Police Body Cam (x3 angles) show shooting of suspect running away

[Yup!]

While not necessarily this specific incident, LE around the country are becoming quicker and quicker to the gun and like always, we are becoming our own worst enemies. Eventually, we will force legislative and judicial hands to more narrowly restrict lethal force. Just my .02

I think society is pushing you there.

On another note, good day for you, glad you're safe, good use of discretion, thank you!

 

[Ark]

For that officer's sake, be happy they actually did find a gun and it actually was the perpetrator. Otherwise it looks a lot like smoking some random dude because you didn't feel like running.

Within the bounds of the law in this instance, but I wouldn't make a habit of drawing and firing on everyone who runs from a stop.

 

[tcause17]

It's crazy there's issues like these so frequently now.

 

[jedi]

I suspect it's always been like this but with new techs (lep cameras) and more media (now anyone can show video online) we are aware of it more.

Vs before when only it would be local news if at that

 

[CampingJosh]

Well, apparently in Colorado, he could have been running with his hands up and still stopped with deadly force to affect the arrest, because he is believed to have committed a felony involving the use of a deadly weapon. Assuming that screen grab is current Colorado code.

Your screen shot says "physical force." That's not the same thing as deadly force.

 

[Kutnupe14]

This was a good shoot. Odds are he wasn't actually reaching for the gun to engage officers, but given his attire, reaching to stabilize the firearm in his gym shorts while he ran. The LEO isn't compelled to wait to find out which it is. As hard as it is to watch a guy lose his life, I give kudos to the LEOs or after shooting the guy, immediately attempting to render aid.

 

[cbhausen]

This was a good shoot. Odds are he wasn't actually reaching for the gun to engage officers, but given his attire, reaching to stabilize the firearm in his gym shorts while he ran. The LEO isn't compelled to wait to find out which it is. As hard as it is to watch a guy lose his life, I give kudos to the LEOs or after shooting the guy, immediately attempting to render aid.

After watching all this and seeing the statute as presented in the video these cops shouldn’t have a damn thing to worry about. I agree, good shoot.

The failure isn’t with law-enforcement or gun laws or the 2A. The failure began long ago in the upbringing of these two young men.

I will freely admit I am so far removed from this lifestyle it’s hard for me to comprehend having one of my children end up in anything remotely close to a situation like this.

 

[Sigblitz]

Your screen shot says "physical force." That's not the same thing as deadly force.

You are correct. The screen grab says physical force. Here is the Statute for clarification.

Colorado Revised Statute 18-1-707
(1) Except as provided in subsections (2) and (2.5) of this section, a peace officer is justified in using reasonable and appropriate physical force upon another person when and to the extent that he reasonably believes it necessary:

(a) To effect an arrest or to prevent the escape from custody of an arrested person unless he knows that the arrest is unauthorized;  or

(b) To defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of physical force while effecting or attempting to effect such an arrest or while preventing or attempting to prevent such an escape.

(2) A peace officer is justified in using deadly physical force upon another person for a purpose specified in subsection (1) of this section only when he reasonably believes that it is necessary:

(a) To defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical force;  or

(b) To effect an arrest, or to prevent the escape from custody, of a person whom he reasonably believes:

(I) Has committed or attempted to commit a felony involving the use or threatened use of a deadly weapon;  or

(II) Is attempting to escape by the use of a deadly weapon;  or

(III) Otherwise indicates, except through a motor vehicle violation, that he is likely to endanger human life or to inflict serious bodily injury to another unless apprehended without delay.

 

[Twangbanger]

For that officer's sake, be happy they actually did find a gun and it actually was the perpetrator. Otherwise it looks a lot like smoking some random dude because you didn't feel like running.

Within the bounds of the law in this instance, but I wouldn't make a habit of drawing and firing on everyone who runs from a stop.

The key here, is the "hands up, hands up, hands up" (the LEO's equivalent of "STOP!").

I would tend to agree with you, if he complied.

This one is tough and looked like it could go either way, to the layperson. But the "complying with instructions" part as always is the key. And I suspect if anything, that is the component of the law which will get Denny'ed, as Denny mentions above. Eventually, society will raise the bar on the use of "compliance" as a precursor to a shooting. But it's going to take a while, and a lot more suspects like this one will probably lose their lives if the word doesn't get out. In our society, police have a _lot_ of leeway in how to act with a noncompliant suspect. Society, especially places like Chicago, is going to have to think about the consequences of changing the location of that bar in the sand. Scenes like the above aren't easy to watch. But when that line gets moved, society will change, and not necessarily for the better.

 

[Sigblitz]

As HougeMade posted, here's where Indiana law differs, the first part being open to judgement by a reasonable person on a jury.


(1) has probable cause to believe that deadly force is necessary to prevent the escape from custody of a person who the officer has probable cause to believe poses a threat of serious bodily injury to the officer or a third person; and

(2) has given a warning, if feasible, to the person against whom the deadly force is to be used.

This eliminates shooting suspects in the back while fleeing, something Colorado suspects don't benefit from. Hence a more civilized society and a law that's fair to all people inclusively.

 

[Ark]

The key here, is the "hands up, hands up, hands up" (the LEO's equivalent of "STOP!").

I would tend to agree with you, if he complied.

This one is tough and looked like it could go either way, to the layperson. But the "complying with instructions" part as always is the key. And I suspect if anything, that is the component of the law which will get Denny'ed, as Denny mentions above. Eventually, society will raise the bar on the use of "compliance" as a precursor to a shooting. But it's going to take a while, and a lot more suspects like this one will probably lose their lives if the word doesn't get out. In our society, police have a _lot_ of leeway in how to act with a noncompliant suspect. Society, especially places like Chicago, is going to have to think about the consequences of changing the location of that bar in the sand. Scenes like the above aren't easy to watch. But when that line gets moved, society will change, and not necessarily for the better.

I apply the same philosophy I apply to civilian defensive gun use: Being technically within the bounds of the law isn't always going to be enough to save you. You can have fun telling your cellmate that you were "technically allowed to shoot him". If you try to toe the line of acceptability, something might grab you and pull you across it. We like to pretend the text of the law will always swoop in and save us, but the truth is that politics gets a say and the ignorant public gets a say. Justice doesn't always prevail, so it pays to stay as far back from that line as you can.

 

[Twangbanger]

I apply the same philosophy I apply to civilian defensive gun use: Being technically within the bounds of the law isn't always going to be enough to save you. You can have fun telling your cellmate that you were "technically allowed to shoot him". If you try to toe the line of acceptability, something might grab you and pull you across it. We like to pretend the text of the law will always swoop in and save us, but the truth is that politics gets a say and the ignorant public gets a say. Justice doesn't always prevail, so it pays to stay as far back from that line as you can.

But you highlight the crux of the discussion in your first phrase. The same rules don't apply to police. And I will admit, my first impression was, nah, maybe he was a little fast in going to the gun.

What you and I, as civilians, have to remember, is that it's not our job to keep society safe. We can sit back. We don't need (and in fact are not allowed) to escalate situations and deepen our involvement. We have that luxury. Police do not (if they are doing their job properly). An assault was called in. And these individuals fit the description. We probably should ask: what would we like for the officer to have done differently? Was the officer supposed to get into a foot race with someone fitting the description of an armed assailant, being noncompliant and reaching for his waistband? At the minimum, that carries the risk that the person simply gets away. For you and me, as civilians, that's a good outcome, because we don't really want a confrontation. But for the Police, it's not just about their own personal safety. Even if the person simply gets away, that carries the (possibly unacceptable) risk this person goes on an assault spree, perhaps returning later to settle the score with the person who called the cops on him (a person in this case who is known to the assailant). Could they have simply rounded him up later, since they ostensibly know who he is? That's an option. And hope he doesn't kill somebody in the mean time? That's another option; and one the police are charged with considering.

Somebody has to apply active pressure to the bad guys. That may not be your personal job. But it doesn't mean the police have to follow the same "prudent rules of engagement" as you. Their job is to protect other lives besides their own. Shooting that kid had a cost to society. But, allowing evasive, non-compliant, armed assailants to simply run away has a cost to society, also. Police have to strike that balance. "John Q. Civilian CCW Guy" does not. We have the option to, as you put it, "stay as far back from that line as you can."

When the Police begin to "stay as far back from that line as they can," that's when we all start living in Chicago.

 

[Leadeye]

I'll wait and see what comes up in the details like the robbery victim's identifying the robbers and the gun, and any other details like criminal records.

While there is enough for big media to get civil unrest started, there's more to the story.

 

[Hookeye]

Naw....they should let em run......so they can duck into the first house they come across.

As long as it aint your house its all good.

 

[Hookeye]

Dead thugs get automatic media sainthood
Worth more dead than alive......its a spin of the municipal lottery wheel.

Nothing to lose.

 

[Sigblitz]

The shoot was within the law. In Colorado he could have been running with his hands in the air and legally shot, but not likely. And he could have not been the robber and running because he had a traffic warrant. Indiana law is structured so court isn't held on the side of the road.

 

[indyguy333]

This one is marginal, but I'd say the officer acted reasonably knowing what he did at the time. The suspects matched the descrption, the officer knew the report that one or both had a weapon, and when about to be frisked one takes off and starts grabbing into his shorts (at least that's how it appeared to me). Given those facts, I think it was reasonable,but ultimately might be up to a jury to decide that