"Mistrial for South Carolina Officer Who Shot Walter Scott"
By ALAN BLINDERDEC. 5, 2016
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/05/us/walter-scott-michael-slager-north-charleston.html?_r=0
The law of use of deadly force is simple and clear. It should apply to all police officers, but for some reason the law is not applied equally to police as it is to American citizens.
Police are getting away with murder at worst, manslaughter at best.
Did Michael Slager get a "pass" on the law to use deadly force?
Wikipedia:
"A civilians′ use of deadly force is generally justified if they reasonably believe that they or others are in imminent danger of death or serious injury. ... U.S. law requires an investigation whenever a person causes another persons death but the mechanism for such investigations can vary by state."
If a man is running away from you, why shoot him? Yes he can turn around, or go find a weapon, but why short him until he can threaten you? Are you judge and jury?
Oh, I see, you are a police officer required to uphold the law, but at any cost?
"10 CFR 1047.7 - Use of deadly force
§ 1047.7 Use of deadly force.
(a) Deadly force means that force which a reasonable person would consider likely to cause death or serious bodily harm. Its use may be justified only under conditions of extreme necessity, when all lesser means have failed or cannot reasonably be employed. A protective force officer is authorized to use deadly force only when one or more of the following circumstances exists:
(1) Self-Defense. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to protect a protective force officer who reasonably believes himself or herself to be in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm.
(2) Serious offenses against persons. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to prevent the commission of a serious offense against a person(s) in circumstances presenting an imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm (e.g. sabotage of an occupied facility by explosives)."
There's more about handling nuclear materials, but that is irrelevant.
"When Should Cops Be Able to Use Deadly Force?"
A string of questionable police killings demonstrates the need to reevaluate laws that govern the use of lethal force.
Mike Blake / Reuters
Aug 27, 2015
"There is a moral logic common to such rules. Two requirements must be met for a use of force to be justified: a “proportionality” requirement and a “necessity” requirement. The proportionality requirement, as Paul H. Robinson, an expert on criminal law at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, summed it up for me, concerns whether a person posed a danger to which the force used against him was a commensurate response. For deadly force, the usual standard is that someone must present a threat of death or serious bodily injury. The necessity requirement concerns whether, at the time when deadly force was used, it was truly needed to prevent those threats from being realized. If someone makes a death threat, for example, he has satisfied the proportionality requirement, but that doesn’t mean the police may shoot him dead at once. Deadly force becomes permissible only when and if it is needed to keep him from killing,:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/08/use-of-deadly-force-police/402181/
I went to a home defense class and the basics of the lethal force law were listed this way:
"An individual may use deadly force to protect themselves or others from the fear of death or serious bodily harm. When using force you cannot unreasonably endanger innocent community members. Deadly force is only used as a last resort when lesser means have failed or cannot be utilized."
Then the instructor listed four elements:
1. ABILITY: the subject must have the ability to cause death or serious bodily harm. [factors include these two items] (Weapons & Physical Capacity)
2. OPPORTUNITY: The subject is able to take advantage of their ability. (example - knives require close range to kill)
3. HUMAN LIFE IN IMMINENT JEOPARDY: Must be in fear at the time of the use of force.
4. REASONABLE ALTERNATIVE / LESSER MEANS: No other reasonable alternative exists or works for addressing the situation.
The mistrial of Michael Slager suggests the judge gave the jurors the wrong insturctions
Be aware! Beware!
