New Policy Allows Police To Shoot At Fleeing Cars

[Roon]

Effective next Monday, police officers will be able to fire their guns under circumstances where they previously could not.
http://cbs2chicago.com/local/police.deadly.force.2.1105766.html

[Taverner]

1. Great - that won't kill anyone in the crossfire

:eyes:

[backscatter712]

2. What could possibly go wrong? n/t

[Scurrilous]

3. Meanwhile...

Off-duty Surfside officer shoots at dog, hits bystander

<snip>

"An off-duty Surfside police officer fired at a charging pitbull Wednesday morning, missing the dog but grazing a woman standing nearby, police said.

The woman was grazed in the neck and treated at the scene, said Detective Eddie Rodriguez, a Hialeah police spokesman.

The officer -- holding his young child -- had gone to check his mail at the building in the 2990 block of West 80th Street.

The pitbull charged at him, Rodriguez said.

"Fearing for his safety and the safety of his child, he discharged one round from his service weapon at the dog," Rodriguez said.

The bullet ricocheted off the ground and grazed a woman in the neck."

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/breaking-news/story/1162353.html

[havocmom]

14. If he is worried about safety, he might go for some more time at the range

And if OP about being able to shoot at fleeing cars is a widely accepted policy change, we might wanna look into tougher standards to qualify at the range.

[John Q. Citizen]

16. Yeah, they need a moving target range

[paulsby]

4. complete crap. the article is wrong

no police policy could legally justify shooting at cars merely because the person committed a felony. either the article is misunderstanding the policy (most likely) or something else is amiss.

case law, specifically tennessee vs. garner long ago determined it's unconstitutional to shoot at fleeing felons MERELY because they committed a felony. a felony can be a non-violent crime, such as check forgery for instance.

it is both a crime, and a civil rights violation to do so.

fwiw, i am a firearms instructor for cops and teach the law surrounding deadly force.

generally speaking, under the federal standard, one can use deadly force to shoot a fleeing suspected felon if

1) the crime involved the use of or threatened use of deadly force
2) there is a reasonable belief that the person poses a continued threat if not apprehended

ANY state or police agency within a state can have a more restrictive policy than that required under the federal standard, but NO state or agency can authorize a lesser standard.

sorry, but the article is wrong.

not surprising from the lay media when it covers legal or police issues.

in fact, in my experience, very common

[merh]

5. I'm trying to find the policy

The other news organizations in the city report this policy in the same manner.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/sneed/1690188,CST-NWS-SNEED29.article

I think, if this is true, the police superintendent could very well be held personally liable for any death or injury caused to the innocent. The superintendent knows, or should know, that the use of deadly force in this manner is against case law/legal precedent as well as the professions basic safety standards.

[paulsby]

8. then they are idiots

fwiw, this is typical of the mainstream media. they give you THEIR interpretation of the policy. but this is the internet. give me a frigging link TO the policy, so i can read it myself.

that's why i read legal blogs, that give cites, etc. police policy is public record. the newspaper should give the link to the proposed policy. it's got to be online somewhere.

i am sorry but if a newspaper article said "chicago police new policy allows them to shoot nuns on site" i'm gonna call bullshit.

i wouldn't be surprised if the policy change was something along the lines that the old policy prohibited shooting at cars unless the occupant posed an immediate threat, and that the standard was now lowered to a garner standard (a fleeing person does not have to pose an immediate threat under garner).

etc.

[merh]

10. Here is an interview with the police spokesperson

The new policy, from police superintendent Jody Weis, allows police officers to shoot at fleeing vehicles, according to police spokesman Roderick Drew.

"Now officers will be able to fire upon the driver or passenger in a vehicle if that person is a forcible fleeing felon, someone who has committed a very serious offense resulting in bodily harm or has threatened to commit great bodily harm," Drew told Newsradio 780.

The old policy allowed officers to shoot at vehicles that pose a threat to them or others, if the driver was trying to run down the officer, for example.

Now, they'll be allowed to shoot at people trying to get away.

There are some rules of engagement.

WBBM: "You guys are going to get some serious criticism, this is going to be national news if the police are now allowed to shoot at a fleeing vehicle of some guys who just conducted an armed robbery."

DREW: "Again, it is up to the discretion of the member."

So who, among criminals, qualifies?

"It gives department members the option of taking off a dangerous member, someone who has either created or committed a serious offense or could commit a serious offense if he or she is allowed to flee the scene," Drew explained.

WBBM: "Someone who's robbed a grocery store and takes off, does this not allow the police to open fire on that person?"

DREW: "Well, that's where it gets into the whole training aspect."

But the answer is yes, they could shoot at the car fleeing the robbery.

http://www.wbbm780.com/New-rules--when-cops-can-shoot-at-fleeing-vehicles/4897101

I don't know what forcible fleeing felon means, I've never seen that term before.

[paulsby]

read the second paragraph, it suports what i said earlier

it's about as close of a paraphrase of garner, which i already referenced in my initial thread.

iow, i was right. big surprise. this is black letter law. there is no way they were going ot be able to shoot at somebody MERELY because they were a fleeing felon.

that's ridiculous.

guy writes a check on a closed account, gets in a car and takes off. cops shoot at him? that;'s ok under policy? no


of course plenty of people here instantly went "oh noes" because they don't know the first thing about the laws surrounding deadly force. but i don;'t expect them to. this isn't a legal blog. most people don't understand use of force continuum at all, as some of the taser threads amply demonstrate.

like i said, garner applies. and the stuff you just posted supports that.

the media got it wrong. BIIIIIG surprise

[merh]

19. I'm with you on everything but taser use.

It is being misused and abused. I don't think the benifits of the tasers, as designed and used today, outweigh the danger.

[paulsby]

23. everything is misused and abused

to some extent.

my point is that when people start whinging about tasers, they demonstrate phenomenal ignorance as to BASIC use of force concepts.

i'll give you one example. many people repeatedly spout the lie that tasers are a "substitute for firearms".

or they will read that somebody died after being tasered and assume the taser CAUSED the death.

i will say this unequivocally. tasers have saved thousands of lives. but i don;'t want to get into a long taser wank. that's tangential.

i have read metric assloads of studies on tasers. i've carried one for years. i've been tased twice. etc. but i rarely even bother with the taser threads. it's just not worth it. i've got better things to spend my time on.

fwiw, people have ALWAYS died in arrest situations. i had a guy stop breathing on me once (he lived) after about a 5 minute relatively low intensity wrestling match during a warrant arrest. why ? well, he was incredibly unhealthy and malnourished (like many street people), he was high on a polydrug combination, etc. etc. tasers are actually generally much safer than a protracted wrestling match, let alone a baton strike or even wristie -twisties, depending on the circs.

but people will always die in such situations, and now that tasers are used, people instantly assume IT'S THE TASER.

most of these people have never been to an autopsy, read the autopsy reports, or understand the science. most have never heard of excited delirium or understand the dangers when a person who is exceptionally poor health and/or on a polydrug combo AND has a massive burst of adrenaline due to fight or flight, etc.

i am not saying some officers have not abused tasers. of course they have. i am not saying that some agencies need better policies.

i am saying that tasers are an incredibly effective, humane device, and have saved thousands of lives.

but i'd rather get back to the instant case. :)

[Orsino]

24. What is the distinction you're making?

That the fleeing target must be suspected of having committed or threatened violence?

[paulsby]

25. i already posted the garner standard

feel free to google it.

but in brief, NO policy is going to authorize shooting a person (in a car or not) MERELY BECAUSE THEY ARE A FLEEING FELON.

and somebody just posted an interview with an agency representative where he spouts the actual criteria and surpise surprise, it's consistent with garner

if you want to read it, go to the source or read my other posts.

tennessee vs. garner.

this is one of the most important cases ever in the history of jurisprudence here.

it is AT LEAST as important as miranda, which everybody has heard of.

[Orsino]

27. I'm still not getting the distinction you're making.

What do you see as the significant difference(s) between the news reports and the wording by the police spokesperson?

[paulsby]

30. the news reports

said that cops could shoot at fleeing felons due to the new policy

that's ridiculously inaccurate. it's a felony to write a check on a closed account (in most jurisdiction).

it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL to shoot at somebody fleeing from that offense, whether in a car or not, absent OTHER circumstances consistenw ith garner

from garner: (a) Apprehension by the use of deadly force is a seizure subject to the Fourth Amendment's reasonableness requirement. To determine whether such a seizure is reasonable, the extent of the intrusion on the suspect's rights under that Amendment must be balanced against the governmental interests in effective law enforcement. This balancing process demonstrates that, notwithstanding probable cause to seize a suspect, an officer may not always do so by killing him. The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable. Pp. 471 U. S. 7-12.

The Fourth Amendment, for purposes of this case, should not be construed in light of the common law rule allowing the use of whatever force is necessary to effect the arrest of a fleeing felon. Changes in the legal and technological context mean that that rule is distorted almost beyond recognition when literally applied. Whereas felonies were formerly capital crimes, few are now, or can be, and many crimes classified as misdemeanors, or nonexistent, at common law are now felonies. Also, the common law rule developed at a time when weapons were rudimentary. And, in light of the varied rules adopted in the States indicating a long-term movement away from the common law rule, particularly in the police departments themselves, that rule is a dubious indicium of the constitutionality of the Tennessee statute. There is no indication that holding a police practice such as that authorized by the statute unreasonable will severely hamper effective law enforcement. Pp. 471 U. S. 12-20.

(c) 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. Pp. 471 U. S. 20-22.

710 F.2d 240, affirmed and remanded.



http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=471&page=1

the article is flat out wrong. it's idiocy.

[Orsino]

32. I'm afraid I'm not following you.

How is the substance of the article different from the words of the spokesperson for the department?

edit: or are you claiming that there is a significant difference there?

[paulsby]

33. you are kididng me right

the article claims the policy now allows cops to shoot fleeing felons if they are escaping in a car.

NO policy allows cops to shoot fleeing felons UNLESS they meet the garner prongs.

if an article said "cops can now shoot at domestic violence suspects' it would be as equally idiotic. they can shoot at DV suspects WHEN there is a crime involving the use of or threatened use of deadly force and apprehension is necessary if fleeing based on reasonable belief he poses a danger"

for pete's sake, i'm done explaining it.

the article is idiotically wrong. it claims if a felon is escaping in a car, the new policy greenlights the cops to shoot them.

NOT TRUE

[Orsino]

34. You believe, then...

...that the policy acknowledges that Garner takes precedence? And that the article missed that crucial point?

Or is your beef that the article failed to point out the clear unconstitutionality of the policy they reported?

[paulsby]

36. i will bet you ANY amount of money

that the policy DOES have the garner prongs. do you want to take that bet? until we see the policy, we can only assume the article is wrong. i am sorry but a major metropolitan police dept. is not going to enact a policy that directly contradicts one of the most settled areas of law in jurisprudence. the article completely misinterpreted the policy. again, i have 100% confidence in this. of course the article didn't link to or quote the policy, so the idiot journalist was free to misrepresent it without laypeople (many of whom don't understand tenn v garner) being able to check for accuracy.

[Orsino]

38. Did you get that I wasn't disagreeing with you?

I've only now understood why you called the article "complete crap."

edit: forgot to say "thank you" for taking the time to explain yourself. :thumbsup:

[paulsby]

39. i appreciate it. my bad

i need to take a chill pill.

[Orsino]

40. Well, I see it's an important point to you.

I'm even more worried about the way the police spokesperson referred to fleeing "felons." It bugs me that the word wasn't "suspects." :scared:

[paulsby]

41. that;'s a legal term

just meant to distinguish from fleeing misdemeanants. it doesn't mean they are guilty. i guess it 's more correct to say fleeing felony suspects, but that's more syllables and we're trying to conserve and all. but even the courts refer to "fleeing felons". it's a very accepted term. it's used IN text of tennessee v. garner, so he's using the same term that some of most educated and powerful legal minds in the country used. but technically, it's correct that one is not a FELON until one is convicted of ... a FELONY.

[Orsino]

7. That sounds like wrong policy rather than a wrong article...

...unless you suspect that someone was mistaken or lied.

[paulsby]

9. no, i suspect what i see commonly in the media

they are journalists not lawyers or cops, and they rarely understand the law at all.

how many articles do i have to read that claim a jury found a defendant "innocent" for example.

they ROUTINELY misunderstand, misinterpret police policy, and legislative actions, not to mention court cases.

i am telling you there is NO WAY that chicago police or any other police dept. will have a policy that authorizes shooting at cars MERELY because the occupants are suspected of a felony

it's unconstitutional, it's illegal, it's a civil rights violation and has been for a long time.

i;m not saying they are lying.

i am saying it's the mainstream media. they are ignorant as fuck.

that's why i get my legal news from intelligent legal blogs and legal sites. not some idiot journalist at some newspaper.

and the fact that they don't post a link to the actual policy is typical. they want to interpret it for the readers. after all, they are the media. they know better.

[Orsino]

12. You suspect that the alleged policy doesn't exist?

And that the article is mistaken?

[paulsby]

18. i am saying they are mistaken

i will bet any amount of money the policy does NOT authorize shooting at a car MERELY because the occupant committed a felony.

no frigging way.

the media gets legal analysis wrong incredibly frequently. for fuck;'s sake, how often do you have to read it.

the chicago police has lawyers and is a big agency. they are not going to make a policy that would run DIRECTLY counter to one of the most well known and important cases in the HISTORY of police oversight/judicial review.

NO policy is going to authorize shooting at a fleeing felon w./o the garner standards. and that is what the article claims.

i don't need this example to know that journalists are idiotic when reporting on the law, and frequently get it wrong

[Fumesucker]

15. Those are far from the only things the "media" gets wrong..

Just about anything the media reports on they screw up either matters of fact or of interpretation.

The reason you notice it in matters of the law is because that's what you are trained in, those of us with other areas of expertise notice other screwups.

[paulsby]

20. yes, that's very true

generally speaking, i tend to notice the media's idiocy when they are talking about subjects i have special knowledge in.

sports science, legal issues (especially regarding use of force, etc.) are two examples.

but yea, if you were a geneticist, i am sure that you would cringe at the average article in the newaspaper about genetics.

very good point

[BlooInBloo]

6. I can't imagine anything that could go wrong with that.

[ecstatic]

11. WTF? I guess innocent passengers be damned nt

:eyes:

[Canuckistanian]

13. Brilliant! I can't see any negative consequences at all.

:sarcasm:

[Echo In Light]

17. Now it'll be just like the movies! COOL! What a great, all American thing!

[paulsby]

28. no, it won;'t. the article is wrong

already discussed in the thread.

it is simply amazing to me that nobody has heard of tenn v. garner or knows the basic concepts.

this is at least (imo more) important than miranda. everybody knows miranda. garner is right up there with miranda.

[KansDem]

21. Couldn't they develop an industrial-sized Taser™ for using on cars?

I mean, they could simply Tase™ the car and its occupants, thereby continuing their standard practice of Tasering™ any individual for whatever reason, only on a larger basis...

[valerief]

22. This sucks big time. How many people do cops have to kill just to retrieve a stolen car?

It's always something stupid like that.

I guess the number of drive-by shootings is going to skyrocket now.

[paulsby]

26. the article is wrong

period. it's crap. i already posted this in this thread and referenced the case law. and then somebody else posted a link to a cop talking aobut the actual policy.

the original article claims the cops would be shooting at felons in cars mERELY because they are felons.

that's unconstitutional and it's based on a typically stupid journalist trying to write about laws he doesn't understand

[Hutzpa]

29. Thanks for explaining that

looks like the journalist is looking for inflammed reaction, real sad.

[paulsby]

31. that may be

based on my experince with journalists i think it equally as likely, he's just woefully ignorant.

i can't stand reading mainstream media reports (apart from legal blogs etc.) on these types of issues.

they get so much wrong, it drives me nuts. and they almost NEVER link (even in online articles) to the sources they TRY to interpret, so people can judge for themselves and go to the SOURCE documents.

the mainstream media is like the old church, deeming that no layperson should be allowed to read the bible themself lest they misinterpret it. we need the holy priests of the media to filter it for us dumb citizens

[Hutzpa]

35. I absolutely agree with you

but some might argue that they have to protect their source which I think is an
excuse to mislead and distort, I hope on wrong.

[paulsby]

37. with some sources that's true

with police policy, which is public record, they have no such duty. we HAVE to make our policies available to the public. you can contact your local PD and they will get you a copy of their policies and procedures. they have to. many even post them online