Zone1 If someone attempts to rob you At knife or gunpoint do you believe you have a right to shoot them in response?

[justoffal]

A liberal would claim that YOU DEPRIVED THE ASSAILANT OF HIS LIVELIHOOD, so no, you cant defend yourself in Joe Bidens world. Look how NYC turned loose the NEWCOMERS that attacked those police.

Another point is, if people start defending against assaults,,,,then word would spread to the Third World and LESS NEWCOMERS would come to the USA and go to Canada or UK. How are we going to destroy the social and economic fabric of the middle class if we cant flood the USA with cheap labor ?

When I go to Walmart, most of the people in there are Hispanics and they have lots of money; strange how Democrats claim to be for the poor people ( Just not American poor)

Guys, most of the so called "Liberal Posts" are done by AI Bots. They are trying to arouse anger in the populous in order to trigger mass unrest and the succeeding martial law.

I've known about the bots for some time. Prior to that they were people in posting farms.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

Duh.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

I'll read this when I have more time. It;s long. in the meantime, yes different states have different laws, but th Garner vs Tennessee is a US Supreme Court ruling, so it should apply to the whole US, no?

I don't believe SCOTUS rulings work that. In the Tennessee versus Gardner case, what SCOTUS ruled on was the constitutionality of the police officer's actions in shooting and killing the suspect in the case when he attempted to flee.

That ruling pertains ONLY to the state law that the police officers referenced as having granted them the police powers to shoot and kill Gardner as he attempted to flee. So in that respect, no, that ruling has nothing to do with any other states in the U.S.

Take my answer with a grain of salt because I am not an attorney and this is just my interpretation of what I read and admittedly, I did not read every single bit of it nor all of the other references and citations in the ruling.

You are correct though that the Michigan case is more applicable because it regards the laws allowing civilian use of deadly force in attempting to affect a citizen's arrest but again, a SCOTUS would generally be on the constituionality of the state law allowing such a practice.

 

[protectionist]

I don't believe SCOTUS rulings work that. In the Tennessee versus Gardner case, what SCOTUS ruled on was the constitutionality of the police officer's actions in shooting and killing the suspect in the case when he attempted to flee.

That ruling pertains ONLY to the state law that the police officers referenced as having granted them the police powers to shoot and kill Gardner as he attempted to flee. So in that respect, no, that ruling has nothing to do with any other states in the U.S.

Take my answer with a grain of salt because I am not an attorney and this is just my interpretation of what I read and admittedly, I did not read every single bit of it nor all of the other references and citations in the ruling.

You are correct though that the Michigan case is more applicable because it regards the laws allowing civilian use of deadly force in attempting to affect a citizen's arrest but again, a SCOTUS would generally be on the constituionality of the state law allowing such a practice.

SCOTUS rulings apply nationwide, not to individual states. The Fleeing Felon Rule is US law.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

SCOTUS rulings apply nationwide, not to individual states. The Fleeing Felon Rule is US law.

This is why I said that the laws you cited didn't exactly sanction shooting a person deemed to be a fleeing felon. I asked my AI assistant about the rulings and then I asked it specifically if Washington State allowing shooting a person perceived to be a fleeing felon in the back:

Me: Can you explain why when the Supreme Court of the United States upholds the constitutionality of a state law, that it only applies to that state and not all states, such as in Tennessee vs Garner, People vs Couch, and in South Carolina in State vs Cooney + the state action doctrine?

AIBot: The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has the authority to interpret the Constitution and make decisions that can affect the entire country. However, when it upholds the constitutionality of a specific state law, the immediate practical effect of that decision can be limited to the state where the case originated. Here’s a detailed explanation of why this is the case, touching upon key legal principles and doctrines:

1. Specific Case Context​

When the Supreme Court rules on a specific state law, it is deciding the constitutionality of that particular law within the context of the case before it. The ruling directly affects the parties involved in the case and the state law in question. For example, in Tennessee v. Garner (1985), the Court ruled on a Tennessee statute related to the use of deadly force by law enforcement. This decision immediately affected law enforcement practices in Tennessee.

2. Precedent and Persuasive Authority​

While a SCOTUS ruling sets a binding precedent on the specific constitutional issue addressed, other states are not automatically required to change their laws unless they have similar statutes that would likely be challenged and found unconstitutional based on the precedent. However, the precedent serves as persuasive authority, guiding lower courts across the country in similar cases.

3. Federalism and State Sovereignty​

The U.S. operates under a federal system where states have sovereignty to create and enforce their own laws. SCOTUS respects this federalism by not directly altering state laws unless those laws are challenged and found unconstitutional. Each state retains the authority to interpret and enforce laws unless there is a direct conflict with the Constitution as interpreted by SCOTUS.

4. State Action Doctrine​

The state action doctrine is a principle stating that constitutional protections apply primarily to government actions, not private conduct. This doctrine is relevant when assessing the applicability of SCOTUS decisions. In cases like State v. Cooney, the state court’s interpretation of its own laws within the framework of constitutional guidelines can lead to differing applications, but these decisions must still align with broader constitutional principles.

5. Application to Specific Cases​

• Tennessee v. Garner: This case specifically addressed the constitutionality of the use of deadly force by police under Tennessee law. While the ruling set a national precedent on the use of deadly force, it directly struck down the Tennessee statute.
• People v. Couch: If this refers to a state court decision, the ruling would be binding within that state but would not automatically apply to other states unless they have similar legal questions that lead to higher court challenges.
• State v. Cooney: This would similarly affect South Carolina specifically unless SCOTUS is involved and addresses a broader constitutional issue that sets a national precedent.

6. Subsequent Legal Challenges​

If a state law is similar to one that SCOTUS has found unconstitutional, it can be challenged in state or federal courts. Lower courts are bound by SCOTUS precedents, so they will likely rule in line with the established constitutional interpretation. Eventually, if the issue is significant and widespread, it could lead to another SCOTUS ruling that might more explicitly apply nationwide.

Conclusion​

When SCOTUS upholds or strikes down a state law, it directly impacts the state in question, but it also sets a precedent that influences the entire legal landscape. Other states may choose to align their laws with the ruling to avoid potential challenges. The interplay between federalism, state sovereignty, and the precedent set by SCOTUS ensures that while a decision may start with one state, its effects can ripple through the entire country over time as similar issues are addressed in other jurisdictions.

Me: does washington state have a rcw or other law allowing shooting a fleeing felon in the back?

AIBot: Washington State law does address the use of deadly force by law enforcement officers, but it does not explicitly allow the shooting of a fleeing felon in the back. Instead, Washington's Revised Code of Washington (RCW) sets forth standards for when deadly force is justified.

Relevant Washington State Law: RCW 9A.16.040​

The primary statute governing the use of deadly force by law enforcement officers in Washington State is RCW 9A.16.040. This statute outlines the circumstances under which an officer may use deadly force:

1. When a public officer is acting in obedience to the judgment of a competent court;
2. When necessarily used by a peace officer or person acting under the officer's command and in the officer's aid:
   • To arrest or apprehend a person who the officer reasonably believes has committed, has attempted to commit, is committing, or is attempting to commit a felony;
   • To prevent the escape of a person from a federal or state correctional facility or in retaking a person who escapes from such a facility;
   • To prevent the escape of a person from a county or city jail or holding facility if the person is awaiting trial, sentencing, or transfer to a federal or state correctional facility.
3. **When necessarily used by a peace officer or person acting under the officer's command and in the officer's aid to:
   • Arrest a person who the officer reasonably believes has committed a misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor involving physical harm or threats of harm to any person or property or the use or possession of a firearm or other deadly weapon;**
4. When used by a duly appointed public officer to prevent a person who reasonably appears to pose an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to the officer or others from inflicting such harm.

Supreme Court Precedent: Tennessee v. Garner​

As established by the Supreme Court in Tennessee v. Garner (1985), the use of deadly force to prevent the escape of an unarmed, non-dangerous fleeing suspect is unconstitutional. This landmark decision states that an officer may use deadly force to stop a fleeing suspect only if the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.

Application in Washington State​

Given this precedent, Washington's law must be interpreted in a way that aligns with the constitutional standards set by Tennessee v. Garner. Therefore, while Washington law provides guidelines on the use of force, it does not and cannot legally authorize the use of deadly force in a manner that violates this Supreme Court ruling.

Conclusion​

Washington State does not have a law explicitly allowing the shooting of a fleeing felon in the back. The state's use of force statute, RCW 9A.16.040, sets standards that must be interpreted in light of constitutional limitations imposed by federal law, particularly the standards established in Tennessee v. Garner. Officers are permitted to use deadly force only under circumstances where there is a reasonable belief of an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury.

 

[DudleySmith]

That’s the situation you’re walking down the street and somebody approaches you and pulls out a knife or gun and attempts to rob you saying “give me what you have”. Do you then have a right to shoot that person?

Yes. And the 'running away makes it different' is also a bogus excuse; nothing is stopping them from turning around and shooting you and nothing is stopping them from using their knife on somebody else; you pull weapons on somebody armed you're responsible for getting yourself shot, period so tough shit it you get in the back. Don't be a armed felon, pretty simple, except for a lot of minorities, apparently. 'Running away' doesn't make the vermin any less of a threat to either the intended victim or the community. With the gang culture these days future reprisals are a thing. Doesn't matter if they ran 20 blocks or 5 feet.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Yes. And the 'running away makes it different' is also a bogus excuse; nothing is stopping them from turning around and shooting you and nothing is stopping them from using their knife on somebody else; you pull weapons on somebody armed you're responsible for getting yourself shot, period so tough shit it you get in the back. Don't be a armed felon, pretty simple, except for a lot of minorities, apparently. 'Running away' doesn't make the vermin any less of a threat to either the intended victim or the community. With the gang culture these days future reprisals are a thing. Doesn't matter if they ran 20 blocks or 5 feet.

The person under discussion in this thread is not a minority, he's a white male wanna be cop with a superiority complex from all appearances.

Me: what laws does Washington state have pertaining to private citizens shooting a fleeing felon in the back? Also if the laws differ for armed private security guards, investigators and bail recovery agents how do they differ?


AIBot: In Washington State, the laws pertaining to the use of deadly force by private citizens, including private security guards, private investigators, and bail recovery agents, are governed by the Revised Code of Washington (RCW). These laws set forth strict criteria for when deadly force can be used, especially in situations involving a fleeing felon.

General Law on Use of Deadly Force by Private Citizens​

Under RCW 9A.16.050, private citizens in Washington State are limited in their use of deadly force:

1. Justifiable Homicide by Other Persons:
   • In self-defense: When there is a reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished.
   • In defense of others: Under similar circumstances as self-defense.
   • Preventing a felony: When committed in the lawful defense of the slayer or another person in the slayer's presence or a family member, if there is reasonable ground to believe the person slain intended to commit a felony or do great personal injury.
   • Apprehending a felon: When lawfully aiding a peace officer or acting under the lawful direction of a peace officer to apprehend a felon.

Importantly, RCW 9A.16.020(3) states that any private person may arrest another for a crime committed or attempted in the presence of the arresting individual. However, deadly force to arrest or prevent the escape of a felon is only justifiable under very limited circumstances, aligning with the Supreme Court's ruling in Tennessee v. Garner.

Private Security Guards and Investigators​

Private security guards and private investigators in Washington State have some additional regulations, but they generally do not have greater authority to use deadly force than other private citizens:

• Licensing and Training: They must be licensed and meet specific training requirements, including training on the appropriate use of force.
• Role and Authority: They are primarily tasked with protecting property and ensuring safety but must adhere to the same use-of-force laws as private citizens.

Bail Recovery Agents​

Bail recovery agents, also known as bounty hunters, have a slightly different set of rules due to their role in apprehending individuals who have skipped bail:

• Authority: They have the authority to enter the residence of a fugitive without a warrant to apprehend the fugitive, provided they have a contract with a bail bonds company.
• Use of Force: They must comply with the same use-of-force laws as private citizens. Deadly force can only be used in self-defense or the defense of others when there is an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm.

Summary of Differences​

1. Private Citizens: Can use deadly force in self-defense or defense of others when there is a reasonable belief of imminent danger of death or serious injury.
2. Private Security Guards and Investigators: Must adhere to the same self-defense laws as private citizens and do not have additional authority to use deadly force.
3. Bail Recovery Agents: Have specific rights to apprehend fugitives but are also bound by the same laws regarding the use of deadly force as private citizens.

Conclusion​

In Washington State, private citizens, including private security guards, private investigators, and bail recovery agents, are all subject to strict limitations on the use of deadly force. The law does not allow for shooting a fleeing felon in the back unless there is a reasonable belief of an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm, consistent with the constitutional standards established by Tennessee v. Garner (which SCOTUS struck down as unconstitutional, specifically pertains to law enforcement). Each group must follow the general legal standards for self-defense and the defense of others, with additional regulatory requirements for professional roles.

 

[protectionist]

This is why I said that the laws you cited didn't exactly sanction shooting a person deemed to be a fleeing felon. I asked my AI assistant about the rulings and then I asked it specifically if Washington State allowing shooting a person perceived to be a fleeing felon in the back:

Me: Can you explain why when the Supreme Court of the United States upholds the constitutionality of a state law, that it only applies to that state and not all states, such as in Tennessee vs Garner, People vs Couch, and in South Carolina in State vs Cooney + the state action doctrine?

AIBot: The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has the authority to interpret the Constitution and make decisions that can affect the entire country. However, when it upholds the constitutionality of a specific state law, the immediate practical effect of that decision can be limited to the state where the case originated. Here’s a detailed explanation of why this is the case, touching upon key legal principles and doctrines:

1. Specific Case Context​

When the Supreme Court rules on a specific state law, it is deciding the constitutionality of that particular law within the context of the case before it. The ruling directly affects the parties involved in the case and the state law in question. For example, in Tennessee v. Garner (1985), the Court ruled on a Tennessee statute related to the use of deadly force by law enforcement. This decision immediately affected law enforcement practices in Tennessee.

2. Precedent and Persuasive Authority​

While a SCOTUS ruling sets a binding precedent on the specific constitutional issue addressed, other states are not automatically required to change their laws unless they have similar statutes that would likely be challenged and found unconstitutional based on the precedent. However, the precedent serves as persuasive authority, guiding lower courts across the country in similar cases.

3. Federalism and State Sovereignty​

The U.S. operates under a federal system where states have sovereignty to create and enforce their own laws. SCOTUS respects this federalism by not directly altering state laws unless those laws are challenged and found unconstitutional. Each state retains the authority to interpret and enforce laws unless there is a direct conflict with the Constitution as interpreted by SCOTUS.

4. State Action Doctrine​

The state action doctrine is a principle stating that constitutional protections apply primarily to government actions, not private conduct. This doctrine is relevant when assessing the applicability of SCOTUS decisions. In cases like State v. Cooney, the state court’s interpretation of its own laws within the framework of constitutional guidelines can lead to differing applications, but these decisions must still align with broader constitutional principles.

5. Application to Specific Cases​

• Tennessee v. Garner: This case specifically addressed the constitutionality of the use of deadly force by police under Tennessee law. While the ruling set a national precedent on the use of deadly force, it directly struck down the Tennessee statute.
• People v. Couch: If this refers to a state court decision, the ruling would be binding within that state but would not automatically apply to other states unless they have similar legal questions that lead to higher court challenges.
• State v. Cooney: This would similarly affect South Carolina specifically unless SCOTUS is involved and addresses a broader constitutional issue that sets a national precedent.

6. Subsequent Legal Challenges​

If a state law is similar to one that SCOTUS has found unconstitutional, it can be challenged in state or federal courts. Lower courts are bound by SCOTUS precedents, so they will likely rule in line with the established constitutional interpretation. Eventually, if the issue is significant and widespread, it could lead to another SCOTUS ruling that might more explicitly apply nationwide.

Conclusion​

When SCOTUS upholds or strikes down a state law, it directly impacts the state in question, but it also sets a precedent that influences the entire legal landscape. Other states may choose to align their laws with the ruling to avoid potential challenges. The interplay between federalism, state sovereignty, and the precedent set by SCOTUS ensures that while a decision may start with one state, its effects can ripple through the entire country over time as similar issues are addressed in other jurisdictions.

Me: does washington state have a rcw or other law allowing shooting a fleeing felon in the back?

AIBot: Washington State law does address the use of deadly force by law enforcement officers, but it does not explicitly allow the shooting of a fleeing felon in the back. Instead, Washington's Revised Code of Washington (RCW) sets forth standards for when deadly force is justified.

Relevant Washington State Law: RCW 9A.16.040​

The primary statute governing the use of deadly force by law enforcement officers in Washington State is RCW 9A.16.040. This statute outlines the circumstances under which an officer may use deadly force:

1. When a public officer is acting in obedience to the judgment of a competent court;
2. When necessarily used by a peace officer or person acting under the officer's command and in the officer's aid:
   • To arrest or apprehend a person who the officer reasonably believes has committed, has attempted to commit, is committing, or is attempting to commit a felony;
   • To prevent the escape of a person from a federal or state correctional facility or in retaking a person who escapes from such a facility;
   • To prevent the escape of a person from a county or city jail or holding facility if the person is awaiting trial, sentencing, or transfer to a federal or state correctional facility.
3. **When necessarily used by a peace officer or person acting under the officer's command and in the officer's aid to:
   • Arrest a person who the officer reasonably believes has committed a misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor involving physical harm or threats of harm to any person or property or the use or possession of a firearm or other deadly weapon;**
4. When used by a duly appointed public officer to prevent a person who reasonably appears to pose an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to the officer or others from inflicting such harm.

Supreme Court Precedent: Tennessee v. Garner​

As established by the Supreme Court in Tennessee v. Garner (1985), the use of deadly force to prevent the escape of an unarmed, non-dangerous fleeing suspect is unconstitutional. This landmark decision states that an officer may use deadly force to stop a fleeing suspect only if the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.

Application in Washington State​

Given this precedent, Washington's law must be interpreted in a way that aligns with the constitutional standards set by Tennessee v. Garner. Therefore, while Washington law provides guidelines on the use of force, it does not and cannot legally authorize the use of deadly force in a manner that violates this Supreme Court ruling.

Conclusion​

Washington State does not have a law explicitly allowing the shooting of a fleeing felon in the back. The state's use of force statute, RCW 9A.16.040, sets standards that must be interpreted in light of constitutional limitations imposed by federal law, particularly the standards established in Tennessee v. Garner. Officers are permitted to use deadly force only under circumstances where there is a reasonable belief of an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury.

The Fleeing Felon Rule has no connection at all to anything pertaining to "imminent threat". Quite the contrary, in cases where FFR would apply there would not be any imminent threat of anything, simply because the suspect would be fleeing, and running away.

The idea of threat is something that the suspect could level against the officer or others, at any time (the next day, in a week, in a month, etc)

In the words of Justice Byron White, >> "
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.
— Justice Byron White, Tennessee v. Garner[3]

No mention of "imminent".

Fleeing felon rule - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[DudleySmith]

The person under discussion in this thread is not a minority, he's a white male wanna be cop with a superiority complex from all appearances.

Me: what laws does Washington state have pertaining to private citizens shooting a fleeing felon in the back? Also if the laws differ for armed private security guards, investigators and bail recovery agents how do they differ?


AIBot: In Washington State, the laws pertaining to the use of deadly force by private citizens, including private security guards, private investigators, and bail recovery agents, are governed by the Revised Code of Washington (RCW). These laws set forth strict criteria for when deadly force can be used, especially in situations involving a fleeing felon.

General Law on Use of Deadly Force by Private Citizens​

Under RCW 9A.16.050, private citizens in Washington State are limited in their use of deadly force:

1. Justifiable Homicide by Other Persons:
   • In self-defense: When there is a reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished.
   • In defense of others: Under similar circumstances as self-defense.
   • Preventing a felony: When committed in the lawful defense of the slayer or another person in the slayer's presence or a family member, if there is reasonable ground to believe the person slain intended to commit a felony or do great personal injury.
   • Apprehending a felon: When lawfully aiding a peace officer or acting under the lawful direction of a peace officer to apprehend a felon.

Importantly, RCW 9A.16.020(3) states that any private person may arrest another for a crime committed or attempted in the presence of the arresting individual. However, deadly force to arrest or prevent the escape of a felon is only justifiable under very limited circumstances, aligning with the Supreme Court's ruling in Tennessee v. Garner.

Private Security Guards and Investigators​

Private security guards and private investigators in Washington State have some additional regulations, but they generally do not have greater authority to use deadly force than other private citizens:

• Licensing and Training: They must be licensed and meet specific training requirements, including training on the appropriate use of force.
• Role and Authority: They are primarily tasked with protecting property and ensuring safety but must adhere to the same use-of-force laws as private citizens.

Bail Recovery Agents​

Bail recovery agents, also known as bounty hunters, have a slightly different set of rules due to their role in apprehending individuals who have skipped bail:

• Authority: They have the authority to enter the residence of a fugitive without a warrant to apprehend the fugitive, provided they have a contract with a bail bonds company.
• Use of Force: They must comply with the same use-of-force laws as private citizens. Deadly force can only be used in self-defense or the defense of others when there is an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm.

Summary of Differences​

1. Private Citizens: Can use deadly force in self-defense or defense of others when there is a reasonable belief of imminent danger of death or serious injury.
2. Private Security Guards and Investigators: Must adhere to the same self-defense laws as private citizens and do not have additional authority to use deadly force.
3. Bail Recovery Agents: Have specific rights to apprehend fugitives but are also bound by the same laws regarding the use of deadly force as private citizens.

Conclusion​

In Washington State, private citizens, including private security guards, private investigators, and bail recovery agents, are all subject to strict limitations on the use of deadly force. The law does not allow for shooting a fleeing felon in the back unless there is a reasonable belief of an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm, consistent with the constitutional standards established by Tennessee v. Garner (which SCOTUS struck down as unconstitutional, specifically pertains to law enforcement). Each group must follow the general legal standards for self-defense and the defense of others, with additional regulatory requirements for professional roles.

You having long 'discussions' with inanimate software is about par for pseudo-intellectual cut and paste rubbish. It's a great boon for those with nothing real to say. Admit you can't think for yourself.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

You having long 'discussions' with inanimate software is about par for pseudo-intellectual cut and paste rubbish. It's a great boon for those with nothing real to say. Admit you can't think for yourself.

I guess It has never occurred to you that this has all been said before huh? By me, specifically.

Or are you one of those "special" people who don't believe in evidence and are afraid of AI, lol?

I get so much more done when my AI assistant can take care of the minutia of things, leaving me free to do exactly what Microsoft had in mind for their developers - innovate.

You hate Grammarly too?

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

The Fleeing Felon Rule has no connection at all to anything pertaining to "imminent threat". Quite the contrary, in cases where FFR would apply there would not be any imminent threat of anything, simply because the suspect would be fleeing, and running away.

The idea of threat is something that the suspect could level against the officer or others, at any time (the next day, in a week, in a month, etc)

In the words of Justice Byron White, >> "
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.
— Justice Byron White, Tennessee v. Garner[3]

No mention of "imminent".

Fleeing felon rule - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The case you're citing is the one that SCOTUS struck down. The justices specifically stated that a police officer wanting to stop an unarmed fleeing suspect is not more important than that suspect's interest in preserving his own life (paraphrased).

Things are not simply black and white but the bottom line has always been to the best of my knowledge, that irrespective of which state you're in, no matter if you're a civilian or law enforcement, the laws surrounding the use of deadly force are very strict with just a handful of exceptions and the hurdle that you have to get over with this is that deadly force is only allowed to stop a threat to a living person, a threat which is imminent, of severe bodily harm or death.

A person running away from you is no longer a threat. In Washington State, there are three elements that have to be met in order for one to claim that they invoke their right to use deadly force in response to said threat - ability, opportunity & jeopardy. Here's the link to our training manual: https://cjtc.wa.gov/docs/default-so...t-study-guide-sept-2018.pdf?sfvrsn=7f9ff377_1

 

[protectionist]

The case you're citing is the one that SCOTUS struck down. The justices specifically stated that a police officer wanting to stop an unarmed fleeing suspect is not more important than that suspect's interest in preserving his own life (paraphrased).

Things are not simply black and white but the bottom line has always been to the best of my knowledge, that irrespective of which state you're in, no matter if you're a civilian or law enforcement, the laws surrounding the use of deadly force are very strict with just a handful of exceptions and the hurdle that you have to get over with this is that deadly force is only allowed to stop a threat to a living person, a threat which is imminent, of severe bodily harm or death.

A person running away from you is no longer a threat. In Washington State, there are three elements that have to be met in order for one to claim that they invoke their right to use deadly force in response to said threat - ability, opportunity & jeopardy. Here's the link to our training manual: https://cjtc.wa.gov/docs/default-so...t-study-guide-sept-2018.pdf?sfvrsn=7f9ff377_1

View attachment 963915

You don't understand the Fleeing Felon Rule. It says exactly the OPPOSITE of what you just said. It says that a cop CAN use lethal force to stop a felon who is running away.

"it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force."
— Justice Byron White, Tennessee v. Garner[3]

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

You don't understand the Fleeing Felon Rule. It says exactly the OPPOSITE of what you just said. It says that a cop CAN use lethal force to stop a felon who is running away.

"it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force."
— Justice Byron White, Tennessee v. Garner[3]

What source would you consider credible? I indicated to you originally that you have to read the entire ruling, not just the parts that appear to support your belief.

This is from a legal dictionary:

TENNESSEE V. GARNER​

March 29, 2017 by: Content Team

Contents​

1. Tennessee v. Garner Case Brief

Following is the case brief for Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985).

Case Summary of Tennessee v. Garner:

• Police officer shot and killed an unarmed fleeing suspect – Garner.
• Garner’s family sued, alleging that Garner’s constitutional rights were violated.
• The District Court found no constitutional violation. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed.
• The U.S. Supreme Court held that deadly force cannot be used against a fleeing suspect unless the suspect poses a serious threat to the officer or others.

Tennessee v. Garner Case Brief​

Statement of the Facts:
On an October evening in 1973, Memphis police officers responded to a burglary call. One of the officers went to the back of the house and saw a fleeing suspect — 15-year-old Edward Garner. Garner ran across the yard and stopped at a chain-link fence. With a flashlight, the officer could see that Garner was likely unarmed. The officer told Garner to stop. Garner, however, began to climb the fence. The officer then shot Garner, striking him in the back of the head. He died shortly thereafter.

Tennessee statute (and Memphis Police policy) at that time allowed a police officer to use deadly force against a fleeing suspect. Neither the Memphis Police Firearms Review Board nor a grand jury took any action in the case.

Procedural History:
Garner’s father filed an action, under 42 U.S.C. 1983, in Federal District Court. Garner’s father alleged violations of Garner’s constitutional rights. The District Court found that the Tennessee statute, and the officer’s actions, were constitutional. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed. The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Issue and Holding:

Is it constitutional to use deadly force against an unarmed felon who is fleeing? No. (it is NOT constitutional to use deadly force against an unarmed felon who is fleeing)

Judgment:
Court of Appeals judgment is affirmed.

Rule of Law or Legal Principle Applied:
Deadly force may not be used against a fleeing suspect unless such force is necessary to prevent the suspect’s escape and there is probable cause to believe that the suspect presents a serious threat to the officer or others.

Reasoning:

• Stopping a suspect with deadly force is a Fourth Amendment “seizure.”

As a threshold matter, apprehending a suspect by deadly force is a “seizure” under the Fourth Amendment. The Court noted that deadly force is obviously the most intrusive type of seizure possible because the suspect’s life is in jeopardy. Accordingly, the Court must balance the suspect’s Fourth Amendment rights with the Government’s justification for intruding on those rights.

• Government’s use of deadly force is not justified when a fleeing suspect is unarmed.

The Court noted that Garner was unarmed. It concluded that, under the totality of the circumstances of the case, the Government was not justified in using deadly force against the unarmed Garner.

The Court cautioned that the use of deadly force against a fleeing suspect is not always unconstitutional. Such force can be used if there is probable cause that the fleeing suspect poses a serious threat to the officer or others.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

The Fleeing Felon Rule has no connection at all to anything pertaining to "imminent threat".

If you want to shoot or have shot a "fleeing felon" in the back how possibly are you disconnecting that from the use of deadly force? Do you do understand that shooting someone - front or back - involves the use of deadly force right?

... in cases where FFR would apply there would not be any imminent threat of anything, simply because the suspect would be fleeing, and running away.

I'm starting to get the impression that it is your belief that you can shoot & kill someone simply because they're running away from you BECAUSE there is allegedly a law that says you can do so?!?

Intentionally shooting someone involves the use of deadly force, right? You can't invoke the fleeing felon rule as a defense for shooting someone who is simply attempting to get away from you. For you to use deadly force against them, which means using your firearm to shoot them, they MUST pose some type of threat, you don't get to shoot them simply because there WAS a law that existed that said it was okay at one time ("when nearly all felonies were punishable by death).

I don't know how else to explain this to you but I think I do now at least understand why you believe what you do.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Imaginary friends and now strawmen, lol

while you contribute nothing, let me guess why...

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Another cut and paste from a 'conversation' with your imaginary friend?

LOL

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

If you want to shoot or have shot a "fleeing felon" in the back how possibly are you disconnecting that from the use of deadly force? Do you do understand that shooting someone - front or back - involves the use of deadly force right?


I'm starting to get the impression that it is your belief that you can shoot & kill someone simply because they're running away from you BECAUSE there is allegedly a law that says you can do so?!?

Intentionally shooting someone involves the use of deadly force, right? You can't invoke the fleeing felon rule as a defense for shooting someone who is simply attempting to get away from you. For you to use deadly force against them, which means using your firearm to shoot them, they MUST pose some type of threat, you don't get to shoot them simply because there WAS a law that existed that said it was okay at one time ("when nearly all felonies were punishable by death).

I don't know how else to explain this to you but I think I do now at least understand why you believe what you do.

There is no "news" in this comment, we're discussing legal doctrine. How do you not know that?

 

[protectionist]

What source would you consider credible? I indicated to you originally that you have to read the entire ruling, not just the parts that appear to support your belief.

This is from a legal dictionary:

TENNESSEE V. GARNER​

March 29, 2017 by: Content Team

Contents​

1. Tennessee v. Garner Case Brief

Following is the case brief for Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985).

Case Summary of Tennessee v. Garner:

• Police officer shot and killed an unarmed fleeing suspect – Garner.
• Garner’s family sued, alleging that Garner’s constitutional rights were violated.
• The District Court found no constitutional violation. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed.
• The U.S. Supreme Court held that deadly force cannot be used against a fleeing suspect unless the suspect poses a serious threat to the officer or others.

Tennessee v. Garner Case Brief​

Statement of the Facts:
On an October evening in 1973, Memphis police officers responded to a burglary call. One of the officers went to the back of the house and saw a fleeing suspect — 15-year-old Edward Garner. Garner ran across the yard and stopped at a chain-link fence. With a flashlight, the officer could see that Garner was likely unarmed. The officer told Garner to stop. Garner, however, began to climb the fence. The officer then shot Garner, striking him in the back of the head. He died shortly thereafter.

Tennessee statute (and Memphis Police policy) at that time allowed a police officer to use deadly force against a fleeing suspect. Neither the Memphis Police Firearms Review Board nor a grand jury took any action in the case.

Procedural History:
Garner’s father filed an action, under 42 U.S.C. 1983, in Federal District Court. Garner’s father alleged violations of Garner’s constitutional rights. The District Court found that the Tennessee statute, and the officer’s actions, were constitutional. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed. The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Issue and Holding:

Is it constitutional to use deadly force against an unarmed felon who is fleeing? No. (it is NOT constitutional to use deadly force against an unarmed felon who is fleeing)

Judgment:
Court of Appeals judgment is affirmed.

Rule of Law or Legal Principle Applied:
Deadly force may not be used against a fleeing suspect unless such force is necessary to prevent the suspect’s escape and there is probable cause to believe that the suspect presents a serious threat to the officer or others.

Reasoning:

• Stopping a suspect with deadly force is a Fourth Amendment “seizure.”

As a threshold matter, apprehending a suspect by deadly force is a “seizure” under the Fourth Amendment. The Court noted that deadly force is obviously the most intrusive type of seizure possible because the suspect’s life is in jeopardy. Accordingly, the Court must balance the suspect’s Fourth Amendment rights with the Government’s justification for intruding on those rights.

• Government’s use of deadly force is not justified when a fleeing suspect is unarmed.

The Court noted that Garner was unarmed. It concluded that, under the totality of the circumstances of the case, the Government was not justified in using deadly force against the unarmed Garner.

The Court cautioned that the use of deadly force against a fleeing suspect is not always unconstitutional. Such force can be used if there is probable cause that the fleeing suspect poses a serious threat to the officer or others.

The quote from Justice Byron White that I posted, is all that is necessary. I pass on the word salad.

 

[2aguy]

That’s the situation you’re walking down the street and somebody approaches you and pulls out a knife or gun and attempts to rob you saying “give me what you have”. Do you then have a right to shoot that person?

Yes. They are telling you they are willing to pull the trigger or stab you if you do not comply, they have already crossed the line….it is now your option to use lethal force.

 

[2aguy]

but they would first have to put a gun on you or a knife and then demand your money.

All though you bring up another point if you see somebody get robbed at knife or gunpoint and the robber is running away, does somebody have a right to shoot them morally speaking?

No. The threat if death or serious bodily harm is over….but if you do shoot out of stress to the situation, I would not vote to find you guilty