When are police able to use deadly force? This is not an issue that is easy to answer here is a post that scanstockton.com wrote:
A Stockton Teen was killed today after a pursuit with the Stockton Police Department. The teenager was spotted in a 215 (PC)(carjacking); the vehicle was taken by subjects who were armed with a shot gun. Stockton Police were looking for the vehicle when a "Valley Unit" (CHP, Stockton PD, SJCO S/O, Lodi PD, Manteca PD, SJCO Probation, and Tracy PD) whose sole purpose is to find and recover stolen vehicles, and reduce the grand theft auto, and captured those who steal cars.
After being spotted by the undercover Valley Unit a marked unit was nearby and spotted the vehicle as well. A pursuit ensued when the teenager would not yield, and speed off. The pursuit snaked through the narrow streets of North Stockton neighborhoods. At the peak of the pursuit the teenager was going almost 70MPH, through these populated neighborhoods, where the roads are narrow.
An SPD Sergeant gave permission for the units to use Legal Intervention or PIT maneuver. The teen was able to stay ahead of the Officers until they arrived at Bancroft and Salters Drive-Officers rammed the vehicle, causing the boy to loose control and slam into a house where the drivers, front portion was inside the house, and not outside. During this time, after ramming into the house Officers there was a minute of silence, then Officers started call out "Shots Fired","Start a 945", "We have shots fired....all Officers are 907 at this time."
According to the Story posted on the Record's website, 16 to 17 shots were fired by several Officers at the teen, who was trapped inside the house and car. Officers waited for a minute for more units to arrive on the scene so that they could take the boy out of the car safely, without any further use of deadly force.
Apparently for the boy it was to late, the Record reported at around 1645hrs, that teenager involved in the pursuit had died. The uncle of the boy did identified his nephew as being a high school student attending Bear Creek High. The boy was removed from the vehicle and the collapsing house, and his lifeless body was given to the Paramedics. It is important to note that SPD tried use all the non lethal methods, such as spike stripes and the PIT, but in the end the Officers felt that they needed to use deadly force, either to protect themselves, or to protect the public.
This was a choice forced upon the Officer's, and it is also very important to note that the teenager was driving a car that was taken at gun point with a shot gun; Officer's new two things, the car was a car jacked car, and a shot gun was used in the car jacking; The decisions they made based upon this information alone, justifies to me the Officer's had every right, to stop escalating the use of force, and using deadly force to stop the teenager.
Federal constitutional standards permit law enforcement officers to use deadly force to apprehend criminal suspects when there is "probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm...to the officer or to others..." and if deadly force "is necessary" to effect the apprehension. 1 This formulation of the constitutional rule by the Supreme Court suggests two factors - dangerousness and necessity - as relevant to the question whether deadly force is constitutionally permissible (JD, nd).
With respect to "dangerousness," the Court has suggested that "...if the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm...,"2 the officer reasonably could conclude that the suspect is dangerous. However, the absence of comparable guidance on the issue of "necessity" has invited serious legal challenges on this issue alone. These challenges generally may be described as follows:
1) Deadly force was not necessary because less intrusive alternatives were available, or
2) If deadly force was necessary, the officer's prior actions created the necessity. (Jall, nd)
An officer may use enough force as necessary to stop a threat to themselves or the public; Further more a police officer may use increase the use of deadly force if the Subject resist. The police officer has no duty to flee a scene in which they have committed themselves to. According to Law.jrank.org the standard use of deadly force is different between departments, however the basis they make the rules for deadly force are taken from th United States Supreme Court.
"Deadly force" is defined as "force reasonably capable of causing death or great bodily harm" (Geller and Scott, p. 23);
As stated above an Officer in pursuit of a subject may still use deadly force; Officer must be in fear of his life, partners, or his/her responsibility to the public. However according to Law.jrank.org,
The U.S. Supreme Court stated the standard in 1985: "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. Thus, if the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent an escape, and if, where feasible, some warning has been given" (Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1, 11–12 (1985)).
No comments:
Post a Comment