04-09-2018, 01:53 PM
stanc Wrote:If police are going to be authorized to shoot citizens in "self defense," why shouldn't they be required to determine for sure that there is actually a need to shoot?
Because to be 100% certain that deadly force was imminent an officer would have to wait until the subject actually fired on him before he could then respond with the necessary force to save his life or the lives of others. The mere production of a deadly weapon (or something that appeared to be one) would not reach your "Necessary" criteria. In fact, if a weapon were produced and pointed at the officer, it is still unnecessary to shoot, because the subject might be talked out of shooting.
Unfortunately, that would require police to only react and shoot after the subject has fired a round (or two or three - not unreasonable based on reaction times). Taking the "Necessity Argument" to it's logical end, it is only truly "necessary" to use deadly force if deadly force is actually being deployed against the officer.
If a subject makes a furtive motion reaching to a location that a pistol is often carried and produces a dark object and points it at an officer, the officer has been placed in a position of reasonably fearing for his life and under current statute has the right to defend with reasonable force.
The courts have ruled that officers and civilians alike will be judged by the "Reasonable response" standard under the totality of the circumstances.