aafafa

1101 Words5 Pages
The penal code strictly limit law enforcement officers’ use of deadly force against fleeing felons. The penal code justifies law enforcements’ use of deadly force only during a felony arrest if the suspect flees from the officers, and the crime involves use or attempted use of deadly force by the suspect. In addition, the officers have to warn the suspect before the use of deadly force, the officers must consider the risk to civilians nearby, and the risk of serious injury or death if the arrest of the criminal is delayed. However, in the case presented in the midterm, the officer’s use of deadly force on the fleeing suspect was not justified. Although the officer ordered the suspect to stop on two occasions, the suspect was fleeing after robbing a bar with no threat of using deadly force and carried no deadly weapon. It was unreasonable for the officer to use deadly force on the suspect, because the suspect did not pose an immediate danger to others if he escaped the arrest. However, if the suspect carried a gun in his hand while fleeing, it would justify the officer’s use of deadly force. The gun in the suspect’s hand pose an imminent danger to the officer and civilians in his path. The gun would also pose a threat to the safety of others if he threw it away while fleeing from the officer. If a child were to find the gun, this child could harm himself or others. Accordingly, the ruling would be different if the fleeing suspect had a gun in his hand. The suspect would be a fleeing from a police officer after committing armed robbery, which is a felony and involved the use or threats of using a deadly weapon. The officers warned the suspect on two occasions and gave the suspect opportunities to stop and surrender. There were no ri... ... middle of paper ... ...The amount of time passed after discovering his wife cheating on him to the next morning could be recognized as a reasonable period of cooling off. Mark had the entire night to consider what he should do and the prosecution could argue Mark used this time to plan out the killing. In addition, he called 911 and confessed to the killing shows his state of mind that he knew what he was doing was wrong and he had broke the law. Mark could plead voluntary manslaughter if the court believe Mark’s story that his ex-best friend insulted him when the friend opened door. Although Mark had a reasonable time to cool off after the initial encounter, the insult from the ex-best friend could drive any reasonable person over the edge under similar situation. However, if Mark had shot his best friend when he walked in on them then it would be heat of passion, voluntary manslaughter.

    More about aafafa

      Open Document