What I've been told

[resident_evil]

An officer is obligated to pursue a person resisting arrest. If that person demonstrates a continued willingness to engage in violence towards pursuing law enforcement, then law enforcement may as their judgment determines use what force, to include killing, to allow them to stop the fleeing criminal (resisting arrest is a crime).

Clearly, in the Rolfe-Brooks incident had Officer Rolfe caught up to Mr. Brooks, Mr. Brooks was highly likely to continue to resist arrest with force indiscriminate to the considered well being of Officer Rolfe.

ROLFE THOUGH OBLIGATED TO PURSUE AND CAPTURE BROOKS, HE WAS NOT OBLIGATED TO SUBMIT HIMSELF TO THE VIOLENCE OF A PERSON RESISTING ARREST.

Do not flee law enforcement. If you are fleeing law enforcement do not demonstrate a willingness to do harm to your pursuers, they may choose to use their limited immunity under the law to do you great harm. You MAY be lawfully shot in the back. There is no code of chivalry in this.

 

[resident_evil]

This is a public service announcement for all the fleeing criminals who post to PJ.

And if posting badly was a crime half of PJ would be on the lam. ;0)

 

[resident_evil]

The reason a civilian can't shoot a suspect in the back is because the civilian is NOT obligated to give chase.

 

[resident_evil]

@Raoul_Luke
This is my current take on it. Read above.

 

[Raoul_Luke]

The reason a civilian can't shoot a suspect in the back is because the civilian is NOT obligated to give chase.

Neither are the cops:

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/Digitization/122025NCJRS.pdf

A terrorist with a WMD? No problem - shoot that f*cker in the back if he tries to run away. A drunk with a taser he's not even trained to use? Not so much...

 

[resident_evil]

Neither are the cops:

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/Digitization/122025NCJRS.pdf

A terrorist with a WMD? No problem - shoot that f*cker in the back if he tries to run away. A drunk with a taser he's not even trained to use? Not so much...

A drunk driver resisting arrest, over powering two law enforcement officers, swinging at them, stealing a weapon, running and turning to shoot at those in pursuit?

Showing no willingness to submit but continue violence on the persons of the officers (i.e. shooting the tazer)? An obligation by the officers to arrest the resisting and fleeing suspect?

I'm sorry poor Mr. Brooks made many very bad choices that night not the least being drunk driving and puting many people at risk in that act. Those choices got him lawfully killed and I'm very sorry for that happening to him. You wanna fire the officer on the matter and see to have his credentials removed? Go for it.

 

[resident_evil]

Neither are the cops:

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/Digitization/122025NCJRS.pdf

A terrorist with a WMD? No problem - shoot that f*cker in the back if he tries to run away. A drunk with a taser he's not even trained to use? Not so much...

Sorry, you're wrong. They are obligated to pursue but they are not obligated to have a violent suspect resisting arrest do them harm.

Your pdf link though nice and at cursory read contributory to my opinion does not support your counter claim. Feel free to direct quote.

Copyright 1990? Vehicle pursuit policies?

 

[Raoul_Luke]

Sorry, you're wrong. They are obligated to pursue but they are not obligated to have a violent suspect resisting arrest do them harm.

Your pdf link though nice and at cursory read contributory to my opinion does not support your count claim. Feel free to direct quote.

Copyright 1990? Vehicle pursuit policies?

The fact is that the reason that policy changes was because of a bunch of horror stories of cops killing innocents while in hot pursuit. So the analogy might be more apt than you are willing to admit.

 

[resident_evil]

The fact is that the reason that policy changes was because of a bunch of horror stories of cops killing innocents while in hot pursuit. So the analogy might be more apt than you are willing to admit.

No, policies between vehicle pursuit and on foot pursuit are categorically different.

 

[Raoul_Luke]

No, policies between vehicle pursuit and on foot pursuit are categorically different.

Not any more...

 

[resident_evil]

Not any more...

Regardless, what was shared with me is how successful attorneys try to direct juries in their determination of due or undue force. I hear they do well.

I on that jury would see the good reason in the argument.

 

[resident_evil]

Read up Spartacus-@protectionist

What I've been told

An officer is obligated to pursue a person resisting arrest. If that person demonstrates a continued willingness to engage in violence towards pursuing law enforcement, then law enforcement may as their judgment determines use what force, to include killing, to allow them to stop the fleeing...

www.politicaljack.com