Ramirez could have just STOPPED upon police request, too.
There was no police chase, and she was stopping. She wanted probably to pull up a little to find a good spot to stop which is ok to do.
We weren't there were we? I don't think cops just shoot peeps because they where on a power trip.I don't know were her head was AT. Did you ever steal a car and defy police orders to stop? She was a beautiful but stupid. My government paid a million bucks, it boggles my mind here.WHY? I am not getting that, call it a major disconnect. Umm, can we get a Mulligan on that? Hell NO! I don't want to pay for cops just doing their job, it's insane..Who's side are you on here, society or criminals? I don't want my government to pay the surviving family of criminals one red cent.
There was a time long ago that I felt and thought as you do; however, just as I was wrong back then you are also wrong now. I see things differently now because somewhere along the way I was fortunate enough to have received a JD (Juris Doctorate) and got to know a lot about the law. I also learned the law was not always fair and just nor did it always make sense.
Regarding the case at hand, even if the girl was driving a stolen car and failed to stop when ordered to do so, the police had no right to use deadly force against her. The police are justified in using deadly force in only two situations. First, they may use deadly force if - at the time such force was used – they reasonably believed it was necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury to themselves or an innocent third party. Second, the may use force to prevent the escape of a dangerous felon, which is described as someone who has either inflicted or threatened to inflict death or serious bodily injury.
If the girl was merely trying to escape, the police had no right to use deadly force to stop her since a car thief is not a dangerous felon by definition. However, if the police reasonably believed she was tying to run them over, they had to right to use deadly force to protect themselves. Furthermore, if after attempting to run them over she drove away and no longer posed a threat, the police could still use deadly force to prevent her escape since at that point she would be considered to be a dangerous felon.
The leading case regarding when the police may use deadly force to prevent the escape of a suspect is
Tennessee v. Garner. In this case the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) reviewed a Tennessee law which allowed the police to use deadly force to prevent the escape of non-dangerous suspects. The particular case involved a man who was suspected of burglarizing a home. The following are the relevant portions of the SCOTUS decision:
“The Tennessee statute is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes the use of deadly force against, as in this case, an apparently unarmed, nondangerous fleeing suspect; such force may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and 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.”
“While burglary is a serious crime, the officer in this case could not reasonably have believed that the suspect - young, slight, and unarmed - posed any threat. Nor does the fact that an unarmed suspect has broken into a dwelling at night automatically mean he is dangerous.”.
“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.”
FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.
CONCLUSION: The entire present case hinges on one question: Did the girl attempt to run over the police with her car? If the answer is “yes” the police had the right to use deadly force to protect themselves and to prevent her escape. However, if the girl made no attempt to run them down but was merely running away, the use of deadly force was not allowed and the city got away cheap with a mere $1,000,000 settlement.
