When *can* cops legally use deadly force?

[JSDinTexas]

In Texas there are 5 levels of response. Officer is allowed to use one step higher than the threat presented to him or her. That's the official answer. I will let you figure out the unofficial answer.

[handgonnetoter]

Also remember that if a cop wants to use less than leathal force, he can do so at anytime by saying the magic words, "Stop resisting." If your arm snaps or your shoulder gets dislocated, the cop will claim that (s)he didn't hear a bone break or a joint pop, and will continue to apply pressure to the injury all while yelling, "Stop resisting."

I watch the police videos on tv quite a bit, and for the most part they seem to act way more patient than I think I could, but on occasion they go from normal to a$$hole too quickly. I would not want their job, I don't think I would have the patience.

[mappow]

In most general terms, theoretically, WE shoot to defend ourselves or immediate family/associates. The cop may shoot to defend society: he shoots the fleeing felon if he believes that person is likely to harm society. You and I cannot shoot the perp we come upon who has just raped and murdered our child, if he is fleeing. He is not a threat. The fact he'll do it again does not make us equal to the cops.

Dead on correct BUT I would add that some states allow detention until competent authority arrives.

[kelcarry]

Hey kerb: I just got thru your intial thread question and did not examine other repliers but the answer is right there in your own question. If you or I cannot shoot, the LEO cannot shoot--period/end of story. Oh, he can shoot but just like you and me, there will or should be consequences for discharging his firearm and certainly consequences for actually harming or killing someone w/o clear "imminent danger". If a police dept wants to excuse such behaviour, I pity the poor citizens living there because they will have to put up with this crap and they will be paying more in taxes once the civil case is settled.

[G50AE]

Hey kerb: I just got thru your intial thread question and did not examine other repliers but the answer is right there in your own question. If you or I cannot shoot, the LEO cannot shoot--period/end of story. Oh, he can shoot but just like you and me, there will or should be consequences for discharging his firearm and certainly consequences for actually harming or killing someone w/o clear "imminent danger". If a police dept wants to excuse such behaviour, I pity the poor citizens living there because they will have to put up with this crap and they will be paying more in taxes once the civil case is settled.

Unless it's the FBI and they let sniper Lon Horuchi have a go.

[PaxMentis]

Actually, the rules are pretty much the same for a police officer and a citizen legally armed.

The difference is that the DA (and most juries) will trust a police officer's judgement of the need for deadly force more than they will a LAC. A police officer is going to be assumed correct unless there is clear proof he/she acted badly. The LAC had better have a witness or clear physical evidence.

[G50AE]

Actually, the rules are pretty much the same for a police officer and a citizen legally armed.

So you are saying that if Lon Horuchi had been an average person he still would have gotten off shooting an unarmed female holding a baby?

[mappow]

Also remember that if a cop wants to use less than lethal force, he can do so at anytime by saying the magic words, "Stop resisting." If your arm snaps or your shoulder gets dislocated, the cop will claim that (s)he didn't hear a bone break or a joint pop, and will continue to apply pressure to the injury all while yelling, "Stop resisting."

Kind of like giving a Cardiac Thump to someone in arrest...................

[PaxMentis]

So you are saying that if Lon Horuchi had been an average person he still would have gotten off shooting an unarmed female holding a baby?

I have noticed that you have a terrible habit of starting with "So you are saying..." and then putting in what you wish the other person had said. I am sure you are not purposely being dishonest, but that practice would make some people wonder.

The cases are apples and oranges...actually more like apples and i-beams. Name me a situation where a non police officer would have received official clearance to take a shot in the first place. And Horuchi's shot was never characterized as one of self-protection.

Considering the rules laid out to Horuchi (which I personally believe were just plain wrong on about 5 different levels...starting with the setting of the siege itself), it becomes a question of judgement. I believe my post (to which you responded but chose to cut that section) stated that "The difference is that the DA (and most juries) will trust a police officer's judgement...".

[OldOwl]

LOL. I thought that I coined that phrase, largest street gang in America. I remember getting a nasty PM right after that here.

Cops can shoot you any time they can get away with it. Who's word will a judge take in a court room? Yours, or a cops? Especially if you're dead?

NYPD cop shoots suspected motorcycle thief - WSJ.com