Teen shot by Tempe police didn’t steal airsoft gun, truck owner says

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Not by shooting and killing people who are not posing an imminent threat to them or anyone else.

But police reasonably and legally can consider someone who ignores police orders amd runs away with a gun in his hand an imminent threat to public safety.

You seem to be doing a lot of work to avoid meeting this simple principle head on. How would YOU change the rules so that only "real threats" are acknowledged? I think you will find that's hard to do. Otherwise, we would already be doing it.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

But police reasonably and legally can consider someone who ignores police orders amd runs away with a gun in his hand an imminent threat to public safety.

You seem to be doing a lot of work to avoid meeting this simple principle head on. How would YOU change the rules so that only "real threats" are acknowledged? Or do you want everyone else to solve this for you?

Well then apparently we differ on what's considered "reasonable". And if everyone else can solve the issue why hasn't it been solved yet?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Well then apparently we differ on what's considered "reasonable".

Yes, as do you and the law, really. Cops are supposed to shoot people running away fromfthem with guns. What do you suppose we should assume they are going to do next? Put away the gun and have a latte at the next Starbucks they pass? That person is an imminent threat to use deadly force to escape the police. Here's a tip: throw the gun first. Then run.

 

[The Professor]

Its horrible but idk how you get around it.
Determine that police have no right to life?

At what point was the police officer's life in jeopardy? The kid was running away from him, not towards him.

He still had a gun and was easily considered a danger to society.

Except it WASN'T a gun and "danger to society" is not equal to an "imminent threat of death or grievous bodiy harm", the key part being "imminent" as in "immediate". It doesn't mean what "might" happen or "could" happen it refers to what "is in process now".

I disagree with your legal analysis but not necessarily with your belief that the shooting was unjustified.

The fact that the gun was not a real firearm is not dispositive regarding the issue of criminal liability. Every jurisdiction allows the use of deadly force when a person reasonably believes such force is necessary to avoid death or serious bodily injury to themselves or innocent third parties. It doesn't matter whether the threat is real or illusory. A person is justified in using deadly force if he reasonably believes the threat is real. Whether such a belief is reasonable is a matter to be determined first by the police and then if an arrest is made by a jury using what is know in law as a “reasonably prudent man” standard. It doesn't matter if a gun is loaded or unloaded, a real gun or a toy. In self-defense perception trumps reality. If a person reasonably believes a gun is real he is justified in using deadly force.

The following is the relevant portion of the instructions to the jury in the case of George Zimmerman. The case did not involve a weapon but is presented here to show that deadly force can be used even when the threat is not real as long as the person using such force reasonably believes it is.

“In deciding whether George Zimmerman as justified in the use of deadly force, you must judge him by the circumstances by which he was surrounded at the time the force was used. The danger facing George Zimmerman need not to have been actual; however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonable cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force. Based upon appearances, George Zimmerman must have actually believed that the danger was real.”

(NOTE: See page 12 of the instructions.)

Zimmerman trial: Final jury instructions

Here is a link to a case in which a women ran over a man with her car because he pointed a rifle at her. The rifle turned out to be a toy but she was not even arrested because she reasonably believed it was real.

Police: Aliquippa Woman Thwarts Robbery By Running Over Suspect

You are correct in that "danger to society" is not equal to an "imminent threat of death or grievous bodily harm.” However a "threat of imminent death or grievous bodily harm” standard applies only in situations involving self-defense. It does not apply to law enforcement personal who are trying to prevent the escape of a dangerous felon. Deadly force cannot be used to prevent the escape of all felons, only those who are classified as dangerous. The leading case on this issue is Tennessee v. Garner. The case involved a young man suspected of burglary of a dwelling. Here are the relevant portions of the decision by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS):

“This case requires us to determine the constitutionality of the use of deadly force to prevent the escape of an apparently unarmed suspected felon. We conclude that such force may not be used unless it is necessary to prevent the escape and 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.”

“While burglary is a serious crime, the officer in this case could not reasonably have believed that the suspect - young, slight, and unarmed - posed any threat. Nor does the fact that an unarmed suspect has broken into a dwelling at night automatically mean he is dangerous.”

“It is not, however, unconstitutional on its face. 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 escape, and if, where feasible, some warning has been given. As applied in such circumstances, the Tennessee statute would pass constitutional muster.”

FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.

When a dangerous felon is fleeing, he no longer poses a threat of imminent death or serious bodily injury to those from whom he is fleeing. The authority to use deadly force to prevent his escape is based upon a duty to protect the public from future criminal acts. In Tennessee v. Garner, the SCOTUS opined that deadly force may be used when the fleeing suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to others. The threat need not be against a specific person and it need not be imminent.

CONCLUSION. I have done my best to provide an analysis of the legal issues involved. The question is whether the policeman had the right to use deadly force as the man was fleeing. Based upon the limited facts available I do not know enough to determine if the shooting was justified. It all depends on whether or not the man was a dangerous felon. Breaking into an unoccupied vehicle and stealing its contents would not make him a dangerous felon; nor would the mere possession of a pistol; nor would the failure to show his hands when ordered to do so. If the man had threatened the policeman with the weapon before fleeing that is another matter; however, at this point in time there is no evidence to support this scenario.