Is lethal force justified on a fleeing suspect?
November 3, 2005 10:25 AM Subscribe
Boyz in the Hood Filter. A sixteen year old brandished a fake gun and was shot by plain clothes policemen in my neighborhood. Was the continued use of lethal force justified while the suspect fled?
These are the publicly known details of the incident, from a new york times story:
-------
Nearby on Dean Street at Carlton Avenue, the lieutenants, both plainclothes officers assigned to the 77th Precinct, were on patrol in an unmarked vehicle when they heard the description and realized that it matched that of Mr. H-, whom they saw walking on Dean Street, the official said.
The lieutenants chased after him. One ran after Mr. H-, who was heading eastbound on Dean Street, while the other drove after him and then pulled the car up onto the curb in front of a building at 618 Dean Street to prevent Mr. H- from going inside, the police said.
At some point outside the building, Mr. H- displayed what looked like a gun, the official said.
The lieutenant running after Mr. H- fired 15 shots. It was not clear last night if Mr. H- was struck by any of them.
The lieutenant in the car then ran after Mr. H-, who was backtracking and running west on Dean Street. That officer shot at Mr. H- seven times before tackling him at Carlton Avenue and Dean Street, the official said.
----
His imitation gun was later found in a flower box at 557 Carlton Avenue, which is immediately next to where he was brought down.
I am getting into arguments over the Internets as to whether the police were justified in continuing to fire as the suspect ran away. My (incomplete and possibly incorrect) understanding of the application of lethal force is that the police must feel themselves to be in imminent jeopardy, which is a temporary condition that might cease when the suspect flees. This google map http://tinyurl.com/8hxqu shows the distance from where the firing started to where the suspect was eventually tackled. Was this strictly by the book, or did the police do something they shouldn't have?
These are the publicly known details of the incident, from a new york times story:
-------
Nearby on Dean Street at Carlton Avenue, the lieutenants, both plainclothes officers assigned to the 77th Precinct, were on patrol in an unmarked vehicle when they heard the description and realized that it matched that of Mr. H-, whom they saw walking on Dean Street, the official said.
The lieutenants chased after him. One ran after Mr. H-, who was heading eastbound on Dean Street, while the other drove after him and then pulled the car up onto the curb in front of a building at 618 Dean Street to prevent Mr. H- from going inside, the police said.
At some point outside the building, Mr. H- displayed what looked like a gun, the official said.
The lieutenant running after Mr. H- fired 15 shots. It was not clear last night if Mr. H- was struck by any of them.
The lieutenant in the car then ran after Mr. H-, who was backtracking and running west on Dean Street. That officer shot at Mr. H- seven times before tackling him at Carlton Avenue and Dean Street, the official said.
----
His imitation gun was later found in a flower box at 557 Carlton Avenue, which is immediately next to where he was brought down.
I am getting into arguments over the Internets as to whether the police were justified in continuing to fire as the suspect ran away. My (incomplete and possibly incorrect) understanding of the application of lethal force is that the police must feel themselves to be in imminent jeopardy, which is a temporary condition that might cease when the suspect flees. This google map http://tinyurl.com/8hxqu shows the distance from where the firing started to where the suspect was eventually tackled. Was this strictly by the book, or did the police do something they shouldn't have?
As I understand it the police must feel themselves or the public in imminent jeopardy. Someone running around with a weapon drawn certainly qualifies.
posted by Kickstart70 at 10:31 AM on November 3, 2005
posted by Kickstart70 at 10:31 AM on November 3, 2005
If I'm running away from the first cop, then I'm running towards the second cop, who pulled in front of me to cut me off. If I've got a gun in my hands (fake or real) then it's a pretty good guess that things won't go well for me. I understand your reticence at saying the shooting was justified -- it's natural for us to assume that those in power are abusing their power -- but I'm not sure I see that this is the case here.
Why does the fact that one of the shots hit his leg suggest to you that the firing continued until just before he went down? If they fired 22 shots at him, then plenty of those shots went awry (although I wouldn't consider a leg shot necessarily awry). Basic rule: cops come for you, then run or don't, but don't do anything until you've put down that gun cigarette lighter/super soaker/cap gun.
posted by incessant at 10:52 AM on November 3, 2005
Why does the fact that one of the shots hit his leg suggest to you that the firing continued until just before he went down? If they fired 22 shots at him, then plenty of those shots went awry (although I wouldn't consider a leg shot necessarily awry). Basic rule: cops come for you, then run or don't, but don't do anything until you've put down that gun cigarette lighter/super soaker/cap gun.
posted by incessant at 10:52 AM on November 3, 2005
Best answer: In matters of police use-of-force, the operative phrase, according to the US Supreme Court (Graham v. Connor) is "objective reasonableness."
Thus sayeth the Court:
[T]he reasonableness of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hind sight.
The calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments—in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving—about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation. . . .
[T]he test of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment is not capable of precise definition or mechanical application, however, its proper application requires careful attention to the facts and circumstances of each particular case, including, the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.
A use-of-force diagram can be found here. The Air Force has a better one, but I can't seem to find it online. Because the suspect, in this case, was carrying what appeared to be a firearm, the threat perception immediately escalated to lethal.
More information can be found here.
I don't know the details of the case, but as use-of-force was taught to me: if a guy is lurking about brandishing a weapon, shooting him is not necessarily justified on sight. I'm going to draw my weapon, and tell him to drop his. If he raises his weapon in any way... if the barrel of that weapon inches toward my direction, he's a goner. If he's running away, weapon in hand, that barrel will be facing me at least once every stride. All he's got to do is squeeze the trigger, ergo, he's a goner. If I shoot him in the leg, and he doesn't drop that weapon, I'm going to shoot him again.
We're talking about fractions of a second here. I don't know how much of a marksman the bad guy is, and I don't know his threshold for pain, or whether he is on PCP or whatever, but I do know that bullets move faster than I do and can make me dead. I don't live in the Old West.
Moral: When a cop says drop the weapon, it's a good idea to drop it.
posted by rentalkarma at 11:11 AM on November 3, 2005
Thus sayeth the Court:
[T]he reasonableness of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hind sight.
The calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments—in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving—about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation. . . .
[T]he test of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment is not capable of precise definition or mechanical application, however, its proper application requires careful attention to the facts and circumstances of each particular case, including, the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.
A use-of-force diagram can be found here. The Air Force has a better one, but I can't seem to find it online. Because the suspect, in this case, was carrying what appeared to be a firearm, the threat perception immediately escalated to lethal.
More information can be found here.
I don't know the details of the case, but as use-of-force was taught to me: if a guy is lurking about brandishing a weapon, shooting him is not necessarily justified on sight. I'm going to draw my weapon, and tell him to drop his. If he raises his weapon in any way... if the barrel of that weapon inches toward my direction, he's a goner. If he's running away, weapon in hand, that barrel will be facing me at least once every stride. All he's got to do is squeeze the trigger, ergo, he's a goner. If I shoot him in the leg, and he doesn't drop that weapon, I'm going to shoot him again.
We're talking about fractions of a second here. I don't know how much of a marksman the bad guy is, and I don't know his threshold for pain, or whether he is on PCP or whatever, but I do know that bullets move faster than I do and can make me dead. I don't live in the Old West.
Moral: When a cop says drop the weapon, it's a good idea to drop it.
posted by rentalkarma at 11:11 AM on November 3, 2005
Gee, running away from cops into the public streets while brandishing a fake gun. These aren't orange plastic toys, people, these things look and feel quite real. See this site for example.
I am absolutely, unquestionably, the last person in the world to defend a pig-headed cop, but in this case, abso-frickin-lutely they were justified.
When a cop pulls his gun, it is to kill. They are trained not to fire their weapon to injure. So, in that context, 22 shots would probably ensure that outcome. You ever fire a handgun, while moving, at a moving target?
posted by symphonik at 11:11 AM on November 3, 2005
I am absolutely, unquestionably, the last person in the world to defend a pig-headed cop, but in this case, abso-frickin-lutely they were justified.
When a cop pulls his gun, it is to kill. They are trained not to fire their weapon to injure. So, in that context, 22 shots would probably ensure that outcome. You ever fire a handgun, while moving, at a moving target?
posted by symphonik at 11:11 AM on November 3, 2005
Everyone knows that if the police are after you, you do lie down and do what they say. You do not brandish a weapon at them. It's hard for me to imagine someone with the requisite intelligence to obtain a gun - even a fake one - who somehow wasn't aware of this.
Also, if someone is running around my neighborhood threatening people with a gun, I certainly hope the cops will come and use their discretion as to how to handle the situation. In order for that to happen, they need some room to exercise their discretion. Second-guessing a cop's decision to fire is pretty easy as an armchair sport - but, really, imagine someone saying this to you:
"There's someone waving around a gun and shouting, eddydamascene. Go fix it right now, it's your job; and try to make sure no innocent people get hurt. Your safety? Not important; go protect the public. Hurry up."
What do you do in a situation like this? This is an impossible order, and yet cops deal with these things every day, mostly without loss of life. In general, consider that you should be grateful that you have cops who put themselves in harm's way on your behalf.
posted by ikkyu2 at 11:20 AM on November 3, 2005
Also, if someone is running around my neighborhood threatening people with a gun, I certainly hope the cops will come and use their discretion as to how to handle the situation. In order for that to happen, they need some room to exercise their discretion. Second-guessing a cop's decision to fire is pretty easy as an armchair sport - but, really, imagine someone saying this to you:
"There's someone waving around a gun and shouting, eddydamascene. Go fix it right now, it's your job; and try to make sure no innocent people get hurt. Your safety? Not important; go protect the public. Hurry up."
What do you do in a situation like this? This is an impossible order, and yet cops deal with these things every day, mostly without loss of life. In general, consider that you should be grateful that you have cops who put themselves in harm's way on your behalf.
posted by ikkyu2 at 11:20 AM on November 3, 2005
The police who fired had just received a report that an armed robbery had taken place two blocks from where they confronted the suspect. I suspect that had something to do with the police opening fire. If it had been Halloween and a kid carrying a gun-looking object and an orange plastic jack-o-lantern filled with candy had run from them, I suspect their behavior might have been somewhat different.
Also, my old neighborhood! Go Flatbush!
posted by MarkAnd at 11:32 AM on November 3, 2005
Also, my old neighborhood! Go Flatbush!
posted by MarkAnd at 11:32 AM on November 3, 2005
I don't know about the legality, but morally I feel the police were justified. They reasonably believed the suspect had a real gun. And even if the officers, personally, would not have been in danger from a real gun when the suspect was running away from them, others could have been.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 11:49 AM on November 3, 2005
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 11:49 AM on November 3, 2005
On the whole, I can't say as I feel much pity for people who run away from the cops, then brandish what appears to be a gun.
Consider it natural selection at work.
posted by five fresh fish at 12:28 PM on November 3, 2005
Consider it natural selection at work.
posted by five fresh fish at 12:28 PM on November 3, 2005
Is it normal for police to have <10% shooting accuracy? I know that handguns are a lot harder to use than they make it look on TV, but I think they'd hold their fire until they had a good shot. What with the risk of stray bullets and all. Or are stray bullets not really much of a risk to bystanders?
posted by mr_roboto at 12:32 PM on November 3, 2005
posted by mr_roboto at 12:32 PM on November 3, 2005
Yes, hitting a moving target at a distance with a handgun, while you're running, is very hard. Ordinary beat cops (as opposed to SWAT cops) don't necessarily spend all that much time at the range. Pretty much whenever you hear about cops opening fire, only a small number of bullets (if that) hit their target. (This page says an average of 40%, higher than I would've expected, and I wish I could check their source.)
If a bad guy is pointing a gun at you from 10 yards away, running away is a pretty safe response. (Assuming there's someplace safe you could run to faster than the bad guy could close the distance.) I don't doubt it continues to be pretty safe considerably closer than that, but I don't know where the break-even point is.
posted by Zed_Lopez at 1:24 PM on November 3, 2005
If a bad guy is pointing a gun at you from 10 yards away, running away is a pretty safe response. (Assuming there's someplace safe you could run to faster than the bad guy could close the distance.) I don't doubt it continues to be pretty safe considerably closer than that, but I don't know where the break-even point is.
posted by Zed_Lopez at 1:24 PM on November 3, 2005
A fake gun is a real gun for the purposes of an armed robbery charge.
Beat cops also don't shoot at fleeing suspects as often as they do on TV. Many cops go their entire careers without firing their weapon.
God knows this is the city of the Diallo shooting, which was certainly unjustified, but I'm not gonna second-guess the cops on this one.
posted by dhartung at 1:34 PM on November 3, 2005
Beat cops also don't shoot at fleeing suspects as often as they do on TV. Many cops go their entire careers without firing their weapon.
God knows this is the city of the Diallo shooting, which was certainly unjustified, but I'm not gonna second-guess the cops on this one.
posted by dhartung at 1:34 PM on November 3, 2005
On the other foot, don't you think the cop feels absolutely terrible about this? It's extremely likely the cop will require years of therapy to get over the guilt of this act, even thought it was completely justified. Most cops require therapy even after shooting someone who shot *at them* with a real gun.
There's no way this was done out of malice, it was done for protection and nothing else, IMHO.
posted by shepd at 2:01 PM on November 3, 2005
There's no way this was done out of malice, it was done for protection and nothing else, IMHO.
posted by shepd at 2:01 PM on November 3, 2005
Response by poster: rentalkarma got me the answer I was looking for, via that McGuiness article -- in Krueger v. Fuhr [991 F.2d 435 (8th Cir. 1993)], the 8th circuit held that a police officer's shooting of a fleeing subject was objectively reasonable.
posted by eddydamascene at 3:13 PM on November 3, 2005
posted by eddydamascene at 3:13 PM on November 3, 2005
I think I didn't see this, but if I'm repeating, forgive me:
If a cop pulls a gun, he has to shoot. If a cop shoots, it has to be to kill. These are the rules of every police department that I know of.
It's not like the movies where a cop pulls a gun, waves it at a dude and threatens to shoot. The vast majority of cops go through decades-long careers without ever pulling a gun. Even those in New York.
posted by sachinag at 4:21 PM on November 3, 2005
If a cop pulls a gun, he has to shoot. If a cop shoots, it has to be to kill. These are the rules of every police department that I know of.
It's not like the movies where a cop pulls a gun, waves it at a dude and threatens to shoot. The vast majority of cops go through decades-long careers without ever pulling a gun. Even those in New York.
posted by sachinag at 4:21 PM on November 3, 2005
"If a cop pulls a gun, he has to shoot."
That can't be right, unless you meant that he has to be prepared to shoot.
posted by Good Brain at 5:36 PM on November 3, 2005
That can't be right, unless you meant that he has to be prepared to shoot.
posted by Good Brain at 5:36 PM on November 3, 2005
For the life of me, I can not understand what could make someone think pulling a gun on a cop is a viable action? That's got to rank right up there with thinking it's a good idea to step off the Golden Gate Bridge.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:06 PM on November 3, 2005
posted by five fresh fish at 10:06 PM on November 3, 2005
Sachinag is dead wrong. Anyone who watches "Cops" know that cops draw down all the time, relative to the number of occasions they actually fire the weapon for-real. That said, the number of shots or duration of gunfire is IRRELEVANT in the use-of-force formula. Once the police shooting starts, it will generally continue until the target goes down or surrenders his firearm.
posted by BigLankyBastard at 11:20 AM on November 4, 2005
posted by BigLankyBastard at 11:20 AM on November 4, 2005
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by eddydamascene at 10:29 AM on November 3, 2005