Criminal Investigation Of Deadly Force And Officer: Fill & Download for Free

So…would you have me believe that in the United States, most police departments adopt guidelines governing the use of force by its officers that requires them— among other things— to taze an individual only after they have been fatally shot?Well, I don’t know how the law enforcement community goes about its business on *your* planet, but on Earth— at least in America, specifically— cops are, in fact, trained in the theory and practice of a “force continuum,” which basically outlines what level of force constitutes an appropriate and proportionate response in a particular situation.Most police departments train and equip officers to deploy a number of non-lethal methods to gain control and compliance— PR-24 batons, ASPs, chemical irritants like CS gas or pepper spray— as a situation calls for it. The application of “deadly force” (re: a gun) is regarded as a last resort, and is justifiable in a limited number of circumstances, such as apprehending or preventing the escape of a subject believed to be (or known to be) dangerous, or to prevent death or grievous bodily harm to either a civilian or an officer.Granted, it doesn’t always work out that way 100% of the time; as anyone in the industrialized/developed world knows, officers can and sometimes *DO* seriously injure or kill citizens via the misapplication of deadly force for various reasons: poor judgement, lack of discipline, failure to properly follow established use-of-force protocols, or just being an over-zealous thug. I believe that most police departments conduct an internal investigation and review of each and every application of deadly force by its officers to determine whether or not the officer acted appropriately. Officers who are found guilty of wrongdoing may be reprimanded, undergo retraining, dismissed from the force, or even sent to jail.For instance: I heard a story recently of an incident in which a police officer was fired by his department after he fatally a man who abruptly started physically attacking him; his attacker, if I recall correctly, was a vagrant and/or had a documented history of psychological problems and difficult interactions with law enforcement. An internal review of the incident found that while the officer was most likely justified in shooting the man in self-defense, the department ruled that the officer was just as likely at fault for precipitating the incident when he failed to follow the department’s mandated guidelines for approaching and interacting with individuals who are known, or who appear to be, mentally disturbed.

As others have pointed out, police outside the U.S. do not shoot below the waist or start out with non-lethal ammunition in a deadly force situation. Every police and military organization trains its troops to shoot for center mass, as that is the surest hit. The objective is not to kill, but rather to end the threat. Sometimes that results in someone dying, but when it doesn't, the police officer doesn't walk over and put a second round in the bad guy's head to ensure he dies. If the purpose was to shoot to kill, this would be done.Shooting the arm or leg of a moving target looks easy on TV, but it's very difficult in real life. The most skilled marksmen in the world (and most police officers have considerably less skill at this) can't do it consistently, especially with a handgun. A missed shot not only keeps the bad guy in the fight, but also goes into an unintended target, such as the kid playing in a park a block away.All police shootings are investigated carefully. There is an internal investigation to determine if the shooting was within policy, and a concurrent criminal investigation to determine if the officer acted within the law. In all but a very small fraction of police shootings, the officer firing the shot(s) is found to be justified.An unarmed person can still be very much of a threat. If the police officer has a reasonably objective belief his life is threatened, he can use deadly force to defend himself. In one of the most contentious shootings in recent years, that of Michael Brown in Ferguson, MO, there was an internal investigation and two criminal investigations. One of the criminal investigations was performed by the St. Louis County District Attorney, and the other by the U.S. Department of Justice, an agency currently viewed as liberal and anti-cop. Both investigations exonerated Officer Darren Wilson. This is an excellent example of a situation where an unarmed man can offer a deadly threat to a police officer. This sort of thing happens nearly every day, but some people are steadfast in their belief that most police shootings are unjustified. Fortunately, more focused, experienced, and knowledgeable people make these determinations, not the public at large.

Every time a police officer kills someone, there are at least two parallel investigations. One is an internal investigation to determine whether the officer violated any of the policies or procedures of his agency. The other is a criminal investigation to determine if any laws have been violated and whether anyone should be criminally charged. There is occasionally a third or subsequent criminal investigation conducted at the federal level, usually to determine if there has been a violation of civil rights. The shooting of Michael Brown by Officer Darren Wilson in Ferguson, MO is an example where this happened. Despite the huge public uproar over this incident, the evidence showed that Officer Wilson acted properly in defense of his life.In all but a tiny number of deaths at the hands of the police, the decedent was resisting a lawful arrest, assaulting the officer, or in the commission of a violent felony. Those circumstances allow the officer to use deadly force when it is “objectively reasonable” to do so. To see that term discussed in context, read the SCOTUS decision in Graham v. Connor.There have been many cases where private citizens have killed another person and not been indicted or arrested. In most cases, the citizens have been defending themselves or their homes against an assault or invasion. I know that the NRA used to (maybe still does) run a regular feature in their membership magazine that detailed examples where armed citizens used their firearms against criminals.