The fleeing felon rule doesn't make a distinction of immediate continuity of a crime. Its about whether he's reasonably suspected of a felony in the more general event, and can reasonably be thought to pose a threat while escaping
It cares whether they are suspected of a felony- past or immediate- and pose a threat- immediate only.
Felons aren't granted a magical shield they get to invoke after every X seconds of not shooting at cops between rounds of gunfire as they pop out whack-a-mole style.

This post was edited by Goomshill on Jun 22 2018 02:59pm

How is running away, unarmed, pose a threat? They have be a threat to themselves or others to justify the killing though.

This post was edited by JohnMiller92 on Jun 22 2018 03:07pm

unarmed is a hindsight fact. potentially armed is a real time possibility.

Tamir Rice was unarmed.

because they have no way to know he's unarmed and have every reason in the world to suspect he's armed, and know he was already shooting at people.
this isn't hard to follow.

If he had walked out of the car slowly, showed them his hands and let them pat him down to make sure he's not carrying a gun and then he made a break for it, that's one thing. When he bursts out of a vehicle in a sudden movement in the dark, that's another thing entirely. The cops don't have VATS, they don't get to pause the universe and read the tooltip and stats of the suspect to figure out how much a threat he poses at that moment. They get only the details of the totality of the situation that they've seen. They know they were called to an active shooter scenario, that the suspects were engaged in a shootout, that the vehicle they're in looks like the OK corral. They have every reason to believe the suspects are armed. The distinction of them leaving behind their guns as they fled- having run out of bullets- is irrelevant.

you want to see Graham v Connor;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_v._Connor
"The "reasonableness" of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight."

If you already want to kill your self after being here for about 24 hours...I don’t think you’re going to make, it my man, haha.

Just remember it’s a political subforum on an almost 2 decade old gaming site.

Don’t take it or anyone too serious, otherwise this place can get pretty toxic, & you’ll be fine

Wow, a suspect fleeing the scene in a burst of sudden movement! The horror!

Also, from the article:
"No shots were fired at the officers during the encounter. "

And To bold: Not irrelevant at all. Because that means they no longer pose a threat. (Tennessee v. Garner). By your logic, you could defend Michael Slager because Scott was a fleeing felon.

Yeah, no. That mindset is dangerous. Please stop defending shitty officers.

This post was edited by JohnMiller92 on Jun 22 2018 03:39pm

approaching dangerous felons you know have guns and were just shooting people and instead of obeying police orders they make sudden movements?
If that was your life being risked, I bet you wouldn't give them such a cavalier benefit of the doubt.

You seem to be grappling with what it means to be a fleeing felon. Just because a suspect is fleeing does not mean "they no longer pose a threat". Heck, a violent felon who is disregarding police orders and trying to flee a scene after using a deadly weapon is the definition of dangerous. The fleeing felon rule specifically deals with the case in which shooting a suspect fleeing a scene is justified because they post a threat. If all fleeing suspects no longer posed a threat, the rule wouldn't exist. But one look at a list of fallen officers and their causes of death would tell you how dangerous criminals can be when making a break for it.

There ya go, making sense again. What ARE we gonna do with you.

Go to 3:30
Walter Scott shooting 2.0 sir. Look closely. Not a threat whatsoever, and shot right in the back.



This post was edited by JohnMiller92 on Jun 24 2018 11:47pm