Shot in the back?

[Smitty506th]

Is anyone really questioning this?

Legal experts say trooper had the law on his side when he shot unarmed escaped convict | Fox News

This was a logical and sound choice for this State Trooper but would it make for a sound shot if we would have had this situation in our Indiana back yard?

Thoughts?

 

[Joniki]

The only problem I have with this is the scumbag lived....

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

Look up the Indiana Code on the use of deadly force.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Thoughts?

Like Frank references, he was an escapee. Different deadly force rules than some putz walking down the road.

 

[dibdee83]

Complicated since I want there but the whole he shot him in the back thing is dependent on a lot of factors. One more bad guy off the street is awesome with me.

 

[KellyinAvon]

Murderer/cop killer who escaped from a maximum security prison and has been out 3 weeks? Absolutely the right thing to do. If the baddie got away and killed someone? Can't take that chance.

 

[jerrob]

Murderer/cop killer who escaped from a maximum security prison and has been out 3 weeks? Absolutely the right thing to do. If the baddie got away and killed someone? Can't take that chance.

I agree 100%

The only downside to this whole story is now the trooper has to clean his gun.

 

[roscott]

The only downside to this whole story is now the trooper has to clean his gun.

And that people will actually side against the officer.

The many officers that spent countless hours in the rain and mud, and finally succeeded in bringing both convicts to justice are heroes in my book. Fortunately, I think this one is clean-cut enough that the media won't have ammo to try and make the officer into the bad guy.

 

[jblomenberg16]

It was discussed at length on ARFCOM as well. Fleeing felon does allow the use of deadly force. Pretty good shooting after a foot chase. I'm assuming the heart rate was up and breathing heavy, so betting the officer had to really work on good fundamentals to make those shots.


ETA...as corrected...fleeing felon on its own does not justify the force. Bad choice of words on my part. Edited to add corrected information so someone doesn't take it for truth.

 

[Fargo]

It was discussed at length on ARFCOM as well. Fleeing felon does allow the use of deadly force. Pretty good shooting after a foot chase. I'm assuming the heart rate was up and breathing heavy, so betting the officer had to really work on good fundamentals to make those shots.

Fleeing felon by itself does NOT justify deadly force. Tenn. v. Garner did away with that rule.

 

[OutdoorDad]

Its really difficult to say if this is a good thing. Or not a good thing. Because journalism is dead.

Reading the article, it is proposed that it is legal in the state of NY to kill a fleeing felon when other citizen's lives may be at stake. And that makes sense.

But the article also states that the officer "spotted someone" and said "hey, come over here" and then shot him in the back when he fled.

I'd be far more comfortable if it was reported as "the officer spotted someone who he identified as the escaped felon. The officer called for the escaped felon to stop. When the convicted murderer and escapee did not halt, the officer fired twice at the fleeing convict. This resulted in the murderous scum being incapacitated and captured."

So, when the full story is properly reported... I'll probably be happy. But based on the **** poor recap that was in the link?
Nope. Not happy.

 

[MCgrease08]

The only downside to this whole story is now the trooper has to clean his gun.

Wait. You're supposed to clean a gun after shooting it?

 

[jblomenberg16]

Its really difficult to say if this is a good thing. Or not a good thing. Because journalism is dead.

Reading the article, it is proposed that it is legal in the state of NY to kill a fleeing felon when other citizen's lives may be at stake. And that makes sense.

But the article also states that the officer "spotted someone" and said "hey, come over here" and then shot him in the back when he fled.

I'd be far more comfortable if it was reported as "the officer spotted someone who he identified as the escaped felon. The officer called for the escaped felon to stop. When the convicted murderer and escapee did not halt, the officer fired twice at the fleeing convict. This resulted in the murderous scum being incapacitated and captured."

So, when the full story is properly reported... I'll probably be happy. But based on the **** poor recap that was in the link?
Nope. Not happy.

That was the version of the story that I read and also heard on the news.

 

[jblomenberg16]

Fleeing felon by itself does NOT justify deadly force. Tenn. v. Garner did away with that rule.

You are correct. An officer may use deadly force on a fleeing felon if that "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"

I should have stated that more clearly in my first post.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_v._Garner

 

[2A_Tom]

The guy was white, shot by a white officer, unless I;m mistaken, Who will protest one less privileged white guy.

 

[Hkindiana]

The guy was white, shot by a white officer, unless I;m mistaken, Who will protest one less privileged white guy.

WHITE LIVES MATTER!

 

[HoughMade]

Fleeing felon by itself does NOT justify deadly force. Tenn. v. Garner did away with that rule.

A fleeing suspect and a fleeing escaped, convicted, fugitive are two different things.

 

[Fargo]

A fleeing suspect and a fleeing escaped, convicted, fugitive are two different things.

Yes, and in this case the use of force was almost certainly justified under both the use of force on a felon suspect rule and the use of force on an escapee rule. However, the post I quoted explicitly said:

Fleeing felon does allow the use of deadly force.

That is not a correct statement of the law, as I and the original author agree.

Under IC 35-4-3-3 even escapee does not automatically justify deadly force without reasonable necessity.

 

[jblomenberg16]

Yes, and in this case the use of force was almost certainly justified under both the use of force on a felon suspect rule and the use of force on an escapee rule. However, the post I quoted explicitly said:



That is not a correct statement of the law, as I and the original author agree.

Under IC 35-4-3-3 even escapee does not automatically justify deadly force without reasonable necessity.

I agree with you...hence my reply. Thanks for the correction.

 

[Fargo]

I agree with you...hence my reply. Thanks for the correction.

The above was just me replying to Houghmade.