Lethal Force/Excessive Force

[Byteryder]

Where is the line that a LEO dare not cross in order to protect their own life or body.?  I can not see where they should be expected to take or not take action that puts themselves at risk of bodily harm or death.  Along these lines I do not consider an able bodied antagonist to be "unarmed".  As long as they are capable of inflicting injury or death on the LEO in any way, they are Armed!

The burden we place on our LEOs in their often daily decisions of life and death, their own or others, is absolutely unconscionable.

What obligations does a LEO have towards the life and safety of an antagonist? 

[chuck_curtis]

I can not see where they should be expected to take or not take action that puts themselves at risk of bodily harm or death.

Then they pretty much should take a desk job instead of injecting themselves into, and often causing, such situations.

[Byteryder]

So, your position is that the officer on the street be obligated to sacrifice his life or well being in the interests of a belligerent antagonist.

Can I ask, If a law breaker physically refuses to be subjected to arrest, should the LEO simply let him go on his way regardless of what mayhem they might cause down the road?  Does that offer any protection to the general public? Does it serve the interest of Law Enforcement?

[chuck_curtis]

I'm not saying the cop is obligated to sacrifice his life, but rather that he must realize that he voluntarily puts himself in life threatening situations (often that did not exist until he entered the scene) and when he does that he must understand that it is voluntary and that he is responsible for and must accept the consequences for his actions, no different than any other person.   He has no special rights, or powers, or protections than any other person.  That's all I am saying.  I don't see the cop as any different than any other person.

[Byteryder]

Then, the LEO must consider the consequences of his actions re: life and death, but the other side need not consider the consequences of his actions?  The antagonist should be free to resist arrest by any means possible with out concern?

It seems we are building a shield of law around the antagonist and at the same time tying the hands of Law Enforcement with the Law.

How can Law Enforcement be expected to accomplish it's mission under these circumstance.  It's as if we see the antagonists actions as a mission they are entitled to pursue while the LEOs mission is to interfere with the antagonist entitled mission.

We can not have Anarchy and Law&Order at the same time.  Someones actions must have primacy over the other.  Which will it be?

[Byteryder]

Anyone else with any ideas on how to put a light on this dark region of "Excessive Force/Lethal Force" vagary.

[Baretta19]

It's funny that everyone, I mean BLACKS are in an uproar because of police brutality, too bad for them that the director of the FBI has stated THERE ARE NO FACTS to prove their accusations but we have plenty of proof that inner city dwellers DEMAND the murder of policemen.
Again I'll state that a solution for this problem would be a nationwide "blue flu" get the cops off the streets for a couple of months, very easily accomplished by stating they are in "sensitivity" training.

[wmdn_bs]

Again I'll state that a solution for this problem would be a nationwide "blue flu" get the cops off the streets for a couple of months, very easily accomplished by stating they are in "sensitivity" training.

Do you mean an organized labor event?

Honestly, a police officers job is very dangerous, and they do know that. That does not mean they don't have a right to protect themselves, the safety of others, and the protection of property. There are a lot of dangerous jobs, but that doesn't mean the people doing them must take stupid chances. Many times, in fact more often than not, when lethal force is used, it is the appropriate force.

[Byteryder]

But how do we establish, in Law, the limits on Law Enforcement so that a Cop can go about his business without fear of prosecution every time he engages someone in anything but a totally uncontested arrest?

[wmdn_bs]

I don't believe that's what we want. There will always be bad actors and people with mental issues that will result in an officer shooting someone, and they are rightfully trained to shoot with intent to eliminate the threat, meaning aim for center mass and don't stop shooting until the threat is eliminated. I also believe, as any sane person does, that there are a small number, make that an extremely small number of rogue officers that think they can use the badge as a shield against prosecution. They need to be weeded out by any means necessary. The national news networks do a good job of reporting sensationalistic events, but if it doesn't sell advertising segments, forget about it. Personally, I sympathize with the vast majority, nearly unanimous, of police officers who do their jobs and do the well. It is a shame that a small number of bad cops, just as a small number of blacks, or Muslims, or any other group of law abiding people, makes it bad on all of the good ones.