arrested for chasing a burgler

[exdeath]

Ummm....yes you are. Because the premise is that the person won't stop until they're dead. The result is the same. You guys keep rationalizing it any way you want though. I know what I was told, and yes yes, there are other factors like shooting for center mass because of externalities making it harder to perform fine movements, but the intent doesn't change.

A person comes at you, the LEO, with a gun and is firing. You shoot back and you're telling me you're not trying to kill the person before he kills you? If you are then you're a damn liar.

You are shooting until you no longer have a reason to shoot. If the person happens to die from their injuries after the fact, that is completely secondary.

If it was shoot to kill they wouldn't be trying to resuscitate or call for an ambulance immediately following the shooting.

 

[03DOHC]

You are shooting until you no longer have a reason to shoot. If the person happens to die from their injuries after the fact, that is completely secondary.....

Sounds like semantics to me.

 

[stangkid]

op:

 

[FordSVTFan]

My my are you guys psychic too? Sorry...when I was in my law enforcement classes they told me you do not shoot unless you absolutely have to...and you don't have to unless deadly force is required, e.g. shoot to kill. I specifically remember this conversation because I made a joke about shooting them in the knees so that they couldn't run. (I know thats in bad taste)

You guys sure are quick to correct me even though you know nothing of Texas law or the courses and conversations that take place here...as seen by shutting you up regarding your attempt at corrected me on the use of deadly force in this state. Of course you won't acknowledge that because being police officers you double as lawyers and judges.

I understand Texas law. Further, we have quite a few members who are Texas LEOs and they have posted in the past in direct contravention to what you state here.

As stated below, deadly force is NOT shoot to kill, it is deadly force because it has the propensity to result in death more often than less than lethal measures. But I guess your time on the street... oops you dont have any time on the street, nevermind.

I have been both a deputy sheriff and a Fed LEO, as well as a Fed. Firearms Instructor, and I am a licensed attorney.

BTW, a brick is a deadly weapon. It you stop someone by hitting them with a brick they are no longer a threat. Therefore, you dont continue to bash their head in until they are dead simply because it is deadly force.

Also, would you like me to school you some more on Torts or have you abandoned your fuzzy logic?

You shoot to neutralize the threat. Just because you are using "deadly force" doesnt mean you are TRYING to kill them.

Exactly.

Sorry man, but these guys have you beat on everything I've read (about 70% of the thread, I'm tired as can be right now). I've taken "law enforcement" classes too (I'm a CJ major), and they're dead on; it's almost like they've been in law enforcement for awhile.:dw:

Shoot to kill thing is ridiculous, by the way. Police training holds far fewer hours in gun training than you think, and they legitimately teach to shoot at body mass for the EXACT reason Adam stated; when you're in a situation where your gun has to be drawn and fired your heart is more than likely going berserk making it VERY easy to miss, if you're not aiming for dead center. So even if the LEO wanted to kill a target, he's not going to instantly go for the head.

You are correct, sir. On the Fed side when we qualify (4x/yr) we take the entire day. We teach new techniques each time. We do all the normal qualifying stances, plus man down, night/dark shooting, run and shoot, fight and shoot, and injured shooting. We try to train as if the real world, but the research still holds that center mass is always the best route when a LEO has to use his firearm.

Ummm....yes you are. Because the premise is that the person won't stop until they're dead. The result is the same. You guys keep rationalizing it any way you want though. I know what I was told, and yes yes, there are other factors like shooting for center mass because of externalities making it harder to perform fine movements, but the intent doesn't change.

The premise is NOT that the aggressor wont stop until they are dead. That is ridiculous. An animal might continue charging until dead, but humans use reason and typically stop when injured. You simply have no experience on this subject and you continue to post like you do, but you have clearly misunderstood what your "classes" have taught.

If your intent is to shoot to kill and not to shoot to stop the threat, you are in for unhappy consequences.

A person comes at you, the LEO, with a gun and is firing. You shoot back and you're telling me you're not trying to kill the person before he kills you? If you are then you're a damn liar.

I have been in that situation and no my thought was not to kill him, I reverted to my years of training and fired two rounds center mass and he went down. The threat was stopped. No more rounds were fired at him. He was cuffed and transported, NOT DEAD. This is your typical scenario.

You are shooting until you no longer have a reason to shoot. If the person happens to die from their injuries after the fact, that is completely secondary.

True.

If it was shoot to kill they wouldn't be trying to resuscitate or call for an ambulance immediately following the shooting.

Good point.:beer:

 

[carnut726]

yup, fordsvtfan is 100% correct. where did you go to the acadamy vankuen? or did you just have some college professor tell you stuff in a class.

There is no real police acadamy on the planet that would tell u the things u are saying here. I went to the acadamy almost 13 years ago, and requal 2 times a year with day-fire and night-fire range and with use of force in the classroom and on the mats and would be thrown out on my arse if i said that i shoot to kill. I never claim to be a lawyer but i know what i need to do to be indemnified by the state of NJ. follow training and procedure u will be fine.

 

[granny03]

look the stealing and assault was caught in video. The wreck accured before the shop owner even showed up. The police screwed up and I hope heads roll. And before you bash me for ''they were doing their job'' this is the same department my dad has been retired for a year after 24 years of service. if they were doing their job the right guys would have been in jail waiting for first appearance

 

[vankuen]

edit

 

[musclemustang65]

look the stealing and assault was caught in video. The wreck accured before the shop owner even showed up. The police screwed up and I hope heads roll. And before you bash me for ''they were doing their job'' this is the same department my dad has been retired for a year after 24 years of service. if they were doing their job the right guys would have been in jail waiting for first appearance

The police did their job by what they had to go on at the time they arrived. Mistakes happen sometimes when forced to act on the fly all the time, thats why there are investigations. So by your logic if someone beat the hell out of you then the police shouldnt arrest the guy until they have video proof that the guy and act in question is what you say it was so a mistake wount be made. Your "Heads should roll" statement over what they did is so ignorant.

 

[musclemustang65]

Bottom line.

Though Adam only believes in giving chase when its a juvenile....

QUOTE]

Obviously your just looking for an argument as apparant by your posting of that video so go to smackdown.

 

[vankuen]

edit

 

[FordSVTFan]

That video was merely an equal and opposite reaction of his post. Since he likes to dig and post up photos.

While that youtube video is not me. The photo posted of you is actually you.

 

[granny03]

The police did their job by what they had to go on at the time they arrived. Mistakes happen sometimes when forced to act on the fly all the time, thats why there are investigations. So by your logic if someone beat the hell out of you then the police shouldnt arrest the guy until they have video proof that the guy and act in question is what you say it was so a mistake wount be made. Your "Heads should roll" statement over what they did is so ignorant.

I will let you know if the judge agree's with you. IF it goes that far. And would you feel the same way if it was a loved one of yours . and by your logic if I say you beat the hell out of me. do you want the police to ''act on the fly'' show up at your house and arrest you? I bet you would want them to do a little investigating to see if it was actually you

 

[rubber duck]

I will let you know if the judge agree's with you. IF it goes that far. And would you feel the same way if it was a loved one of yours . and by your logic if I say you beat the hell out of me. do you want the police to ''act on the fly'' show up at your house and arrest you? I bet you would want them to do a little investigating to see if it was actually you

You're confusing "probable cause" to make an arrest with the rest of the judicial process, when it's a separate entity all togather. Police can make an arrest and then later release the individual without ever charging them, it doesn't make the arrest "unlawful" or a violation of civil rights.

 

[granny03]

You're confusing "probable cause" to make an arrest with the rest of the judicial process, when it's a separate entity all togather. Police can make an arrest and then later release the individual without ever charging them, it doesn't make the arrest "unlawful" or a violation of civil rights.

and they can aslo give them a notice to appear aswell. correct?

 

[rubber duck]

and they can aslo give them a notice to appear aswell. correct?

I'm not 100% on what florida does, but in Illinois in a formal arrest (actually taken to the pd and processed) the defendant is either bonded out after processing and given a court date or shipped to district lockup where bond is set by a judge. In felony cases they are always shipped to district lockup where bond is set by a judge. FordSVTFan would know better than I would on Florida procedure. Since you stated he was arrested for "felony assault" he would have to appear in front of a judge for bond to be set, which would be followed by a probable cause hearing a few weeks later (to decide to go forward with the charges or not). At least that's how it is here in IL.

 

[granny03]

I didnt even realize you were from IL my fiancee is from Decator which is a couple hours south I think. We are going to Il in Dec. so she can visit family.Im going to try to get up to chicago and visit so e of the F.D'S

 

[vankuen]

edit

 

[rubber duck]

I didnt even realize you were from IL my fiancee is from Decator which is a couple hours south I think. We are going to Il in Dec. so she can visit family.Im going to try to get up to chicago and visit so e of the F.D'S

Cool, yea it's a little ways south of here. If you're looking for anything fun to do and want a few suggestions hit me up with a pm.

 

[musclemustang65]

and they can aslo give them a notice to appear aswell. correct?

We have that here but its called a "Field arrest" or "Field bond." That means your STILL arrested and get a court date but we allow you to sign your own bond on the spot and not make you go to jail to make bond but we only use this on very few things, Mainly minor warrants and NEVER in a case where people are in a dispute. Im not being a hardass or smartass to you, Just trying to show you what we are required to do in certain situations.

 

[FordSVTFan]

and they can aslo give them a notice to appear aswell. correct?

In Fla. a police officer can give a person who committed an arrestable misdemeanor a notice to appear (on a citation) and that is an arrest, just not a custodial one.