Results 1 to 8 of 8
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    2

    Default Resisting Arrest

    My question involves criminal law for the state of: none in particular..just want to get an idea how the law varies in different states with respect to the following scenario

    Suppose there are 5 policemen vs 1 alleged criminal (who might or might not be armed). The policemen order the "criminal" to lie down with hands behind the head, but he does not obey and approaches the policemen. Are they allowed to shoot him? Shoot to kill, or just shoot in the legs?

    Once the "criminal" has been shot in the legs and is lying on the ground, is it a criminal offense on the part of the policemen to leave him there and let him bleed to death? What exactly does the law require policemen to do in such an instance - i.e. are they required to first handcuff and then transport (the person in question) to hospital or what?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    8,006

    Default Re: Resisting Arrest

    Ugh. Another one? I cannot think of a single jurisdiction that would allow the use of deadly force against an unarmed subject whose only resistance is approaching the officers. A face full of OC? Possible. Floppy Chicken a la Taser? Possible. Baton whacking? Possible.

    Any time an officer injures a suspect they will generally handcuff them while calling for EMS to respond, depending on totality of the circumstances. If the officer takes no action whatsoever to aid a person with a potentially life-threatening injury, they open themselves up to possible civil or criminal action. Again it depends on the totality of the circumstances.

  3. #3

    Default Re: Resisting Arrest

    In addition to Free's response, police don't shoot to wound. The use of a firearm means deadly force ...and deadly force means just that...deadly. Officers are trained to recognize when the use of that force is the only resort to protect themselves or others, and when that threshold is crossed, officers are trained to use that force to kill...standard training being to aim for center mass, between the nipples - which is not only a deadly target, but is also the largest target. Despite what you might see on TV or movies, shooing to wound is generally specifically AGAINST policy for most agencies, because officers aren't trained to wound...it's a much harder shot to make under potential life threatening circumstances, has a much higher chance of a miss or a bad shot injuring unintended parties, and, even a wounded suspect can still kill officers or others.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    3,835

    Default Re: Resisting Arrest

    Suppose there are 5 policemen vs 1 alleged criminal (who might or might not be armed). The policemen order the "criminal" to lie down with hands behind the head, but he does not obey and approaches the policemen. Are they allowed to shoot him? Shoot to kill, or just shoot in the legs?
    Tennesse v. Garner, US SC, outlines the use of deadly force by a public safety officer, as the 4th AM controls, find and read it.

    Once the "criminal" has been shot in the legs and is lying on the ground, is it a criminal offense on the part of the policemen to leave him there and let him bleed to death? What exactly does the law require policemen to do in such an instance - i.e. are they required to first handcuff and then transport (the person in question) to hospital or what?
    As stated, Garner does NOT permit a wounding unless deadly force is permitted, as a wounding IS using deadly force. I am not a safety officer like Catherine, but she states they do not shoot to would, so take it as gospel.

    Once wounded by police, the 8th AM, made applicable to the states through the 14th AM, mandates the wouned person receive medical care, in other words the police MUST take him to a hospital. I have looked this up before, and although federal law does not mandate the state/city pay for it, that is state specific legal issue.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    2

    Default Re: Resisting Arrest

    @Catherine:

    In this case assume that the officers only had firearms - no batons, tasers etc. Secondly, let me add to the details: the man pushes one of the policemen and tries to grab his gun. However, its possible that the person was not attempting to snatch the gun and fire back but he was assuming that the officer was about to shoot him, and thus was only trying prevent the officer from doing so. Also, if there are 5 policemen vs. 1 "criminal", would it be legally justified to shoot instead of manually overpowering the criminal?

    As you pointed out, the law enforcement personnel are trained to recognize when to use deadly force, but what I want to know is whether they abused their power or not. Therefore, is it possible to draw any conclusions from the information given?

    @BOR:
    Also, I did go through an article on Tennessee v. Garner, but found that it was related to a fleeing suspect and not one approaching the policemen. I couldn't figure out how it applied to the situation that I described.

    "Law enforcement officers pursuing an unarmed suspect may use deadly force to prevent escape only if 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.""

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    8,006

    Default Re: Resisting Arrest

    We don't like to play what if games here junior. NO officer goes out without some form of non-lethal alternative. In a perfect world, yes the 5 officers would have attempted to gain control through the use of physical force. Guess what? It ain't a perfect world and officers often have less than a second to make a life or death decision. Simply grabbing for the weapon is usually not justification for deadly force. The officers are supposed to be trained on weapon retention. It would in fact be STUPID to shoot when the subject is likely close enough to the officer he is trying to disarm to get the officer hit instead. If the subject gets control of the gun sufficient that the officers believed he was a threat, he got himself shot for being STUPID. It would have been smarter to flee, hey look Tn. V. Garner, than to try and disarm 1 of 5 officers. The officers have no way of knowing he was trying to prevent getting shot, just like he had no way of knowing whether the officers intended to shoot. So what is the real life case/incident you are jerking us around with so we can have the full facts?

    No, no conclusion can be draw on an incomplete rendering of the facts of the case. We don't know the circumstances that caused the contact with law enforcement nor the actions taken by the "subject" prior to you dropping us into the middle of a shooting.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    3,835

    Default Re: Resisting Arrest

    Quote Quoting Dazzling;531128@BOR:
    Also, I did go through an article on Tennessee v. Garner, but found that it was related to a fleeing suspect and not one approaching the policemen. I couldn't figure out how it applied to the situation that I described.

    "Law enforcement officers pursuing an unarmed suspect may use deadly force to prevent escape only if 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.""
    The facts concerned a fleeing suspect, that is all, the 4th AM controls, period. Part of understanding a legal case is the substantial riling of it, not just if the suspect was not fleeing deadly force does not apply.

    Concerning fleeing, an officer may not use deadly force unless under the specifics of the ruling, but it is permitted. If a person just shoots an officer and is fleeing, and ordered to stop, and does not, then deadly force can be used, as his escape is likely to result in harm to others.

    TN v. Garner controls in your facts also.

  8. #8

    Default Re: Resisting Arrest

    I'm with free9man, too many ifs. Officers are given a lot of discretion to make calls based on their assessment and training and experience. One can always add more factors to tilt the scale. The question is ultimately one of civil liability. If the police shot the suspect, and he sued in court for negligent behavior, would he win? A lot of factors go into whether they were justified or not.

    As to duty to provide care, officerwoulddl be obligated to provide care for suspect. Even if suspect was arrested for punching a window and needs medical care, as soon as he is placed under custody police have a duty to care for him.

    1. Sponsored Links
       

Similar Threads

  1. Assault & Battery: Resisting Arrest After Assault
    By Megor in forum Criminal Charges
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 11-26-2010, 05:32 AM
  2. Drunk and Impaired Driving: Possible DUI, Resisting Arrest
    By NCC 1701 in forum Drunk and Impaired Driving Charges
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-11-2010, 12:38 AM
  3. Resisting Arrest: Misdemeanor Resisting Arrest
    By pdr523 in forum Criminal Charges
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-02-2010, 01:04 PM
  4. Drunk and Impaired Driving: Second DUI and Resisting Arrest
    By pfed in forum Drunk and Impaired Driving Charges
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-11-2009, 08:09 PM
  5. Resisting Arrest: Resisting Arrest in Florida
    By jewel3 in forum Criminal Charges
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-15-2006, 10:54 AM
 
 
Sponsored Links

Legal Help, Information and Resources