- Oct 20, 2013
- 56,223
- 17,964
- 2,250
The shooting of Rayshard Brooks appears to have been perfectly legal under the federal "Fleeing Felon Rule", which permits the use of force, including deadly force, against an individual who is suspected of a felony and is in clear flight. This obviously was the case in the shooting of Rayshard Brooks, who had just committed felonies by fighting with cops, and then shooting one of them with a taser gun.
The Fleeing Felon Rule was established in the 1985 US Supreme Court case of Tennessee vs Garner. Here is an actual quote from Justice Byron White, in that case >> "A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead...however...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."
Obviously, Brooks, running away, was in full flight, and could have escaped had he not been shot.
In a subsequent SCOTUS ruling in 1989, Graham vs Connor, protection of police was further strengthed.
It was ruled that an officer’s fear in the heat of the moment, not just the actual threat, was relevant. Officers, they said, “are often forced to make split-second judgments.” And the justices concluded that the reasonableness of an officer’s use of force should be judged “from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.”
That could mean an officer who shoots a fleeing suspect, could be off the hook legally, if he or she truly believed the suspect had a gun, say, in a pocket or waistband, but turned out to be wrong.
en.wikipedia.org
apnews.com
The Fleeing Felon Rule was established in the 1985 US Supreme Court case of Tennessee vs Garner. Here is an actual quote from Justice Byron White, in that case >> "A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead...however...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."
Obviously, Brooks, running away, was in full flight, and could have escaped had he not been shot.
In a subsequent SCOTUS ruling in 1989, Graham vs Connor, protection of police was further strengthed.
It was ruled that an officer’s fear in the heat of the moment, not just the actual threat, was relevant. Officers, they said, “are often forced to make split-second judgments.” And the justices concluded that the reasonableness of an officer’s use of force should be judged “from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.”
That could mean an officer who shoots a fleeing suspect, could be off the hook legally, if he or she truly believed the suspect had a gun, say, in a pocket or waistband, but turned out to be wrong.
Fleeing felon rule - Wikipedia
Shot in the back: When can police fire on fleeing suspects?
CHICAGO (AP) — In decades past, police officers who shot suspects as they ran away were more likely to expect praise than criminal charges.
apnews.com
