Lightraven
Flashlight Enthusiast
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2004
- Messages
- 1,170
OK, serious question. Over the past year or more, I've thought about this issue more than ever due to law enforcement/military shootings, training, news, and even the computer game SWAT 4.
When it comes down to the last judgement--after the chief/commanding officer, and the prosecutor, the shooting will be judged by a jury of peers. I will never be on a jury for a case like this, but some of you may be.
Does a person HAVE to have a weapon for shooting him to be legal?
Does a person have to be in the process of using the weapon?
Under what circumstances, if any, may a Law Enforcement Officer (or soldier) shoot a person(s) believed to be unarmed?--Think about fighting near high speed traffic, deep water or a cliff. Think about multiple suspects and a single officer/soldier. Think about whether a suspect is going for the officer/soldier's gun or not.
Which weapons would justify a shooting and which would not? A stick or rock? A glass beer bottle?
What if the LEO/soldier claims a car was being driven at him or his partner?
What if the car nearly ran over a LEO/soldier but is now driving away?
What if the LEO/soldier says he thought the person was drawing or holding a gun but it later turns out there is no gun?
What if the person is running away with a gun in hand (he hasn't fired)?
Is it criminal negligence if a LEO/soldier shoots at a hostage taker or active shooter and hits a bystander or hostage?
If someone is standing with a gun pointed towards the ground, can the LEO/soldier shoot? Or should she wait until the gun starts to be raised?
Is a LEO/soldier required to give verbal warnings to surrender before shooting?
I am familiar with the law and policy of my agency and with past shooting precedents, so my question is designed to assess other's opinions and how they might judge a LEO or soldier on trial, civilly or criminally. I realize there is a major difference between LEOs and soldiers, but that gap seems to be shrinking during police type operations in Iraq. Some soldiers have been condemned or brought up on charges for shootings that aren't clear cut situations. Others were killed because they didn't shoot soon enough.
Thanks to all the responses. I'm specifically not looking for LEO/soldier responses (though they are welcome), but citizens over the age of 18. It goes without saying that nobody will be in perfect agreement with anybody else. I don't want this to be a debate because there is no right answer, just people's opinions on the questions and their overall philosophy that they would bring to a jury. Please do not argue with others, just post your own views.
When it comes down to the last judgement--after the chief/commanding officer, and the prosecutor, the shooting will be judged by a jury of peers. I will never be on a jury for a case like this, but some of you may be.
Does a person HAVE to have a weapon for shooting him to be legal?
Does a person have to be in the process of using the weapon?
Under what circumstances, if any, may a Law Enforcement Officer (or soldier) shoot a person(s) believed to be unarmed?--Think about fighting near high speed traffic, deep water or a cliff. Think about multiple suspects and a single officer/soldier. Think about whether a suspect is going for the officer/soldier's gun or not.
Which weapons would justify a shooting and which would not? A stick or rock? A glass beer bottle?
What if the LEO/soldier claims a car was being driven at him or his partner?
What if the car nearly ran over a LEO/soldier but is now driving away?
What if the LEO/soldier says he thought the person was drawing or holding a gun but it later turns out there is no gun?
What if the person is running away with a gun in hand (he hasn't fired)?
Is it criminal negligence if a LEO/soldier shoots at a hostage taker or active shooter and hits a bystander or hostage?
If someone is standing with a gun pointed towards the ground, can the LEO/soldier shoot? Or should she wait until the gun starts to be raised?
Is a LEO/soldier required to give verbal warnings to surrender before shooting?
I am familiar with the law and policy of my agency and with past shooting precedents, so my question is designed to assess other's opinions and how they might judge a LEO or soldier on trial, civilly or criminally. I realize there is a major difference between LEOs and soldiers, but that gap seems to be shrinking during police type operations in Iraq. Some soldiers have been condemned or brought up on charges for shootings that aren't clear cut situations. Others were killed because they didn't shoot soon enough.
Thanks to all the responses. I'm specifically not looking for LEO/soldier responses (though they are welcome), but citizens over the age of 18. It goes without saying that nobody will be in perfect agreement with anybody else. I don't want this to be a debate because there is no right answer, just people's opinions on the questions and their overall philosophy that they would bring to a jury. Please do not argue with others, just post your own views.