• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

When should police shoot fleeing suspects?

Craig234

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 22, 2019
Messages
46,485
Reaction score
22,688
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Again and again, suspects fleeing police are shot.

The situation I understand is when a suspect is viewed as an 'active shooter', and it's believed that not shooting them creates a large risk to innocent people being killed by them. So let's put that to the side, and talk about other situations, such as someone with warrants fleeing.

When is it justified as a policy?

It's not easy for police to catch a lot of fleeing suspects. Many can outrun police. So, there's a cost to not shooting them - people guilty of crimes can escape punishment, possible for a time, possibly forever, if they run and escape.

On the other hand, there is a price to shooting them, also. Suddenly, a person with a warrant for unpaid child support is executed for running from police to escape that punishment.

There are real tradeoffs, practical issues, moral issues on such policies - just as there are on when police should 'reward' criminals who try to escape in vehicles at high speed, when they put the public safety from the chase ahead of the interest in trying to catch the person.

Disclaimer: I have a bias for guilty people to be caught.

I support things that help them get caught that reduce the price. For example, in the high speed chase situation, things like a strong helicopter resource and/or city camera system might help catch them instead.
 
Again and again, suspects fleeing police are shot.

The situation I understand is when a suspect is viewed as an 'active shooter', and it's believed that not shooting them creates a large risk to innocent people being killed by them. So let's put that to the side, and talk about other situations, such as someone with warrants fleeing.

When is it justified as a policy?

It's not easy for police to catch a lot of fleeing suspects. Many can outrun police. So, there's a cost to not shooting them - people guilty of crimes can escape punishment, possible for a time, possibly forever, if they run and escape.

On the other hand, there is a price to shooting them, also. Suddenly, a person with a warrant for unpaid child support is executed for running from police to escape that punishment.

There are real tradeoffs, practical issues, moral issues on such policies - just as there are on when police should 'reward' criminals who try to escape in vehicles at high speed, when they put the public safety from the chase ahead of the interest in trying to catch the person.

Disclaimer: I have a bias for guilty people to be caught.

I support things that help them get caught that reduce the price. For example, in the high speed chase situation, things like a strong helicopter resource and/or city camera system might help catch them instead.

I know I won't ever walk away from a police officer again.
 
Again and again, suspects fleeing police are shot.

The situation I understand is when a suspect is viewed as an 'active shooter', and it's believed that not shooting them creates a large risk to innocent people being killed by them. So let's put that to the side, and talk about other situations, such as someone with warrants fleeing.

When is it justified as a policy?

It's not easy for police to catch a lot of fleeing suspects. Many can outrun police. So, there's a cost to not shooting them - people guilty of crimes can escape punishment, possible for a time, possibly forever, if they run and escape.

On the other hand, there is a price to shooting them, also. Suddenly, a person with a warrant for unpaid child support is executed for running from police to escape that punishment.

There are real tradeoffs, practical issues, moral issues on such policies - just as there are on when police should 'reward' criminals who try to escape in vehicles at high speed, when they put the public safety from the chase ahead of the interest in trying to catch the person.

Disclaimer: I have a bias for guilty people to be caught.

I support things that help them get caught that reduce the price. For example, in the high speed chase situation, things like a strong helicopter resource and/or city camera system might help catch them instead.

About the only time that shooting a suspect in the back is if they are an active shooter. "Resisting arrest" is NEVER an excuse by itself to summarily execute someone.
 
Again and again, suspects fleeing police are shot.

The situation I understand is when a suspect is viewed as an 'active shooter', and it's believed that not shooting them creates a large risk to innocent people being killed by them. So let's put that to the side, and talk about other situations, such as someone with warrants fleeing.

When is it justified as a policy?

It's not easy for police to catch a lot of fleeing suspects. Many can outrun police. So, there's a cost to not shooting them - people guilty of crimes can escape punishment, possible for a time, possibly forever, if they run and escape.

On the other hand, there is a price to shooting them, also. Suddenly, a person with a warrant for unpaid child support is executed for running from police to escape that punishment.

There are real tradeoffs, practical issues, moral issues on such policies - just as there are on when police should 'reward' criminals who try to escape in vehicles at high speed, when they put the public safety from the chase ahead of the interest in trying to catch the person.

Disclaimer: I have a bias for guilty people to be caught.

I support things that help them get caught that reduce the price. For example, in the high speed chase situation, things like a strong helicopter resource and/or city camera system might help catch them instead.

It should be that any fleeing felon can be shot by the police if necessary for capture. Presently they can only shoot if the felon has inflicted or threatened serious injury, or has escaped from custody (after being successfully arrested).

Of course, most (all?) of the criminals who’ve been celebrated by the left were attacking police rather than trying to flee, so this is a moot point as far as current events go.
 
Again and again, suspects fleeing police are shot.

The situation I understand is when a suspect is viewed as an 'active shooter', and it's believed that not shooting them creates a large risk to innocent people being killed by them. So let's put that to the side, and talk about other situations, such as someone with warrants fleeing.

When is it justified as a policy?

It's not easy for police to catch a lot of fleeing suspects. Many can outrun police. So, there's a cost to not shooting them - people guilty of crimes can escape punishment, possible for a time, possibly forever, if they run and escape.

On the other hand, there is a price to shooting them, also. Suddenly, a person with a warrant for unpaid child support is executed for running from police to escape that punishment.

There are real tradeoffs, practical issues, moral issues on such policies - just as there are on when police should 'reward' criminals who try to escape in vehicles at high speed, when they put the public safety from the chase ahead of the interest in trying to catch the person.

Disclaimer: I have a bias for guilty people to be caught.

I support things that help them get caught that reduce the price. For example, in the high speed chase situation, things like a strong helicopter resource and/or city camera system might help catch them instead.

It seems to be currently left up to the individual police officer(s) as to when deadly force may (should?) be used during an arrest attempt. Since the following video shows what was deemed a "good shoot", it is unclear who poses a "credible threat" to the officer(s) and/or the general public.

 
It should be that any fleeing felon can be shot by the police if necessary for capture.

Tennessee v. Garner says otherwise.
 
Again and again, suspects fleeing police are shot.

The situation I understand is when a suspect is viewed as an 'active shooter', and it's believed that not shooting them creates a large risk to innocent people being killed by them. So let's put that to the side, and talk about other situations, such as someone with warrants fleeing.

When is it justified as a policy?

It's not easy for police to catch a lot of fleeing suspects. Many can outrun police. So, there's a cost to not shooting them - people guilty of crimes can escape punishment, possible for a time, possibly forever, if they run and escape.

On the other hand, there is a price to shooting them, also. Suddenly, a person with a warrant for unpaid child support is executed for running from police to escape that punishment.

There are real tradeoffs, practical issues, moral issues on such policies - just as there are on when police should 'reward' criminals who try to escape in vehicles at high speed, when they put the public safety from the chase ahead of the interest in trying to catch the person.

Disclaimer: I have a bias for guilty people to be caught.

I support things that help them get caught that reduce the price. For example, in the high speed chase situation, things like a strong helicopter resource and/or city camera system might help catch them instead.

The moment they get a clear shot of the suspects back. Or mostly clear, I mean, bystanders knew the risk when they went out into public.
 
It seems to be currently left up to the individual police officer(s) as to when deadly force may (should?) be used during an arrest attempt. Since the following video shows what was deemed a "good shoot", it is unclear who poses a "credible threat" to the officer(s) and/or the general public.



That guy ended up getting shot? What did he do, get up and run towards the police? All I saw was a guy doing his best to follow instructions.
 
That guy ended up getting shot? What did he do, get up and run towards the police? All I saw was a guy doing his best to follow instructions.

The unarmed (and likely intoxicated) suspect reached to pull up his sagging shorts - a fatal mistake in that officer's "expert" opinion of what constituted a deadly threat.
 
Again and again, suspects fleeing police are shot.

The situation I understand is when a suspect is viewed as an 'active shooter', and it's believed that not shooting them creates a large risk to innocent people being killed by them. So let's put that to the side, and talk about other situations, such as someone with warrants fleeing.

When is it justified as a policy?

It's not easy for police to catch a lot of fleeing suspects. Many can outrun police. So, there's a cost to not shooting them - people guilty of crimes can escape punishment, possible for a time, possibly forever, if they run and escape.

On the other hand, there is a price to shooting them, also. Suddenly, a person with a warrant for unpaid child support is executed for running from police to escape that punishment.

There are real tradeoffs, practical issues, moral issues on such policies - just as there are on when police should 'reward' criminals who try to escape in vehicles at high speed, when they put the public safety from the chase ahead of the interest in trying to catch the person.

Disclaimer: I have a bias for guilty people to be caught.

I support things that help them get caught that reduce the price. For example, in the high speed chase situation, things like a strong helicopter resource and/or city camera system might help catch them instead.

The cost of not shooting a fleeing suspect who is not an immediate danger to the officers or the public should always be lower to the officer than the cost of shooting him or her. And outstanding warrants, even for violent offenses, do not make a fleeing suspect an immediate danger to the public.

A fleeing suspect armed with a firearm or other deadly weapon who has shown an immediate intention to use it is a threat and shooting him or her is justified.
 
Last edited:
Again and again, suspects fleeing police are shot.

The situation I understand is when a suspect is viewed as an 'active shooter', and it's believed that not shooting them creates a large risk to innocent people being killed by them. So let's put that to the side, and talk about other situations, such as someone with warrants fleeing.

When is it justified as a policy?

It's not easy for police to catch a lot of fleeing suspects. Many can outrun police. So, there's a cost to not shooting them - people guilty of crimes can escape punishment, possible for a time, possibly forever, if they run and escape.

On the other hand, there is a price to shooting them, also. Suddenly, a person with a warrant for unpaid child support is executed for running from police to escape that punishment.

There are real tradeoffs, practical issues, moral issues on such policies - just as there are on when police should 'reward' criminals who try to escape in vehicles at high speed, when they put the public safety from the chase ahead of the interest in trying to catch the person.

Disclaimer: I have a bias for guilty people to be caught.

I support things that help them get caught that reduce the price. For example, in the high speed chase situation, things like a strong helicopter resource and/or city camera system might help catch them instead.

This question doesnt seem very relevant to current events. .. it’s not happening expect as an extreme rarity.

But I think legally only when it’s a felon and a reasonable threat to others is present.
 
Police should be required to watch the circa 1970 cop show 1-Adam12 as training media. Sure, some busts are sugar coated, but for the most part, they are accurate as to how policing used to be. My Stepfather is a retired policeman, and has stated that in most cases, 1-Adam12 is accurate as to his own policing methods, which have been largely abandoned as of late.

They (Reed and Miloy) do get to shoot (and kill) the occasional perp when warranted, but for the most part they use common sense and compassion making life-and-death decisions, and don't treat suspects as an instant life-threat.
 
It seems to be currently left up to the individual police officer(s) as to when deadly force may (should?) be used during an arrest attempt. Since the following video shows what was deemed a "good shoot", it is unclear who poses a "credible threat" to the officer(s) and/or the general public.



Since this video has come up a lot and has been referred to as "a good shoot" I would like to note for the record that the decision is that it was a "lawful" shoot. That isn't the same thing as "a good shoot". All it means is that the cop was able to articulate a reasonable belief that he was in imminent fear of great bodily harm of death at the time he shot.

Furthermore, as will all the other incidents we talk about, the video does not give the complete context of what was happening. In this situation the cops were called to the hotel because someone complained that an individual in one of the rooms was pointing a gun out the window. They had to assume that anyone coming out of that room was armed. There are also reasons that they called the suspects to them instead of approached the suspects but there is no sense in getting into the weeds about this.

Bottom line, there is a difference between a lawful use of deadly force and a "good shoot".
 
Since this video has come up a lot and has been referred to as "a good shoot" I would like to note for the record that the decision is that it was a "lawful" shoot. That isn't the same thing as "a good shoot". All it means is that the cop was able to articulate a reasonable belief that he was in imminent fear of great bodily harm of death at the time he shot.

Furthermore, as will all the other incidents we talk about, the video does not give the complete context of what was happening. In this situation the cops were called to the hotel because someone complained that an individual in one of the rooms was pointing a gun out the window. They had to assume that anyone coming out of that room was armed. There are also reasons that they called the suspects to them instead of approached the suspects but there is no sense in getting into the weeds about this.

Bottom line, there is a difference between a lawful use of deadly force and a "good shoot".

The citizen complaint, resulting in the police response, was about seeing a rifle (which turned out to be an air gun) - the idea that it had been successfully concealed in the man's shorts is a bit short of credible, IMHO.
 
I firmly believe what most police training demands, that a fleeing suspect can be shot ONLY when the lives of the police pursuing him/her is in imminent danger or allowing the suspect to get away might cause injury or death to innocent civilians. Btw, shooting at a fleeing suspect also puts in danger bystanders if the police shots go awry. However, if a confirmed murderer, rapist or serial killer is fleeing, the police should be allowed to shoot that suspect if there is no other way to apprehend or subdue him/her.
 
The citizen complaint, resulting in the police response, was about seeing a rifle (which turned out to be an air gun) - the idea that it had been successfully concealed in the man's shorts is a bit short of credible, IMHO.

Just because someone says "rifle" doesn't mean it's a rifle. To you and I that term has a specific meaning but to a panicked caller it is very possible that it merely means "gun". Furthermore, as a responding officer, it is prudent in responding any call regarding firearms that the reported issue isn't the only issue. It is not the least bit unreasonable to presume that someone armed with a rifle might ALSO be armed with a handgun.

As I said, this was "lawful" and that term means that certain statutory criteria have been met. Whether it was "good" or not is entirely subjective.
 
That guy ended up getting shot? What did he do, get up and run towards the police? All I saw was a guy doing his best to follow instructions.

LEOs have a group that they don't talk about, except among themselves. They are the 'killed a man in the line of duty' officers. The big problem is that those not in that group find it somewhat prestigious, and want to become a member.

I suppose that it's just human nature and there's not really anything that can be done about it.
 
Just because someone says "rifle" doesn't mean it's a rifle. To you and I that term has a specific meaning but to a panicked caller it is very possible that it merely means "gun". Furthermore, as a responding officer, it is prudent in responding any call regarding firearms that the reported issue isn't the only issue. It is not the least bit unreasonable to presume that someone armed with a rifle might ALSO be armed with a handgun.

As I said, this was "lawful" and that term means that certain statutory criteria have been met. Whether it was "good" or not is entirely subjective.

The bottom line is that this shooting of an unarmed person was deemed non-criminal, thus was acceptable behavior during the arrest process. This example does not fit the OP perfectly, since it did not involve an attempt to flee, escape or evade arrest/capture, but does illustrate the significant leeway granted to what a police officer may consider to be a (deadly?) threat to their safety by a criminal suspect.
 
Again and again, suspects fleeing police are shot.

The situation I understand is when a suspect is viewed as an 'active shooter', and it's believed that not shooting them creates a large risk to innocent people being killed by them. So let's put that to the side, and talk about other situations, such as someone with warrants fleeing.

When is it justified as a policy?

It's not easy for police to catch a lot of fleeing suspects. Many can outrun police. So, there's a cost to not shooting them - people guilty of crimes can escape punishment, possible for a time, possibly forever, if they run and escape.

On the other hand, there is a price to shooting them, also. Suddenly, a person with a warrant for unpaid child support is executed for running from police to escape that punishment.

There are real tradeoffs, practical issues, moral issues on such policies - just as there are on when police should 'reward' criminals who try to escape in vehicles at high speed, when they put the public safety from the chase ahead of the interest in trying to catch the person.

Disclaimer: I have a bias for guilty people to be caught.

I support things that help them get caught that reduce the price. For example, in the high speed chase situation, things like a strong helicopter resource and/or city camera system might help catch them instead.

The police should shoot them before they flee
 
LEOs have a group that they don't talk about, except among themselves. They are the 'killed a man in the line of duty' officers. The big problem is that those not in that group find it somewhat prestigious, and want to become a member.

I suppose that it's just human nature and there's not really anything that can be done about it.

Plenty can be done about it.

It's about culture, training, laws, investigations, systems like body cameras, and incentives.
 
Back
Top Bottom