Really not enough detail to know what really happened. Clearly the guy was up to no good. Hard to know if the officer felt his life was in danger or not. I agree that the police should release the rest of the video in order to clear things up.
Are you saying this would be a justified shooting under Section 2, Subsection B? There's no question the suspect knew they were police officers. He also had a history of violent offenses (an assault conviction, if I recall correctly).
My opinion on this would be that he was using that car as a deadly weapon the way he was driving and the officers could certainly have believed that an innocent would be killed if he was not immediately apprehended.
What some people don't realize is that Police are sometimes authorized to use deadly force in a situation where a civilian would not be authorized to use deadly force. I believe this situation may fall into that category.
Well the use of force model never allows you to shoot someone in the back. I don't see were he was driving at the officer and the fact they turned off the sound tells me they know they did something wrong and are trying to cover it up or at least spin it in the LEO's favor.
That being said I usally side with LEO and give them a little wiggle room. He wasn't affraid the driver would hurt someone next month or a hour from then if anything he overreacted due to lack of experence. I'm curious to know how long he has been on patrol, he looked real young. If nothing else I hope he learned something from this and doesn't shoot anyone else in the back.
I hate people that run and you can ask my wife I feel that anyone that puts people in danger from a high speed chase should get a 20 year min sentance with a tatoo of child molester on their forhead and put in general pop. I'm just saying this screams cover-up.
In a stringently technical sense, boyscout is probably correct (I think the officer could make a passable case that he felt that lives were in danger, possibly to include his own). The suspect vehicle does swerve in the direction of the officers, but not tightly enough to put them in the direct path of the vehicle. But remember that we're looking at this from the perspective of outside observers, not LEOs responding to a crime in progress with a known violent offender.
I can also understand why he would fire even as the suspect is fleeing, especially if he was making that decision as the car was still approaching his position.
Not saying I ever believe an officer should shoot someone in the back, but I can at least understand how this might have happened (and why he might be very paranoid about it immediately afterward, looking at his actions and realizing that it might be very hard to justify). That doesn't excuse any attempt at covering it up though. Full disclosure on this will probably not happen until after the trial, if ever...
They turned off the audio so full disclosure will never be put out there, it will get covered up. As for when his first shot was fired the front of the car was already past the officer that pulled the trigger....first shot was just as the drivers door passed him.
Well the use of force model never allows you to shoot someone in the back. I don't see were he was driving at the officer and the fact they turned off the sound tells me they know they did something wrong and are trying to cover it up or at least spin it in the LEO's favor.
That being said I usally side with LEO and give them a little wiggle room. He wasn't affraid the driver would hurt someone next month or a hour from then if anything he overreacted due to lack of experence. I'm curious to know how long he has been on patrol, he looked real young. If nothing else I hope he learned something from this and doesn't shoot anyone else in the back.
I hate people that run and you can ask my wife I feel that anyone that puts people in danger from a high speed chase should get a 20 year min sentance with a tatoo of child molester on their forhead and put in general pop. I'm just saying this screams cover-up.
SNIP Also, in the case of an officer using deadly force, the officer is justified in using deadly force to affect an arrest if he believes the other person is using a deadly weapon (a car) to effect his escape.
You understand you just made it legal for police to shoot anybody eluding/escaping/refusing to stop while driving a car? Probably a motorcycle, too, since if it hits someone it can kill or seriously injure.
Those twelve year olds we occasionally read about joy-riding and too scared to stop? Bang!
That guy who was speeding and didn't want to stop? Bang!
That soccer mom who just wanted to drive to a well lit area because it was an unmarked police car? Bang!
Do you have a cite for your position?