I agree with you. Dispatching relevant and good information to the officers is important. Officers should know this and take it into account. However, just because of someone's previous crime, doesn't give the officer justification to end their life in a pursuit (when they are not a threat).

See: tennessee vs garner

In other words. Just cause Nikolas Cruz shot up a school and left his rifle there and ran away, doesn't give the officers the right to kill him. Would it be nice if they could? Yes, is it lawful? No

This post was edited by JohnMiller92 on Jun 22 2018 02:18pm

The distinction being the probable cause to believe the suspect poses a threat to the public or officers. In tennessee v garner, the cops knew the suspect was unarmed and posed no immediate threat. In this case, guys who had just minutes earlier opened fire in a drive-by shooting were burst out of a bullet-riddled car in a sudden movement when stopped by police. If Nicholas Cruz had remained in the school and all of a sudden burst out the front door in a trench coat and made a break for it, the cops wouldn't be obligated to wait to find out whether he's still armed or not or let him get away.

Past events do matter, but they don't give carte blanche. The law gives a different threshold of protection to a fleeing citizen and a fleeing felon, besides any immediate threat they pose at the moment of pursuit. If the cops know they are unarmed, than both the citizen and the felon cannot be shot for simply trying to flee, but a dangerous felon can be shot for trying to flee.

i'm just over here waiting for a progressive justice to make the case that if we give officers no hindsight credit in cases of potential threat we also need to give them no hindsight credit in cases where they're pursuing a vague suspect description that leads to a shot perp. such as...........a description of a color of a car, or 5'10" black male.

if we're being honest cops sometimes get to use hindsight, such as a gun in a car, or a clip found on a perp.

Dude I’ve been here for like a week and I already wanna just throw myself off of a bridge. How can you handle these mentally inept, unique individuals?

the only thing you'll find under that bridge once you throw yourself off is trolls!

i have two things that are never exhausted, my patience, and my desire to make people look silly for fun when i'm bored. been pretty bored lately at work.

I don't give a flying fuck if they previously opened fire through their car. Unless the officer was at the scene when it happened, and saw them shooting out of it, that's totally different.

But if an officer stops the vehicle and the car matches a "description" of a past shooting event, and the kid runs from the vehicle unarmed and doesn't pose a threat, does not give the officer the right to kill him. It's really that simple. As I said, previous crimes are irrelevant to whether or not the suspect is a threat. It's about the present time of the pursuit.

And to your Cruz hypothetical, if he didn't have a visible gun on him and just bolted running away, he's not a threat.

If he was running carrying his rifle, yes.

This post was edited by JohnMiller92 on Jun 22 2018 02:40pm

Probable cause, reasonable belief, good faith, etc etc. Its all hinged upon reasonableness. If the shooting of an innocent person hinged upon an overly vague description, it wouldn't be reasonable would it?
But hindsight of unknown facts gives no credit- the cops weren't justified because of the guns being found in the vehicle or magazine in his pocket, they were justified because they were called to an active drive-by shooting and encountered a vehicle matching a description of having its windows shot out just minutes later. Based on that alone they had every reason to believe the suspects were dangerous felons.

Just because they are a felon is irrelevant. Depends if they are a danger to themselves or others in the present moment of the pursuit. Running away unarmed doesn't justify that, and never will.

This post was edited by JohnMiller92 on Jun 22 2018 02:47pm

💯