In the
wake of the police shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri
last weekend, one of the key questions is whether the
killing was legal under Missouri law.
Crucials details of the incident, in which officer Darren Wilson
shot and killed Brown, who was unarmed, are still
unclear.
But we can take a look at what the state has to say about
when an officer can use deadly force by police while making an
arrest.
Basically, the rules say that an officer has to
“reasonably believe” that such force is necessary immediately in
order to proceed with the arrest and also that the person either
committed a felony or is a threat.
3. A law enforcement officer in effecting an arrest or in
preventing an escape from custody is justified in using deadly
force only(1) When such is authorized under other sections of this
chapter; or(2) When he reasonably believes that such use of deadly force is
immediately necessary to effect the arrest and also reasonably
believes that the person to be arrested(a) Has committed or attempted to commit a felony; or
(b) Is attempting to escape by use of a deadly weapon; or
(c) May otherwise endanger life or inflict serious physical
injury unless arrested without delay.4. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of
justification under this section.
(Via
Sean Davis.)
So, the suspect doesn’t have to be armed, and doesn’t even have
to present an immediate threat. Instead, if an officer believes
that there’s no other way to make the arrest happen, and also
believes that the suspect has attempted to commit a felony, the
officer is justified in using deadly force. If a cop wants to
arrest someone, and has a “reasonable” belief that the person has
even tried to commit a felony, he or she is allowed to kill.
That seems like a rather lax standard, and one that would give a
pass to practically any arresting officer who could plausibly claim
to have believed that the suspect had attempted or committed a
felony offense.
from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1oBuNlb
via IFTTT