Gun Legislation

[O Really]

Sure legally there's a difference, which is why cops can get by with it. But that doesn't make it right. How can anybody justify killing a guy for running away from what at worst would be a misdemeanor if indeed he would be convicted?

It happens and they get away with it , but I don't think that cops are legally allowed to shoot at fleeing suspected misdemeanor offenders.
But they do, and most of the time get by with it by saying they "thought" that cellphone or candy bar was a gun or whatever.
I don't think it's "right" for even some fleeing suspected felony offenders, but it doesn't ruin my day if an actual child molester gets gunned down.

Would that be a convicted child molester or an accused or suspected child molester?

[Vrede too]

... I don't think it's "right" for even some fleeing suspected felony offenders, but it doesn't ruin my day if an actual child molester gets gunned down.

Would that be a convicted child molester or an accused or suspected child molester?

I chose the word "actual" carefully.

[O Really]

... I don't think it's "right" for even some fleeing suspected felony offenders, but it doesn't ruin my day if an actual child molester gets gunned down.

Would that be a convicted child molester or an accused or suspected child molester?

I chose the word "actual" carefully.

May be, but same question applies. If the "actual" child molester is caught actually molesting, one might forgive the father for shooting the molester, and we might all give him a , but is it the cop's job to shoot a guy which at the time would have been an accused suspect, convicted of nothing and in the view of the court/law innocent until proven guilty?

[Ulysses]

May be, but same question applies. If the "actual" child molester is caught actually molesting, one might forgive the father for shooting the molester, and we might all give him a , but is it the cop's job to shoot a guy which at the time would have been an accused suspect, convicted of nothing and in the view of the court/law innocent until proven guilty?

What's that annoying commandment again?

Oh yeah: "Thou shalt not kill"...

[Vrede too]

... I don't think it's "right" for even some fleeing suspected felony offenders, but it doesn't ruin my day if an actual child molester gets gunned down.

Would that be a convicted child molester or an accused or suspected child molester?

I chose the word "actual" carefully.

May be, but same question applies. If the "actual" child molester is caught actually molesting, one might forgive the father for shooting the molester, and we might all give him a , but is it the cop's job to shoot a guy which at the time would have been an accused suspect, convicted of nothing and in the view of the court/law innocent until proven guilty?

I'll leave it to the courts and PDs to sort out nuances. From my perspective if a cop shoots a child molester that flees, good. If a cop shoots someone that wasn't really a child molester or other evil prick, fire him and charge her/him.

I don't foresee a world where cops are never allowed to shoot at fleeing suspects, so I expect shoots to only be righteous.

[Ulysses]

May be, but same question applies. If the "actual" child molester is caught actually molesting, one might forgive the father for shooting the molester, and we might all give him a , but is it the cop's job to shoot a guy which at the time would have been an accused suspect, convicted of nothing and in the view of the court/law innocent until proven guilty?

What's that annoying commandment again?

Oh yeah: "Thou shalt not kill"...

And, oddly enough, that's the key line in the Noir film "Red Light", that I'm watching at the moment.

[O Really]

I don't foresee a world where cops are never allowed to shoot at fleeing suspects, so I expect shoots to only be righteous.

C'mon, who are you and what have you done with Vrede Too?

[Ulysses]

I don't foresee a world where cops are never allowed to shoot at fleeing suspects, so I expect shoots to only be righteous.

C'mon, who are you and what have you done with Vrede Too?

Excuse me while I laugh hysterically.



Or is laughter off topic?

I don't want to break any of Sluggo's arbitrary rules.

[Vrede too]

I don't foresee a world where cops are never allowed to shoot at fleeing suspects, so I expect shoots to only be righteous.

C'mon, who are you and what have you done with Vrede Too?

One can be a radical and a realist. Do you think that cops should be banned from shooting people that are running away in all situations?

( )

[O Really]

Do you think that cops should be banned from shooting people that are running away in all situations?

I'm a Libran lawyer. My world has very little black/white, and a lot of gray. Change the "all" to "most" and I'd say absolutely.

[Vrede too]

One can be a radical and a realist. Do you think that cops should be banned from shooting people that are running away in all situations?

I'm a Libran lawyer. My world has very little black/white, and a lot of gray. Change the "all" to "most" and I'd say absolutely.

"most" may be wishful thinking, but I'll accept it.

[GoCubsGo]

Do you think that cops should be banned from shooting people that are running away in all situations?

I'm a Libran lawyer. My world has very little black/white, and a lot of gray. Change the "all" to "most" and I'd say absolutely.

If a suspect is fleeing and not a danger to the cops or others what could justify shooting them?

[Vrede too]

If a suspect is fleeing and not a danger to the cops or others what could justify shooting them?

I THINK the standard may be a felon.
An alternative standard might be a violent felon.
A similar standard might be someone that a reasonable cop thinks would pose a danger to the public.

If Ted Bundy ran should he have been allowed to escape? If all runners are safe from being shot, what's to stop everyone from running if they see an opening?

[GoCubsGo]

If a suspect is fleeing and not a danger to the cops or others what could justify shooting them?

I THINK the standard may be a felon.
An alternative standard might be a violent felon.
A similar standard might be someone that a reasonable cop thinks would pose a danger to the public.

If Ted Bundy ran should he have been allowed to escape? If all runners are safe from being shot, what's to stop everyone from running if they see an opening?

Pretty well spelled out.

10 CFR § 1047.7 - Use of deadly force.
CFR
prev next
§ 1047.7 Use of deadly force.
(a) Deadly force means that force which a reasonable person would consider likely to cause death or serious bodily harm. Its use may be justified only under conditions of extreme necessity, when all lesser means have failed or cannot reasonably be employed. A protective force officer is authorized to use deadly force only when one or more of the following circumstances exists:

(1) Self-Defense. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to protect a protective force officer who reasonably believes himself or herself to be in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm.

(2) Serious offenses against persons. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to prevent the commission of a serious offense against a person(s) in circumstances presenting an imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm (e.g. sabotage of an occupied facility by explosives).

(3) Nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive devices. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to prevent the theft, sabotage, or unauthorized control of a nuclear weapon or nuclear explosive device.

(4) Special nuclear material. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to prevent the theft, sabotage, or unauthorized control of special nuclear material from an area of a fixed site or from a shipment where Category II or greater quantities are known or reasonably believed to be present.

(5) Apprehension. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to apprehend or prevent the escape of a person reasonably believed to: (i) have committed an offense of the nature specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(4) 1 of this section; or (ii) be escaping by use of a weapon or explosive or who otherwise indicates that he or she poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the protective force officer or others unless apprehended without delay.

1 These offenses are considered by the Department of Energy to pose a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm.

(b) Additional Considerations Involving Firearms. If it becomes necessary to use a firearm, the following precautions shall be observed:

(1) A warning, e.g. an order to halt, shall be given, if feasible, before a shot is fired.

(2) Warning shots shall not be fired
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/10/1047.7

[Ulysses]

I'm a Libran lawyer. My world has very little black/white, and a lot of gray. Change the "all" to "most" and I'd say absolutely.

If a suspect is fleeing and not a danger to the cops or others what could justify shooting them?

I suppose that might depend on why they are fleeing. If they have already committed a capital crime, and likely to commit another, then perhaps shooting could be justified as a last measure to prevent the escape and the commitment of another capital crime.

I wonder how police in the UK handle such matters.

[Vrede too]

If a suspect is fleeing and not a danger to the cops or others what could justify shooting them?

I THINK the standard may be a felon.
An alternative standard might be a violent felon.
A similar standard might be someone that a reasonable cop thinks would pose a danger to the public.

If Ted Bundy ran should he have been allowed to escape? If all runners are safe from being shot, what's to stop everyone from running if they see an opening?

Pretty well spelled out....
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/10/1047.7

That's for DoE cops. It may vary for other federal agencies and for the states, but perhaps not by much.

[O Really]

Most suspected "criminals" are not Ted Bundy, and most don't have violence warrants The ones you read about are mostly - mostly - guys who just get scared and probably don't trust the cops not to abuse them anyway.

BTW, bringing up a "Ted Bundy" in a discussion about shooting runners is almost a Godwin equivalent. At best, it's a quick jump to a parade of horribles that doesn't apply in most cases.

[Ulysses]

Most suspected "criminals" are not Ted Bundy, and most don't have violence warrants The ones you read about are mostly - mostly - guys who just get scared and probably don't trust the cops not to abuse them anyway.

BTW, bringing up a "Ted Bundy" in a discussion about shooting runners is almost a Godwin equivalent. At best, it's a quick jump to a parade of horribles that doesn't apply in most cases.

[O Really]

I wonder how police in the UK handle such matters.

Your garden variety bobbies only relatively recently started carrying firearms, and many of them still don't. But the regular people don't go around with nines in their pockets and an AR-15 in the trunk, either.

[Ulysses]

So true.

I personally don't know why Americans need handguns. For hunting a single shot rifle of appropriate calibre should be enough.