Lethal force

Takis48 said:
After seeing this article, if someone throws a Molotov Cocktail at you (and hopefully misses) could you as an LEO use lethal force?
Click to expand...

If they missed then there's no longer an immediate threat. Also, some LE agencies have policies that prohibit the officer from using lethal force against certain non-gun threats, even when lethal force is 100% justified by law. Chances are slim that Molotov cocktails are on the verboten list, but that depends on a lot of local factors.
 
GSG said:
If they missed then there's no longer an immediate threat. Also, some LE agencies have policies that prohibit the officer from using lethal force against certain non-gun threats, even when lethal force is 100% justified by law. Chances are slim that Molotov cocktails are on the verboten list, but that depends on a lot of local factors.
Click to expand...

Even if the guy missed missed with the "petrol bomb" I don't see how any LEO anywhere in the world wouldn't believe that they are in imminent danger of death in a situation like that. Of course it might be difficult to determine who threw it at the police but at that point i'd be ready to use lethal force against anyone holding a bottle ... let alone a flaming one.
 
Probaly not, in order to use deadly force you must be in 1. Fear of serious bodily harm or death- The Molitov cocktail would meet this 2. No other means to prevent such harm. Given that you stated he threw and missed and it appears he has no other weapons, then you wouldnt be justified unless you could articulate the reason why. Probably the first thing that will be asked is after the first one was thrown could you have removed yourself from the suspects range? The newest trend by scumbag lawyers is going after Officers decision making process- The force was justified, but it was justified beacuse you made a bad decision which made the use of force the only option left. YMMV
 
Last edited:
Shoot him as he's throwing it a you...Kind of like when a person raises a gun in your direction...
 
Back in the day, LEOs were taught that you could use lethal force if threatened with OC spray. The reasoning was that you would be incapacitated and unable to react to further threats. Even if the thrower of the cocktail misses, he has proven himself a threat and lethal force could be justified in making an apprehension in some cases.
 
I would shoot the flaming bottle so it exploded in his hand, and then call the Fire Department... It's their problem now. hahahahahaha!
kidding of course. I would never call the FD.
 
Plain and simple yes. The suspect has shown that they have risen the level to a lethal force situation. They have attacked a police officer and maybe armed with other molatov cocktails or other weapons. Thus justifying the use of lethal force to stop the threat.
 
DKoump said:
Plain and simple yes. The suspect has shown that they have risen the level to a lethal force situation. They have attacked a police officer and maybe armed with other molatov cocktails or other weapons. Thus justifying the use of lethal force to stop the threat.
Click to expand...

If the cocktail is already thrown, I'd disagree. Another example: bad guy shoots at you and misses. Before you can draw and fire, he throws the gun a 'safe' (30-40 ft from him) distance away from him. You can not shoot him at this point, the threat from the firearm is no longer there. If other threats remain, the scenario changes.

In the original example, if the subject still had other cocktails visible and tried to light one, at least by my agency's policy it would be considered a legitimate use of force.
 
weekendracer said:
If the cocktail is already thrown, I'd disagree. Another example: bad guy shoots at you and misses. Before you can draw and fire, he throws the gun a 'safe' (30-40 ft from him) distance away from him. You can not shoot him at this point, the threat from the firearm is no longer there. If other threats remain, the scenario changes.

In the original example, if the subject still had other cocktails visible and tried to light one, at least by my agency's policy it would be considered a legitimate use of force.
Click to expand...

I have to disagree. You show up at an armed robbery of a store. Perp. holds a knife to a worker's throat. Perp. uses said worker as a shield to exit store but then lets worker go and runs off? Justified to shoot perp. while he runs away. You don't know if he has thrown the knife or may have other weapons on his person. My agency has said yes. Threat of force was used by the perp. and may continue to be used against others if the threat is not stopped.
 
DKoump said:
I have to disagree. You show up at an armed robbery of a store. Perp. holds a knife to a worker's throat. Perp. uses said worker as a shield to exit store but then lets worker go and runs off? Justified to shoot perp. while he runs away. You don't know if he has thrown the knife or may have other weapons on his person. My agency has said yes. Threat of force was used by the perp. and may continue to be used against others if the threat is not stopped.
Click to expand...

Different situation, subject is still in possession of a weapon as far as you know. The OP was talking about a one time use weapon.

edited to clarify something.
 
DKoump said:
I have to disagree. You show up at an armed robbery of a store. Perp. holds a knife to a worker's throat. Perp. uses said worker as a shield to exit store but then lets worker go and runs off? Justified to shoot perp. while he runs away. You don't know if he has thrown the knife or may have other weapons on his person. My agency has said yes. Threat of force was used by the perp. and may continue to be used against others if the threat is not stopped.
Click to expand...

wow....just...wow

Because apparently, a knife in the hands of someone running away is an immediate threat? That's your agency's "justification" to shoot him in the back? If I misread your post, PLEASE, explain further, but that's how I read it...[frown]
 
joeendris said:
wow....just...wow

Because apparently, a knife in the hands of someone running away is an immediate threat? That's your agency's "justification" to shoot him in the back? If I misread your post, PLEASE, explain further, but that's how I read it...[frown]
Click to expand...

The reason is that the guy with the knife has shown himself to be a risk to the public if he is allowed to escape. I would assume the prudent action by the police would be to give chase and try and affect an apprehension before shooting.

If you shoot a guy in the face in front of the police and then run away while still holding the gun, expect to get shot in he back.
 
In God We Trust said:
The reason is that the guy with the knife has shown himself to be a risk to the public if he is allowed to escape. I would assume the prudent action by the police would be to give chase and try and affect an apprehension before shooting.

If you shoot a guy in the face in front of the police and then run away while still holding the gun, expect to get shot in he back.
Click to expand...

Meh, if you're still carrying/holding/waving the gun, you've gone full retard and deserve to be dropped....I'm not arguing that one at all.

It's a knife we're looking at. He's shown he has no compunction about human life just by wielding it to the throat of someone....now he's running. Hell, shoot his legs out from under him....but to kill him?
 
Whether or not the suspect is armed is irrelevant to the "fleeing felon" standard in the sense that an unarmed violentfelon can be shot in some circumstances. Look up Tennesee V. Gardner which is the US Sup Court case where it comes from. It's a good read and spells it out very plainly. If the violent felon's escape is likely to result in death or serious bodily injury, the Officer, if he or she reasonably concludes that it will, is justified in using lethal force to effect the arrest. Lethal force is the functional equivalant of an arrest under the 4th Amendment. Shooting him in the back, unarmed, while running away can be justified under certain circumstances if the criteria are met. Knife, gun, blunt object, etc...all interchangable. If the Officer reasonably believes the violent fleeing felon meets the standard, the type of weapon or even whether or not the felon is still armed are just factors in his or her lethal force decison but not necessary elements.

I assume the "shoot his legs out" comment was in jest, however, the discharge of a firearm at a person is considered deadly force, regardless of it's intent, which by it's very nature has a strong likelyhood of death or great bodily injury. Shooting to wound is a very bad idea and unless one is a expert in anatomy and an increadible shot, especially during an extremely stressful and volitile life threatening situations, it shouldn't even be considered, and then still never done.
 
Leadfarmer said:
Whether or not the suspect is armed is irrelevant to the "fleeing felon" standard in the sense that an unarmed violentfelon can be shot in some circumstances. Look up Tennesee V. Gardner which is the US Sup Court case where it comes from. It's a good read and spells it out very plainly. If the violent felon's escape is likely to result in death or serious bodily injury, the Officer, if he or she reasonably concludes that it will, is justified in using lethal force to effect the arrest. Lethal force is the functional equivalant of an arrest under the 4th Amendment. Shooting him in the back, unarmed, while running away can be justified under certain circumstances if the criteria are met. Knife, gun, blunt object, etc...all interchangable. If the Officer reasonably believes the violent fleeing felon meets the standard, the type of weapon or even whether or not the felon is still armed are just factors in his or her lethal force decison but not necessary elements.

I assume the "shoot his legs out" comment was in jest, however, the discharge of a firearm at a person is considered deadly force, regardless of it's intent, which by it's very nature has a strong likelyhood of death or great bodily injury. Shooting to wound is a very bad idea and unless one is a expert in anatomy and an increadible shot, especially during an extremely stressful and volitile life threatening situations, it shouldn't even be considered, and then still never done.
Click to expand...

This is the best answer yet. I know I am an officer in Oklahoma, but when it comes to SCOTUS it does not matter. I can give you 2 examples from officers that I know that shot a fleeing suspect in the back, and the shooting is ruled as justified.

The most recent happened at a mall in Oklahoma, a gang member started shooting in the mall at a rival gang member, he shot the other guy and was still running towards him while firing in a busy mall. A police officer that was upstairs fired a single round hitting the BG in the back of the head, killing him.

The other was about 15 years ago. My uncle was a police officer that was off duty working security at a store in his police uniform, also working security there was his buddy that work at the same PD. A guy comes to rob the place and shoots and kills my uncle's buddy then flee's, my uncle believed that if he got away it was likely that more people would be killed. He shot the BG 5 times in the back before he fell. That was also ruled as justified
 
OCPD806 said:
This is the best answer yet. I know I am an officer in Oklahoma, but when it comes to SCOTUS it does not matter. I can give you 2 examples from officers that I know that shot a fleeing suspect in the back, and the shooting is ruled as justified.

The most recent happened at a mall in Oklahoma, a gang member started shooting in the mall at a rival gang member, he shot the other guy and was still running towards him while firing in a busy mall. A police officer that was upstairs fired a single round hitting the BG in the back of the head, killing him.

The other was about 15 years ago. My uncle was a police officer that was off duty working security at a store in his police uniform, also working security there was his buddy that work at the same PD. A guy comes to rob the place and shoots and kills my uncle's buddy then flee's, my uncle believed that if he got away it was likely that more people would be killed. He shot the BG 5 times in the back before he fell. That was also ruled as justified
Click to expand...

Both are great examples but in both cases the officer could reasonably assume the suspect was armed and an imminent threat to both himself (officer) and others. The OP's original question was related to a rioter with a one-time use weapon (molotov cocktail) and whether or not an attack and immediate withdrawal of the suspect was still grounds for deadly use of force. In the grand scheme of things I would still assume that the attacker with the molotov cocktail has already proved that he is resolute in his own use of deadly force against me (throwing the molotov) and given the opportunity will continue his use of force against me regardless of whether he is currently armed or not. In this scenario the attacker is not surrendering to the police after his initial attack and therefore I can only assume that he is looking for further weapons and opportunity to attack me with lethal force.

In this scenario I personally would have no problem explaining to a judge and jury why I shot this guy in the back 13 times while he fled to rearm. It's a totally different scenario if someone uses force against the police and then attempts to surrender. If the suspect threw the molotov and then got on his knees or proned out then IMO the officer would not be justified to use lethal force. But if the guy runs away i'm gonna assume he's coming back for more.
 
abomb60 said:
Both are great examples but in both cases the officer could reasonably assume the suspect was armed and an imminent threat to both himself (officer) and others. The OP's original question was related to a rioter with a one-time use weapon (molotov cocktail) and whether or not an attack and immediate withdrawal of the suspect was still grounds for deadly use of force. In the grand scheme of things I would still assume that the attacker with the molotov cocktail has already proved that he is resolute in his own use of deadly force against me (throwing the molotov) and given the opportunity will continue his use of force against me regardless of whether he is currently armed or not. In this scenario the attacker is not surrendering to the police after his initial attack and therefore I can only assume that he is looking for further weapons and opportunity to attack me with lethal force.

In this scenario I personally would have no problem explaining to a judge and jury why I shot this guy in the back 13 times while he fled to rearm. It's a totally different scenario if someone uses force against the police and then attempts to surrender. If the suspect threw the molotov and then got on his knees or proned out then IMO the officer would not be justified to use lethal force. But if the guy runs away i'm gonna assume he's coming back for more.
Click to expand...

Yeah the scenerio presented was too open-ended. Alot of variables would have to be considered. The only place that I think an officer would be in something like this, is a riot or large group of people. In a regular setting, and officer should see a person holding a flaming bottle before he throws it
 

Similar threads

Interest to join Central MA police force
Replies
25
Views
9K
BakerBingo
B
Auxillary Force on the South Coast of MA that qualifies for LEOSA?
Replies
18
Views
5K
DickWanner
DickWanner
Back
Top Bottom