When should LE be authorized use of deadly force?

[YorkVol]

Looking at the discussion in the other thread, it seems as though we don't have a common idea of when a LE Officer should be using deadly force. I'm interested to see what the board thinks are the right circumstances for using deadly force. This isn't to debate what the law says, but what the representation of citizens on this board thinks is right. I'm sure there are other circumstances that could be added, but these were the ones I thought were relevant.

Answer the questions and then comment freely.

Edit: I had to truncate some of the questions to fit under 100 characters, here they are in full.

When should Law Enforcement Officers be authorized the use of deadly force?
1. LE Officers should be able to use deadly force to protect themselves only when threatened with loss of life.
2. LE Officers should be able to use deadly force to protect themselves from potential injury resulting in the loss of limb or eyesight.
3. LE Officers should be able to use deadly force to protect themselves from injury short of loss of life, limb or eyesight.
4. LE Officers should be able to use deadly force to protect citizens from the threat of loss of life.
5. LE Officers should be able to use deadly force to protect citizens from the threat of injury resulting in the loss of limb or eyesight.
6. LE Officers should be able to use deadly force to protect citizens from the threat of injury short of loss of life, limb or eyesight.
7. LE Officers should be able to use deadly force to protect theft or damage or property.
8. LE Officers should be able to use deadly force to enforce laws that do not include threat of physical harm to themselves or others (includes, traffic violations, drug violations, sale of goods, unarmed burglary etc).
9. LE Officers should be able to use deadly force to enforce compliance with their directives and orders.

 

[Grand Vol]

I think I'll sit this one out...

 

[MercyPercy]

When there is a threat to their life that cannot be handled by nonlethal measures.

This obviously opens Pandora's box regarding exactly how dire a situation an officer is in, and whether their lives were truly in danger. I feel like this aspect is abused by LEOs, and the "it's coming right at us!" mindset is allowed to thrive in the institution because officers feel safe knowing their comrades are unlikely to say anything that would put the shooting's legitimacy in question.

 

[YorkVol]

I think I'll sit this one out...

Please don't, just look at the questions.

 

[hog88]

Please don't, just look at the questions.

Might add, to protect themselves and/or others from loss of life.

 

[lawgator1]

It is situational and incapable of formulaic summary.

So, well done.

 

[hog88]

IMO, only to prevent the loss of life, theirs or another.

 

[YorkVol]

It is situational and incapable of formulaic summary.

So, well done.

So, no chance of discussing?

 

[volinbham]

My issue with the choices is that I don't think one could distinguish between action that would result in potential loss of life vs loss of limb - I don't think the attacker would know nor the cop.

Likewise, authorized to use doesn't always result in use of (same issue as above) and attempts to use non-deadly can result in deadly.

That said I believe that perceived threats to life (broadly defined) of the officer or citizen are distinct from threats to property. First is okay, second is not.

 

[Mtntrout]

At UF tailgates

 

[YorkVol]

My issue with the choices is that I don't think one could distinguish between action that would result in potential loss of life vs loss of limb - I don't think the attacker would know nor the cop.

Likewise, authorized to use doesn't always result in use of (same issue as above) and attempts to use non-deadly can result in deadly.

That said I believe that perceived threats to life (broadly defined) of the officer or citizen are distinct from threats to property. First is okay, second is not.

Thanks. I may have over thought it, but I was thinking of those times when the perpetrator had a smaller weapon like a pipe or a rock. Is that enough? Sure, you can kill someone with a pipe, but does that really meet the cut line? I don't know and am wondering what others think.

I'm also interested in the last question. We seem to hear of this more frequently and I'm wondering what the collective opinions are regarding the compliance issue.

 

[FLVOL_79]

When there is a threat to their life that cannot be handled by nonlethal measures.

This obviously opens Pandora's box regarding exactly how dire a situation an officer is in, and whether their lives were truly in danger. I feel like this aspect is abused by LEOs, and the "it's coming right at us!" mindset is allowed to thrive in the institution because officers feel safe knowing their comrades are unlikely to say anything that would put the shooting's legitimacy in question.

+1

 

[volinbham]

If a cop is being attacked I'd say they are authorized if they consider their life in danger.
If a citizen is being attacked - same
No to property protection
No to shooting at someone fleeing a scene of a property crime
No to compliance though non-lethal force is authorized.

My view

 

[FLVOL_79]

When their life is in danger. Fists, knives, guns, weaves, BB guns; whatever poses a threat. A human can be killed by a WIDE variety of things so...don't F with the PoPo

 

[volinbham]

When there is a threat to their life that cannot be handled by nonlethal measures.

This obviously opens Pandora's box regarding exactly how dire a situation an officer is in, and whether their lives were truly in danger. I feel like this aspect is abused by LEOs, and the "it's coming right at us!" mindset is allowed to thrive in the institution because officers feel safe knowing their comrades are unlikely to say anything that would put the shooting's legitimacy in question.

Let's take the Michael Brown case - is your position that use of deadly force was not authorized in that situation?

 

[Grand Vol]

I'll use some of the same formula I used for over twenty years:

To prevent the serious bodily harm or death to themselves or others. Prevent the escape of a known dangerous felon that would constitute a threat to the public. To prevent the commission of serious offenses that could lead to death or serious bodily harm to others. Protection of national critical infrastructure.

 

[MercyPercy]

Let's take the Michael Brown case - is your position that use of deadly force was not authorized in that situation?

If the events described by the officer were completely accurate, then I believe it was a legitimate shooting.

 

[MercyPercy]

If a cop is being attacked I'd say they are authorized if they consider their life in danger.
If a citizen is being attacked - same
No to property protection
No to shooting at someone fleeing a scene of a property crime
No to compliance though non-lethal force is authorized.

My view

Do you think the instance of the mentally ill man with a screwdriver or the man throwing rocks at cars and running away were authorized kills?

 

[YorkVol]

I'll use some of the same formula I used for over twenty years:

To prevent the serious bodily harm or death to themselves or others. Prevent the escape of a known dangerous felon that would constitute a threat to the public. To prevent the commission of serious offenses that could lead to death or serious bodily harm to others. Protection of national critical infrastructure.

Thanks. I think that is the general line of thought for most.

 

[volinbham]

Do you think the instance of the mentally ill man with a screwdriver or the man throwing rocks at cars and running away were authorized kills?

1. Not the one I saw - I saw no evidence that would suggest the officers were in danger or reasonably should have thought they were in danger. It's always a judgement call to be sure.

The mental illness of the attacker is not the issue - it is whether the threat is reasonably perceived as real. If we are talking about the same case, the video I saw indicates it was should not have been reasonably perceived as real.

2. Definitely not and my posts should have indicated that.

 

[tim]

IMO, only to prevent the loss of life, theirs or another.

So paralysis is ok?

 

[Mtntrout]

So paralysis is ok?

What is a situation where your life is not in danger but paralysis is a risk?

 

[hog88]

So paralysis is ok?

:lolabove:

I'll make it simple for you seeing that cops don't do complicated.

If there is a reasonable threat of loss of life, deadly force would be acceptable. A guy with a screwdriver, baseball bat or similar threatening 2 or more cops is not a deadly threat. Being a chicken **** is not a reason to use deadly force.

 

[Vol8188]

7-9 should be obvious "no"s

 

[Vol8188]

I'll use some of the same formula I used for over twenty years:

To prevent the serious bodily harm or death to themselves or others. Prevent the escape of a known dangerous felon that would constitute a threat to the public. To prevent the commission of serious offenses that could lead to death or serious bodily harm to others. Protection of national critical infrastructure.

whats your definition of a "known dangerous felon". Have they been convicted?