What if cops had to go by the same laws regarding self defense as everyone else?

[SuperDemocrat]

What if we applied the same laws that you are I use for self defense to police officers or government officials? It is just a question that we may need to ponder for several reasons. The first is that it might reduce accidental shootings because, as is the case in most states, the police go by different rules. This may make some officers feel that they are above the law and can do things that non police officers can't. A weapon for an officer has always been for one purpose which was self protection. I don't think it was a part of police officer apprehension procedures so there is no reason to have special rules for the police with regards to the use of a weapon so if a dangerous criminal attacked a police officer he could as much force as anyone else is allowed under self defense laws.

So long as you include the clause to protect the lives of others.

Many states do have laws allowing a person to use lethal force to protect lives of others.

Name 2.

I can think of Arizona and that is it. I assume their are other states that have similar laws.

 

[jon_berzerk]

What if we applied the same laws that you are I use for self defense to police officers or government officials? It is just a question that we may need to ponder for several reasons. The first is that it might reduce accidental shootings because, as is the case in most states, the police go by different rules. This may make some officers feel that they are above the law and can do things that non police officers can't. A weapon for an officer has always been for one purpose which was self protection. I don't think it was a part of police officer apprehension procedures so there is no reason to have special rules for the police with regards to the use of a weapon so if a dangerous criminal attacked a police officer he could as much force as anyone else is allowed under self defense laws.

So long as you include the clause to protect the lives of others.

Many states do have laws allowing a person to use lethal force to protect lives of others.

Name 2.

I can think of Arizona and that is it. I assume their are other states that have similar laws.

Alabama

 

[OKTexas]

What if we applied the same laws that you are I use for self defense to police officers or government officials? It is just a question that we may need to ponder for several reasons. The first is that it might reduce accidental shootings because, as is the case in most states, the police go by different rules. This may make some officers feel that they are above the law and can do things that non police officers can't. A weapon for an officer has always been for one purpose which was self protection. I don't think it was a part of police officer apprehension procedures so there is no reason to have special rules for the police with regards to the use of a weapon so if a dangerous criminal attacked a police officer he could as much force as anyone else is allowed under self defense laws.

So long as you include the clause to protect the lives of others.

Many states do have laws allowing a person to use lethal force to protect lives of others.

Name 2.

I can think of Arizona and that is it. I assume their are other states that have similar laws.

Nope, not AZ.

13-406. Justification; defense of a third person
A person is justified in threatening or using physical force or deadly physical force against another to protect a third person if:

1. Under the circumstances as a reasonable person would believe them to be, such person would be justified under section 13-404 or 13-405 in threatening or using physical force or deadly physical force to protect himself against the unlawful physical force or deadly physical force a reasonable person would believe is threatening the third person he seeks to protect; and
2. A reasonable person would believe that such person's intervention is immediately necessary to protect the third person.

Self Defense, Crime Prevention and other Justification Defenses Laws in Arizona

Care to try again?

Edit: Sorry I misread your post, all States as far as I know, have laws that provide for the defense of others.

 

[The Professor]

Police also have the right to use deadly force to prevent the escape of a dangerous felony suspect.

In Tennessee v. Garner, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) examined a Tennessee State statute which allowed the police to use deadly force against ALL fleeing felony suspects. The SCOTUS disagreed, ruling that deadly force could only be used to prevent the escape of a dangerous felon. The following are pertinent portions of the Supreme Court's Court's findings (highlights are my own):

“The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable. It is not better that all felony suspects die than that they escape. Where the suspect poses no immediate threat to the officer and no threat to others, the harm resulting from failing to apprehend him does not justify the use of deadly force to do so. It is no doubt unfortunate when a suspect who is in sight escapes, but the fact that the police arrive a little late or are a little slower afoot does not always justify killing the suspect. A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead. The Tennessee statute is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes the use of deadly force against such fleeing suspects.”

“However, it is not unconstitutional on its face. Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force. Thus, if the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape, and if, where feasible, some warning has been given. As applied in such circumstances, the Tennessee statute would pass constitutional muster.”

Tennessee v. Garner | Cop Block

In one case previously discussed on this forum, 50-year old Walter Scott had a warrant for non-payment of child support and apparently ran to avoid going to jail on that charge. Did the police have the right to shoot him to prevent his escape? The law is clear they did not.. The police can use deadly force against a fleeing suspect only if the suspect is a dangerous felon. This means that the suspect has either inflicted or threatened to inflict serious bodily harm. Scott was not a dangerous felon by any stretch of the imagination and the use of deadly force against him was criminal.

 

[OKTexas]

What if we applied the same laws that you are I use for self defense to police officers or government officials? It is just a question that we may need to ponder for several reasons. The first is that it might reduce accidental shootings because, as is the case in most states, the police go by different rules. This may make some officers feel that they are above the law and can do things that non police officers can't. A weapon for an officer has always been for one purpose which was self protection. I don't think it was a part of police officer apprehension procedures so there is no reason to have special rules for the police with regards to the use of a weapon so if a dangerous criminal attacked a police officer he could as much force as anyone else is allowed under self defense laws.

So long as you include the clause to protect the lives of others.

Many states do have laws allowing a person to use lethal force to protect lives of others.

Name 2.

I can think of Arizona and that is it. I assume their are other states that have similar laws.

Alabama

Nope, not AL

Section 13A-3-23 - Use of force in defense of a person.
(a) A person is justified in using physical force upon another person in order to defend himself or herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by that other person, and he or she may use a degree of force which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary for the purpose. A person may use deadly physical force, and is legally presumed to be justified in using deadly physical force in self-defense or the defense of another person pursuant to subdivision (5), if the person reasonably believes that another person is:

Code of Alabama - Title 13A: Criminal Code - Section 13A-3-23 - Use of force in defense of a person - Legal Research

 

[jon_berzerk]

So long as you include the clause to protect the lives of others.

Many states do have laws allowing a person to use lethal force to protect lives of others.

Name 2.

I can think of Arizona and that is it. I assume their are other states that have similar laws.

Alabama

Nope, not AL

Section 13A-3-23 - Use of force in defense of a person.
(a) A person is justified in using physical force upon another person in order to defend himself or herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by that other person, and he or she may use a degree of force which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary for the purpose. A person may use deadly physical force, and is legally presumed to be justified in using deadly physical force in self-defense or the defense of another person pursuant to subdivision (5), if the person reasonably believes that another person is:

Code of Alabama - Title 13A: Criminal Code - Section 13A-3-23 - Use of force in defense of a person - Legal Research

i would consider a third person the"other "

and "Justified" to mean you can


as the post stated -Many states do have laws allowing a person to use lethal force to protect lives of others

 

[OKTexas]

Many states do have laws allowing a person to use lethal force to protect lives of others.

Name 2.

I can think of Arizona and that is it. I assume their are other states that have similar laws.

Alabama

Nope, not AL

Section 13A-3-23 - Use of force in defense of a person.
(a) A person is justified in using physical force upon another person in order to defend himself or herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by that other person, and he or she may use a degree of force which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary for the purpose. A person may use deadly physical force, and is legally presumed to be justified in using deadly physical force in self-defense or the defense of another person pursuant to subdivision (5), if the person reasonably believes that another person is:

Code of Alabama - Title 13A: Criminal Code - Section 13A-3-23 - Use of force in defense of a person - Legal Research

i would consider a third person the"other "

and "Justified" to mean you can


as the post stated -Many states do have laws allowing a person to use lethal force to protect lives of others

Yep, if you read my reply to him, I said I misread his post. As far as I know all States allow for the defense of others.

 

[M14 Shooter]

What if we applied the same laws that you are I use for self defense to police officers or government officials? It is just a question that we may need to ponder for several reasons. The first is that it might reduce accidental shootings because, as is the case in most states, the police go by different rules. This may make some officers feel that they are above the law and can do things that non police officers can't. A weapon for an officer has always been for one purpose which was self protection. I don't think it was a part of police officer apprehension procedures so there is no reason to have special rules for the police with regards to the use of a weapon so if a dangerous criminal attacked a police officer he could as much force as anyone else is allowed under self defense laws.

The police are more restricted in their use of deadly force than you and me.