LEO Takes Knife in Stomach-Captures Assailant

Meh, he still should have shot them. Knife == Lethal force == right to use same in self defence. The fact that they were running after stabbing him makes no difference to me - he'll, they could be running away until he was weak enough from blood loss, than they would return to finish the job :rolleyes:

Pursuing and then shooting would have been wrong, I have no argument with that. But if he'd shot them on the scene, I'd have a hard time convicting him if I was on the jury.
 
Keyser Soze:

Yes, I'm familiar with the ruling on fleeing felons and you have a point with the LE status.

I was LE for 9 years myself so I'm familiar with the disparity with the differences between LE and civilians as relates to their allowed responses.

In my state you can stop a fleeing felon [ he has to be known as a felon and a danger to the public before he runs into the officer, however ]. He had no knowledge they were wanted prior to nor that they were considered dangerous felons. Their act of attacking him was felonious, no doubt, but here you have to have prior knowledge they have been considered dangerous from prior acts of violence [ such as a bank robber who shot and killed a guard at the bank and was being sought for capture ].

It's a grey area, and you are also correct he may have been justified or at least found to be within the statutes relative fleeing felons.

Spark: I agree with you in theory, but practically speaking you can't use deadly force unless the three elements are met at the time you defend. What one might be planning or contemplating in the future is subjective and can not be proven in court. A civilian would not be justified in the courts eyes shooting them in the back.

Brownie



It worked out
 
I think the officer did the right thing by arresting the suspects instead of shooting them. The whole point of law enforcement is that an LEO is an officer of the law. In other words, a good LEO should do what the law says he should do, not what he wants to do. For example, if an LEO arrests a known sex offender suspected of a horrible crime, his job is take him into custody using only the force necessary. He doesn't crack the guy's head because "he had it coming to him."

LEO work is difficult due to the dangers of the actual work and the political implications of mistakes and percieved mistakes. The political reality is that there are those who will excuse anything the police do and there are those will find fault with anything the police do. The only way to navigate such a situation is to be professional and play by the rules, avoiding letting emotions override the decision making process.
 
I don't criticize the LEO's actions..he was there we werent'. But the cop should have smoked the little buggers if possible. They tried to kill him with a knife. They were instantly felons at that point. He was obliged by his occupation and oath to protect the public from exactly these types of elements. Not to do so is negligence regardless of the media worries. Now we'll just end up paying for their legal defense. In 18 months they'll be back on the street, let off early by some sympathetic judge.. selecting easier prey with better knowlege of how to succeed. Still it's understandable considering the kind of support police get from these same metro peoples he's swore to protect.
 
HHH'''okkk
is there an active LEO around to give his opinions about this?
i actually agree with brownie, if you read my 1st post
 
I agree with brownie on the whole line, though I would like to emphasize the fact that this police officer wasn't on duty when he got stabbed, if you read the article well... All people I read and say, a LEO has the right to do this and that, when he is under assault, seem to miss that point.
I give this guy a big thumb up, he did a great job playing by the rules under such circumstances, in my fantasy I guess I would have tried to lay flat those two SLUFs without second thoughts.
But we are in a real world and I think I would have stayed low, call my district to give a portrait of the uglies to my colleagues so they can catch them quick, and ask for an ambulance by the way...
 
I am an active LEO. I realize the officer was "off duty". Officers are required to be police 24/7. They may not take active enforcement action when they are "off duty" but that does not mean they can't. They still have full police powers at all times and can act under police arrest authority/deadly force statutes.
Ultimately it worked out for all parties involved and thats what matters. Monday morning quarterbacking does no one any good. My points were merely to clarify what he would be legally justified to do.

KS
 
What KS said. I am active also. If it were me, I would have shot and would have been TOTALLY JUSTIFIED in doing so. Graham vs Connor & Tennessee vs Garner.

If I weren't LE and was on a jury reviewing a case where the victim shot his attacker as he ran away (after stabbing him in the chest), I would still consider that justifiable.

BTW, "necessary" is no longer utilized in use of force discussions. If your department/agency uses that word, you should look into rewriting policy. "Standard of Care" is now "Objectively Reasonable" which is very different.

The vast majority of non LEO's are not familiar enough with department policy, state law, federal law, and case law to intelligently comment on use of force issues or to dissect an incident. Unless you were there or have studied ALL available material regarding such an incident, you (even other LEO's) can only ASSume.

It is an unfortunate state of affairs that people who are not doing the job have certain expectations of how LEO's should be doing their jobs. It has gotten so bad (pressures from special interest groups, the media, the ignorant, etal) that there are many LEO's out there, besides being too nice and warm hearted, who have developed the bad habit of hesitation when it comes time to get down and dirty. LEOs have died because of this.
 
It is an unfortunate state of affairs that people who are not doing the job have certain expectations of how LEO's should be doing their jobs.

I have no objection to a certain degree of civilian oversight. After all, elected officials are civilians, and they are ultimately responsible for structuring the law and police responsibilities. It is incumbent on them to be conversant with these principles however, and those on the outside looking in should not be taken seriously.

Have any of you been following the latest incident in Cincinnati? With a recent history of poor police/community relations in that city, several officers beat a man, on police videotape, and he subsequently died. The coroner classified the death as homicide. Community activists are calling for murder charges against the officers.

The man had recently ingested cocaine and PCP and was seen violently fighting the officers. He weighed something like 350 pounds and suffered from heart problems as a result of obesity. The homicide definition was in contradistinction to natural causes, accident, or suicide, and did not automatially refer to improper taking of life, as the activists are trying to make it seem.

You can do everything right and even have documentary evidence of it, but if someone is out to get you, you will be fighting for your career. The last time this happened, I read that in the aftermath, Cincinnati police tended to overlook many infractions, and the community that had been so negative to them was complaining that they weren't doing their jobs.

Where is the dividing line? It isn't morale, I think, as much as clear self-interest.
 
EB,

Perhaps I could have chosen my words more appropriately. I did not mean that the public should not have expectations for LEOs doing their jobs properly (everyone should be allowed to expect everyone else to do their jobs well, or live productive lives, or not to interfere with someone else's lawful pursuit of happiness, etc). I meant to say that there should only be so much "outside" influence in exactly how LEOs actually do their jobs.

In the LE community (much less the non-LE world), we often don't see eye to eye on how things should/could be done. When the ignorant butt in and start telling us what we can or can't carry (e.g. a movement here in Los Angeles to ban police from carrying "larger sized" flashlights) or when we can or can't use force (and exactly how much force "should" be used - especially with the advantage of hindsight and time to dissect and reflect) then I have major "issues".

Wrto the Cincinnati incident, since I don't know very much about it except for watching various video clips and seeing some horrendous reporting (like the media all too often does). IMignorantO, the force used seemed reasonable. It would have been nice if the officers were more proficient with their batons or had more defensive tactics experience and knowledge but it looks like they did the best they could with what they had. I'm not sure if there was an legitimate issue with whether or not medical attention should/could have been given sooner.

The response from the community is SO typical. I think there was maybe ONE guy who said that he was holding back judgment until he possessed more information about the situation. I can't remember the last time a "special interest group" admitted to the fact that, like every group out there, there IS a percentage of that group who are doing wrong. Unfortunately, LE is not perfect, we make mistakes and we hire (due to societal pressures) less than stellar candidates for law enforcement work. I'm sure Cincinnati, like most everywhere else, has experienced legitimate problems with LE performance - I just don't see it in this particular case.
 
M. Ayoob has written extensively on legal use of lethal force...highly recommended. Bottom line is neither a citizen nor LEO can administer capital punishment for a committed (past tense) crime that does not fall under capital statutes, which attempted murder does not. Now if the slime comes back at the victim, he can be blown away because of the imminent danger of grave harm/death.
It's a bit different for LOEs, but chasing the guy who stabbed him sets Joe Citizen up for a protracted/costly/incredibly stressful legal battle (criminal and civil), that he very well could lose, if he corners the guy, the guy comes back at him, and Joe takes him out. Even though Joe was in imminent danger of grave bodily harm, it will be argued by the D.A. (criminal) and wife's/mom's attorney (civil) that had Joe not chased the guy after he was initially attacked, the guy, who had broke it off, would not have been put in a position to attack Joe again. Joe didn't let the thing end, and someone died when they otherwise would not have.
Sadly, the years of legal HELL Joe will go thru are far worse than just letting the scumbag go.
 
In this situation, "bottom line" is that the BG does NOT have to be "coming back" for the LEO to be justified in using deadly force.
 
Bottom line is that could not be determined until a DA/Grand jury heard the evidence.

I'll err on the side of caution thankyou.

Brownie
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top