When Can Law Enforcement Use Deadly Force Against an Unarmed Fleeing Suspect?
In the United States, the topic of whether police may use deadly force against an unarmed person who is fleeing has been subject to extensive legal and public debate. While it is widely believed that police must exhaust other methods before resorting to lethal force, certain legal precedents and conditions have been established to outline when such force may be deemed justifiable. This article will explore these conditions and their implications for law enforcement and the public.Legal Precedents and Guidelines
One of the key legal standards concerning the use of deadly force is the 1985 case Tennessee v. Garner, which set important precedents for police practices. In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court (USSC) ruled that a Tennessee statute allowing police to use deadly force to stop the flight of a felony suspect violated the suspect's Fourth Amendment rights. This decision emphasized the necessity of specific conditions for justifiable use of lethal force.Key Conditions for Justifiable Use of Deadly Force
The USSC outlined that the conditions for justifiable use of deadly force against a fleeing suspect must include the following: The suspect must be a felony suspect. The suspect is likely to escape if not stopped with deadly force. The suspect poses a clear and present danger to law enforcement officers or the general public. These conditions provide a framework for understanding when police may use deadly force, but they do not cover all scenarios. In many cases, these conditions can be challenging to establish definitively.Real-life Situations and their Implications
The David Sweat Case in New York, 2015
In 2015, during the escape of convicted killer David Sweat, a law enforcement officer shot Sweat in the back twice while he was running away. Initially, the officer was credited as a hero, but investigations later suggested that the suspect was not positively identified. The officer had only identified Sweat as the suspect because the man chose to flee during an approach by the officer, who had approached him out of interest. This situation highlights the uncertainty and complexity involved in such incidents.If the suspect had been someone else who simply chose to flee rather than facing questioning by the officer, the outcome might have been quite different. The officer and the state of New York might not have faced the same scrutiny and potential legal repercussions.
The Carrollton, TX, Incident in 1990
In contrast, consider the 1990 case in Carrollton, Texas, where a copy machine repairman witnessed a chase and shooting of a fleeing woman. The assailant shot the woman in the back, causing her to fall, then shot her in the back of the head, leading to her murder. The assailant then got into his car and drove away. However, the repairman witnessed the entire incident and fatally shot the assailant, preventing his escape. This case was more straightforward, as the grand jury found that the fleeing man was reasonably considered a clear and present danger to others.Following this, the repairman was charged with second-degree murder, but he was eventually acquitted based on the justifiable use of force.