OT: Interesting item on deadly force law in Missouri

[trader_4]

The laws for the use of deadly force by a police officer are different than the self-defense laws for civilians. And being a cop, you'd have to have an idiot for an attorney for the defense to rely on civilian self defense laws, instead of the much more favorable ones that *specifically cover police officers.* That's so what. Several others folks have tried to explain the same thing.

I thought this is the point you were arguing about. Under the

If the officer's account is true, substantiated by injuries, then the suspe ct did pose a significant threat of serious physical injury to the officer. And note that the SC was ruling on statutes specific to police officers, no t to self-defense laws for civilians. Apparently the SC understands the difference.

Also from the SC:

"[W]e are not convinced that the use of deadly force is a sufficiently prod uctive means of accomplishing them to justify the killing of nonviolent sus pects. . . . The fact is that a majority of police departments in this coun try have forbidden the use of deadly force against nonviolent suspects. . . . Petitioners and appellant have not persuaded us that shooting nondangero us fleeing suspects is so vital as to outweigh the suspect's interest in hi s own life."

Note the part about "non violent", "nondangerous".

"It is not, however, unconstitutional on its face. Where the officer has pr obable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unrea sonable to prevent escape by using deadly force. Thus, if the suspect threa tens the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe that h e has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction o f serious physical harm, deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent e scape, and if, where feasible, some warning has been given. As applied in s uch circumstances, the Tennessee statute would pass constitutional muster."

Note that if the officer's account of being attacked in his car, struggle for the gun, gun going off in the car (which should be easy to prove from forensics), the officer being punched in the head, etc are substantially true, then I think reasonable folks would say that the perp had met the tes t of inflicting or threatening to inflict serious physical harm.

And again, note that the relevant SC case law is on statutes involving the

*police use of deadly force*, not the use by ordinary civilians. There is a difference and it's the officers first line of defense in court.

[Pico Rico]

not when many of them missed, and more of them hit merely an arm. You need to keep shooting until the threat is ended.

[Pico Rico]

The laws for the use of deadly force by a police officer are different than the self-defense laws for civilians. And being a cop, you'd have to have an idiot for an attorney for the defense to rely on civilian self defense laws, instead of the much more favorable ones that *specifically cover police officers.* That's so what. Several others folks have tried to explain the same thing.

I thought this is the point you were arguing about. Under the

If the officer's account is true, substantiated by injuries, then the suspect did pose a significant threat of serious physical injury to the officer. And note that the SC was ruling on statutes specific to police officers, not to self-defense laws for civilians. Apparently the SC understands the difference.

Also from the SC:

"[W]e are not convinced that the use of deadly force is a sufficiently productive means of accomplishing them to justify the killing of nonviolent suspects. . . . The fact is that a majority of police departments in this country have forbidden the use of deadly force against nonviolent suspects. . . . Petitioners and appellant have not persuaded us that shooting nondangerous fleeing suspects is so vital as to outweigh the suspect's interest in his own life."

Note the part about "non violent", "nondangerous".

"It is not, however, unconstitutional on its face. Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force. Thus, if the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape, and if, where feasible, some warning has been given. As applied in such circumstances, the Tennessee statute would pass constitutional muster."

Note that if the officer's account of being attacked in his car, struggle for the gun, gun going off in the car (which should be easy to prove from forensics), the officer being punched in the head, etc are substantially true, then I think reasonable folks would say that the perp had met the test of inflicting or threatening to inflict serious physical harm.

And again, note that the relevant SC case law is on statutes involving the

*police use of deadly force*, not the use by ordinary civilians. There is a difference and it's the officers first line of defense in court.

-------

and I never said they should. I simply stated that the statutes regarding police use of force must be read in light of judicial decisions, and the police use of deadly force is more limited than a simple reading of that statute would suggest. Seems you are arguing against yourself.

[trader_4]

You need to be more careful and secure your computer then. Because when I posted the staute on *police use of deadly force*, someone at your keyboard posted this:

"why don't you look up the law of self defense? That is what will apply here. "

And then you continued to argue with Oren, Doug, too that the civilian statutes are what govern, not the ones specific to police officers that are much more favorable to the officer.

[Pico Rico]

"civilian statutes"? Did I refer to them? NO.

[trader_4]

Of course you did. I posted the law from Missouri that specifically applies to *police officers*. You responded with:

"why don't you look up the law of self defense? That is what will apply here."

That clearly implies that the general self defense statute that would cover civilians applies, not the one that the media cited that covers police officers. Then you continued to double down on it with Oren and Doug. We all said over and over that the police statute is far more favorable, and is what actually applies. Good grief.

[Pico Rico]

The laws for the use of deadly force by a police officer are different than the self-defense laws for civilians. And being a cop, you'd have to have an idiot for an attorney for the defense to rely on civilian self defense laws, instead of the much more favorable ones that *specifically cover police officers.* That's so what. Several others folks have tried to explain the same thing.

I thought this is the point you were arguing about. Under the

If the officer's account is true, substantiated by injuries, then the suspect did pose a significant threat of serious physical injury to the officer. And note that the SC was ruling on statutes specific to police officers, not to self-defense laws for civilians. Apparently the SC understands the difference.

Also from the SC:

"[W]e are not convinced that the use of deadly force is a sufficiently productive means of accomplishing them to justify the killing of nonviolent suspects. . . . The fact is that a majority of police departments in this country have forbidden the use of deadly force against nonviolent suspects. . . . Petitioners and appellant have not persuaded us that shooting nondangerous fleeing suspects is so vital as to outweigh the suspect's interest in his own life."

Note the part about "non violent", "nondangerous".

"It is not, however, unconstitutional on its face. Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force. Thus, if the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape, and if, where feasible, some warning has been given. As applied in such circumstances, the Tennessee statute would pass constitutional muster."

Note that if the officer's account of being attacked in his car, struggle for the gun, gun going off in the car (which should be easy to prove from forensics), the officer being punched in the head, etc are substantially true, then I think reasonable folks would say that the perp had met the test of inflicting or threatening to inflict serious physical harm.

And again, note that the relevant SC case law is on statutes involving the

*police use of deadly force*, not the use by ordinary civilians. There is a difference and it's the officers first line of defense in court.

--------

interesting - when you say it you are correct, when I say it I am wrong.

you have FINALLY read the supreme court cases I have suggested over and over that you read so you understand the police officer statutes as interpreted and limited by case law.

bye guys!

[ChairMan]

WTF? This is exactly what Oren, Trader and Doug have been trying to tell you.

[ChairMan]

All the dancin' made me dizzy. Speakin of dizzy, where did you bury home boi? : )

[Pico Rico]

the answer is clear for those that can see:

[ChairMan]

I hope ya did it down low, cuz the cyotes will be able to sniff him out.......wait.....that's not a bad thing

[Ashton Crusher]

It's an exceptionally bad law that basically gives police a license to murder virtually anyone they come in contact with by claiming they were hit (there's teh felony) and the person resisted arrest and had to be shot to "effect the arrest". Whoever wrote the law is a complete idiot or a cop, but I repeat myself.

[Pico Rico]

Such laws were written years ago, when there were few felonies on the books and most were capital crimes. Back then if such a desperado escaped they would likely not be caught for a long time if ever, and would continue to conduct their nefarious acts to the significant detriment of society. It was felt it was best to get such people off streets even if they could not be captured for incarceration.

With the many, many more crimes now defined as felonies, many not even pertaining to violent crime, and the vastly improved police resources available to apprehend, even if not at the moment, such criminals, courts, including the US Supreme court have held than such "felony escape" statutes were unconstitutional under the fourth amendment, and thus such statutes must now be read with these court decisions in mind.

Tennessee had a statute very similar to that cited above in that it stated that if, after a police officer has given notice of an intent to arrest a criminal suspect, the suspect flees or forcibly resists, "the officer may use all the necessary means to effect the arrest."

In TENNESSEE v. GARNER, 471 U.S. 1 (1985) the US Supreme Court Held:

"The Tennessee statute is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes the use of deadly force against, as in this case, an apparently unarmed, nondangerous fleeing suspect; such force may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and 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."

This is very similar to the "self defense or defense of others" provided for in statutes pertaining to non-police officer justifiable homicide. See, for example,

Missouri Revised Statutes 563.031

1. A person may not use deadly force upon another person under the circumstances specified in subsection 1 of this section unless:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such deadly force is necessary to protect himself, or herself or her unborn child, or another against death, serious physical injury, or any forcible felony

(other sub paragraphs deal with whether such a person was the initial aggressor, with an exception for police officers).

The mere fact that a criminal has been violent or even killed is not necessarily enough justification under these criteria, but a totality of the circumstances will be considered to determine if it reasonable to believe deadly force is required to prevent further specified actions by the criminal, as the criminal may have calmed down, even if escaping, and no longer be an immediate threat.

[Ashton Crusher]

Good info, thanks for posting it. It matches, more or less, what I've always understood to be how this is supposed to work. Thank goodness the supreme court occasionally uses some common sense.

[Pico Rico]

Yep, pretty much common sense. Glad to have helped.