TexasCHLforum.com

With all the police shootings lately and the controversy where they were right or not, I have a question. It is my understanding that the officer that shot the guy that placed the bombs in NY and NJ was running away when shot. I haven't heard one word questioning why the officer did that. Is it because he didn't die or because he was a bomber. Looks like the lady that shot at man in Waco several months ago that was running away is in trouble. That guy wasn't hit, didn't die and wasn't a bomber.

I think it probably has something to do with him being a clear danger to society had he gotten away. May have been questioned had the butthead died but since he's still alive to face a trial the harm was outweighed by the benefit to society. Probably a very think grey area but not a LEO so just speculation on my part.

ldj1002 wrote:With all the police shootings lately and the controversy where they were right or not, I have a question. It is my understanding that the officer that shot the guy that placed the bombs in NY and NJ was running away when shot. I haven't heard one word questioning why the officer did that. Is it because he didn't die or because he was a bomber. Looks like the lady that shot at man in Waco several months ago that was running away is in trouble. That guy wasn't hit, didn't die and wasn't a bomber.

From what I have read, not that I believe it in all cases, the BG was shooting while running. Shooting in that case would be justified due to the danger he posed to others. Also since he was recognized as the bomber, letting him escape could potentially pose a threat, but that would be more difficult to use as a defense. JMHO

I thought he fired at Linden PD, hitting one officer in the abdomen, while trying to get away. Clearly, this subhuman needed to be put down.

Agreeing with parabelum, once you have shot a cop as a criminal you have proven that you are a threat to society. You give up a multitude of rights. One of which is the right to flee and shoot again later.

Even if they weren't positive he was the bomber, they were positive he was a cop shooter.

Please also consider that police officers (at least here in Texas) operate under a different part of the Use of Force laws than we do. Non-LEO's are operating under Chp 9, subchapters C and D whereas a LEO is under subchapter E. Comparing LEO shootings to Non-LEO shootings is something of an apples/oranges comparison.

I don't know all of the facts in either of the shootings cited by the OP, but my understanding in Waco was she had NO justification for using deadly force. NY/NJ bomber had already shot officers in his attempts to remain at large practically guaranteeing he would be shot at during any other attempts to effect an arrest.

Off-topic, but I loved the way that HRC tried during the debate to take credit for the police officers taking Rahami alive so that they could gain intel from him. Seemed that she was insinuating that if Trump were president that Rahami would have been killed by law enforcement.

As a general rule, police in the US operate under a much stricter set of laws concerning when they can shoot than citizens do. Police are restricted by the Fourth Amendment and the way the courts have interpreted it. When i started in law enforcement, it was considered a reasonable use of force to shoot a burglar who was fleeing.

In 1985, the SCOTUS handed down a ruling that changed this and would exactly cover the situation of the bomber being shot while running away. Garner v. Tennessee is the governing case on this situation. Garner was a 15-year-old burglar running from the police. When he tried to climb a fence, the officer shot and killed him, hitting him in the back of the head. The officer thought he was unarmed and would commit more burglaries if he got away. Garner's father sued for unreasonable search and seizure. The decision was that it was no longer reasonable to shoot fleeing felons unless "the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others."

The way this was taught to me was that you cannot shoot most fleeing felons. But if you caught the "Son of Sam" killer (revealing my age when it was taught - it was an old case even then) as he was leaving the scene of his third or fourth victim, you could probably justify shooting him. The serial killer part is probable cause to believe he would try to kill again.

This would directly apply to the bomber. Since he had left multiple bombs in multiple locations, there would be probable cause to believe he would leave more bombs if he got away. If he was shooting at them while he was running, that makes it much more easy to justify.