So yeah, I suppose it happens. But it's not legal.
[0] http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2015/06/08...
Yes, but the better question to ask is, "Do police shoot citizens who do not (or are not known to) pose an immediate threat?"
The answer is yes. Here's a recent murder, complete with two other officers attempting to cover it up:
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jul/30/samuel-dubose...
It's also worth asking how so many citizens are able to "shoot themselves" while handcuffed in the back of a police cruiser:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/police-teen-shot-self-in-head-wh...
I see that sort of incident in the news several times a year, and I can't possibly be seeing all of the reported incidents. There are just too many deaths for one person to keep up with:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforc...
And those lists probably don't include suspicious deaths in police custody (squad cars, jail cells).
Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)[1], was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that, under the Fourth Amendment, when a law enforcement officer is pursuing a fleeing suspect, he or she may not use deadly force to prevent escape 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."
Which to say, yes. Although I don't think there's actually a requirement to verbally warn them.
> he or she may not use deadly force to prevent escape 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."
> Which to say, yes. Although I don't think there's actually a requirement to verbally warn them.
Which is to say: not legally.
Which means you're a criminal; which means you're probably a serious threat to others.
It's a bit of a toothless ruling because it's about the cop's state of mind at-the-time which is damn hard to disprove, harder when it's a cop's word.
"Which means you're a criminal" - you are not a criminal unless convicted.
"which means you're probably a serious threat to others." - 'probably' is the key word. Cops cannot shoot people because they are probably dangerous. "Probable cause to believe" is not the same as "probably".
April 4, 2015: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Walter_Scott
July 19, 2015: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Samuel_DuBose
Before 1985, using force, including lethal force, to stop a "fleeing felon" was accepted from common law--for any party, not just police. Lethal force would not be acceptable for minor or non-violent crimes. Doubtless the trope comes from practices pre-1985. I'd imagine the same provision of common law applied in the UK at one point, but I couldn't say when or how it stopped. Perhaps quite a long time ago.
Police and civilians also have legal justification for use of lethal force in defence of one's self or others from imminent use of deadly force (and usually other serious violent crimes like kidnapping or rape). Exactly how that line is drawn varies slightly; some states have a strong "duty to retreat" whenever possible, but most don't.
At distances of ~5 meters the officer could be overpowered, wrestled to the ground, and have their own gun used to shoot them. So "unarmed" is a pathetic joke when people (and the media) use it as a synonym for "not dangerous".
>Tueller Drill departs from the premise that you can only use your hand gun. This attitude is part of the problem.
TASER guns have a single shot. I wouldn't risk my life on me hitting my target in a single shot. Stunguns require proximity.
For pepperspray, would you bet your life on an 85% chance of something working? OC spray is not 100% effective and some people are straight up immune to the spray. AFAIK, humans are not immune to bullets.
I'd advocate for the use of the above non-lethals in reliable scenarios where the officer is concerned about possible escalation but does not yet feel to be in mortal danger. Which isn't many scenarios and draws into question if force was needed at all. Many non-lethal actions seem to be punished more than lethal actions, because "if force was necessary it should have only required lethal force if their life was in danger".
Which brings me back to the "legitimate danger" vs "public concept of danger" issue...
If you want more non-lethal options to be used, the justification of using them needs to be realistic - which involves educating the public on what is and isn't a dangerous/escalating scenario. I don't see that happening anytime soon, which is unfortunate.
Actually, I think it was, "Stop or I'll pop a cap in your ass!"
The answer is no sane officer is going to shoot a non-dangerous person. Although the nature of non-dangerous is the problem. Several cases (New Mexico) that should have been national outrages have gone unreported, but a case (Ferguson) that the final report said was justified were demonized (although the report does make some very valid points about the police department in general and should have been part of an investigation years before). How we keep ignoring the problems with flash bangs, I will never know.
i.e. do police in the US shoot suspects when there is no threat other than the risk they will get away?