEVER. There are some states that did NOT pass legislation that criminalized a shooting in violation of TN V. Garner. So.....Say you shoot a fleeing car thief in one of these states. You can be sued, you can be fired or disciplined if you're a policeman, but not charged criminally. Don't shoot them if they're not fleeing though. That's called murder. Or at least manslaughter, even in one of these few states where it is not a violation of criminal law to shoot a non-violent fleeing felon who refuses to stop when you tell him to.
Police can never "shoot to kill", unless they've been recruited for a state-sanctioned firing squad. Police "shoot to stop". Stop the escape, stop violent actions, etc..... It just so happens that the most efficient way to stop someone with a firearm, ie. shooting someone twice in the chest and once in the head, is very likely to kill them. That doesn't mean the officers' intent was to "shoot to kill". The part where the shootees die is strictly incidental.
A bit about TN V. Garner. It was a civil case. It did not make it a crime to shoot a non-violent fleeing felon. It merely said that the person who shoots a non-violent fleeing felon could be held civilly liable.
After TN V. Garner, most states made it a CRIMINAL offense to shoot a non-violent fleeing felon, through state criminal legislation.
After TN V. Garner, virtually all police departments made it a violation of department policy to shoot someone in contradiction of TN V. Garner. Who wants to get sued?
HOWEVER. There are some states that did NOT pass legislation that criminalized a shooting in violation of TN V. Garner. So.....Say you shoot a fleeing car thief in one of these states. You can be sued, you can be fired or disciplined if you're a policeman, but not charged criminally. Don't shoot them if they're not fleeing though. That's called murder. Or at least manslaughter, even in one of these few states where it is not a violation of criminal law to shoot a non-violent fleeing felon who refuses to stop when you tell him to.
Police can never "shoot to kill", unless they've been recruited for a state-sanctioned firing squad. Police "shoot to stop". Stop the escape, stop violent actions, etc..... It just so happens that the most efficient way to stop someone with a firearm, ie. shooting someone twice in the chest and once in the head, is very likely to kill them. That doesn't mean the officers' intent was to "shoot to kill". The part where the shootees die is strictly incidental.
Last edited:
MasterTech1960
Member
Similar threads
