Shooting someone in the Back (NonLEO vs LEO)

[LSUTiger]

Do you think there are situations where Police would be justified in shooting someone in the back when a non LEO would not be justified in the same situation?

IMHO, I don't think so. If the perp is not immediate threat to officer or others then shooting him in the back for what the bad guy might do later is kinda like using the minority report to justify homicide. Now in the course of giving chase to execute an arrest the bad guy poses the justifiable threat then that's a different story.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRV3wQiiWE0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Keith B]

Actually, there could be. A LEO can use deadly force to stop a person fleeing from a felony. In Texas, for a CHL the justificaiton is a smaller list of reasons that are well defined on when you can use deadly force. http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/S ... m/PE.9.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A good example is you cannot shoot someone who committed theft and is fleeing unless it is during the night

Chapter 9. Justifications Excluding Criminal Responsibility

SUBCHAPTER D. PROTECTION OF PROPERTY

Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY.

A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:

(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and

(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to prevent the other’s imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or

(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and

(3) he reasonably believes that:

(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or

(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

[Javier730]

Most people would agree that shooting someone in the back is a big no no, but just because someone has their back to you, doesn't mean they are not a threat. They may be taking cover or getting in a position to return fire. The justification of a shooting whether in the back or not, should not be determined by whether or not the shooter is a LEO. It should be based on whether or not there was lives being put on danger of serious bodily injury or death. Of course a LEO is better protected than a non LEO. If your non LEO and you shoot someone in the back, be prepared to go to jail and to trial. But like the saying goes, it's better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

[BigGuy]

I'm not a LEO, but at the end of the day citizens will decide what is acceptable. They will make those decisions through pandering politicians who will pass laws to garner votes. Tragically, those standards are likely to be set by reactionary, emotional responses.

We've learned though westerns and cop shows that our super cops NEVER shoot anybody in the back. In fact, you give him time to turn around and make it a fair fight. There are even times when you will throw down your gun and go to fisticuffs with an unarmed bad guy.

We (I mean America) desperately need to have citizens who are educated, and can make rational decisions.

Should a LEO ever shoot somebody in the back?
When the Marana, Arizona Police Car Slammed into the perp with the rifle, running toward a shopping center, I would have considered that a justifiable shoot in the back situation. An armed man who had already discharged his weapon, was refusing to follow police instructions, and was heading toward a shopping area with a large crowd. In this citizen's opinion, it would have been irresponsible of the police to NOT stop him by what ever means necessary. If a police car hadn't been handy to run him down, then bang!

Unfortunately, there is a growing divide between the police and the populace. It is THEIR job to keep US safe. So we can sit back in the safety they provide, and Monday morning quarterback with less and less understanding or empathy about what the job actually entails. It seems to me that this mind set ultimately will provide true safety for neither the citizen nor the police. Citizens will make increasingly impossible demands that endanger the lives of officers and at the same time reduces their effectiveness, making the lives of the populace less safe.

It also seems to me that this is unlikely to change until citizens have some skin in the game. Real immediate skin. I think we need to seriously consider revisiting deputizing citizens. Yes I know how crazy that sounds at first beat. But if you really think about it, some version of that may be the only way to change attitudes about police. Something similar to this might get people thinking about US rather than THEM, when it come to law enforcement.

I’m not suggesting that the Sheriff go out and grab the first 10 people he sees and hand them a gun. I am suggesting that we start programs to get citizens involved in actually protecting their homes and neighborhoods. And yes, there WILL be an incident where a citizen is injured or killed. That brings us to what, in my estimation, is the root of the problem. A population that feels entitled to absolute protection with no effort on their part. Maybe we can begin to change that attitude by slowly introducing the idea of citizens with a personal stake in the safety of the community. Citizen ride alongs and citizen academies are great starts. But in those areas where there is still enough an America left that our Founding Father would recognize, may be we could actually put laws and procedures in place to enable and empower citizens to take a more active part in community safety. Maybe even, eventually, deputize citizens to assist with manhunts, or crowd control.

The Constitution doesn’t promise us safety, it promises freedom.* People who don’t risk at least a little for freedom, neither understand nor treasure it. I fear that the only way for this country to survive is for the majority of the citizenry to take a personal responsibility for it’s maintenance and protection. In so doing, some of them will pay a price. Those who refuse this responsibility will take their freedom for granted. Those are the people who think that walking on the flag is a reasonable form of speech. Who will hold real life police officers to the impossible standards of the television western sheriff or big city detective.

I see what I believe is a lot of momentum swinging us away from the founding principals of a government of, by, and for the people. I would hope that if people in a small area demonstrate how good things are when we live by our founding principals, it might spread. There are “progressive” enclaves we are unlikely to ever penetrate, but maybe we can at least get the momentum going in the other direction.

*I heard this in a meeting I was watching on youtube. Unfortunately, I don’t remember the exact time or location.

Edit to remove the word "sheep'"

[baldeagle]

The Force Science Institute has proven that shooting someone in the back doesn't necessarily mean they were facing away from you when you made the decision to stop the threat.

Police Officer Reaction Time to Start and Stop Shooting: The Influence of Decision-Making and Pattern Recognition

Officer-Subject Interaction
This study proves that a subject facing you and presenting a threat can have his back to you within 0.54 seconds after you fire, so that the bullets hit your back.

So shooting someone in the back is not necessarily indicative of the shooter having done something wrong.

[jimlongley]

There was an officer involved shooting in NYCity recently, where the officer shot the perp in the back, and from the video it's a good shoot. The perp was beating another officer with a hammer.

[A-R]

Actually, there could be. A LEO can use deadly force to stop a person fleeing from a felony.

"Fleeing from a felony" alone is a bit too simplistic of a justification, even for LEOs.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_v._Garner" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Javier730]

Actually, there could be. A LEO can use deadly force to stop a person fleeing from a felony.

"Fleeing from a felony" alone is a bit too simplistic of a justification, even for LEOs.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_v._Garner" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Cant a non LEO shoot someone who has just committed a violent felony? Like just killing a loved one of that person?

[A-R]

I don't generally quote Wikipedia, but this one is reasonably accurate description of the finding in Tennessee v. Garner (to best of my knowledge)

Law enforcement officers pursuing an unarmed suspect may use deadly force to prevent escape 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.

The key is probable cause to believe the suspect poses a continuing serious lethal risk to others.

As a side note, this might be what the lawyers for the LEO who shot fleeing man in South Carolina try to argue - if he had probable cause to believe the fleeing man had Tased him and still had possession of the Taser. It's a stretch, but that may be the stretch his lawyers try.

[Oldgringo]

I don't recall John Wayne ever shooting anyone in the back?

[A-R]

There was an officer involved shooting in NYCity recently, where the officer shot the perp in the back, and from the video it's a good shoot. The perp was beating another officer with a hammer.

Great example of a perfectly justified "shot in the back"

http://youtu.be/GFg5RlUsz0M" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[A-R]

I'm not a LEO, but at the end of the day citizens will decide what is acceptable. They will make those decisions through pandering politicians who will pass laws to garner votes. Tragically, those standards are likely to be set by reactionary, emotional responses.

We've learned though westerns and cop shows that our super cops NEVER shoot anybody in the back. In fact, you give him time to turn around and make it a fair fight. There are even times when you will throw down your gun and go to fisticuffs with an unarmed bad guy.

We (I mean America) desperately need to have citizens who are educated, and can make rational decisions.

Should a LEO ever shoot somebody in the back?
When the Marana, Arizona Police Car Slammed into the perp with the rifle, running toward a shopping center, I would have considered that a justifiable shoot in the back situation. An armed man who had already discharged his weapon, was refusing to follow police instructions, and was heading toward a shopping area with a large crowd. In this citizen's opinion, it would have been irresponsible of the police to NOT stop him by what ever means necessary. If a police car hadn't been handy to run him down, then bang!

Unfortunately, there is a growing divide between the police and the populace. It is THEIR job to keep US safe. So we can sit back in the safety they provide, and Monday morning quarterback with less and less understanding or empathy about what the job actually entails. It seems to me that this mind set ultimately will provide true safety for neither the citizen nor the police. Citizens will make increasingly impossible demands that endanger the lives of officers and at the same time reduces their effectiveness, making the lives of the populace less safe.

It also seems to me that this is unlikely to change until citizens have some skin in the game. Real immediate skin. I think we need to seriously consider revisiting deputizing citizens. Yes I know how crazy that sounds at first beat. But if you really think about it, some version of that may be the only way to change attitudes about police. Something similar to this might get people thinking about US rather than THEM, when it come to law enforcement.

I’m not suggesting that the Sheriff go out and grab the first 10 people he sees and hand them a gun. I am suggesting that we start programs to get citizens involved in actually protecting their homes and neighborhoods. And yes, there WILL be an incident where a citizen is injured or killed. That brings us to what, in my estimation, is the root of the problem. A population that feels entitled to absolute protection with no effort on their part. Maybe we can begin to change that attitude by slowly introducing the idea of citizens with a personal stake in the safety of the community. Citizen ride alongs and citizen academies are great starts. But in those areas where there is still enough an America left that our Founding Father would recognize, may be we could actually put laws and procedures in place to enable and empower citizens to take a more active part in community safety. Maybe even, eventually, deputize citizens to assist with manhunts, or crowd control.

The Constitution doesn’t promise us safety, it promises freedom.* People who don’t risk at least a little for freedom, neither understand nor treasure it. I fear that the only way for this country to survive is for the majority of the citizenry to take a personal responsibility for it’s maintenance and protection. In so doing, some of them will pay a price. Those who refuse this responsibility will take their freedom for granted. Those are the people who think that walking on the flag is a reasonable form of speech. Who will hold real life police officers to the impossible standards of the television western sheriff or big city detective.

I see what I believe is a lot of momentum swinging us away from the founding principals of a government of, by, and for the people. I would hope that if people in a small area demonstrate how good things are when we live by our founding principals, it might spread. There are “progressive” enclaves we are unlikely to ever penetrate, but maybe we can at least get the momentum going in the other direction.

*I heard this in a meeting I was watching on youtube. Unfortunately, I don’t remember the exact time or location.
Edit to remove the word "sheep'"

Permission to use some of these ideas elsewhere?

[A-R]

The Force Science Institute has proven that shooting someone in the back doesn't necessarily mean they were facing away from you when you made the decision to stop the threat.

Police Officer Reaction Time to Start and Stop Shooting: The Influence of Decision-Making and Pattern Recognition

Officer-Subject Interaction
This study proves that a subject facing you and presenting a threat can have his back to you within 0.54 seconds after you fire, so that the bullets hit your back.

So shooting someone in the back is not necessarily indicative of the shooter having done something wrong.

THIS

[A-R]

I don't recall John Wayne ever shooting anyone in the back?

I don't recall John Wayne ever shooting anyone. Period.

He only ever pretend shot pretend bad guys in pretend stories on the picture shows.

[Oldgringo]

I don't recall John Wayne ever shooting anyone in the back?

I don't recall John Wayne ever shooting anyone. Period.

He only ever pretend shot pretend bad guys in pretend stories on the picture shows.

I stand corrected......