Crime De’Von Bailey police shooting. Edit: settlement of 3 million reached.

You can see the suspect whip his arm behind him just before being shot. If you're a cop chasing an armed robber, you don't take chances like that.
 
For those pointing out, and only focusing on him being shot in the back, remember that TNvGarner dictates that an officer can’t shoot a fleeing suspect in the back IF they are an active threat to the community wholeness fleeing from police. Any use of force is a seizure based on the fourth amendment. That use of lethal force must be able to prove that the need for the state to use that seizure under the 4th, the need of the community must outweigh the rights of the suspect. Also, Graham v Connor, has 7 factors that include the crime the suspect is being arrested for, suspect actively fleeing or fighting with police, suspect armed-all of which are checked in this incident.

It’s not in the video, and body cam may reveal what I read, which is that officers claim that he displayed a gun at officers before running. Plus, he just robbed someone at gunpoint. I would say that makes him a threat to the community.
 
For those pointing out, and only focusing on him being shot in the back, remember that TNvGarner dictates that an officer can’t shoot a fleeing suspect in the back IF they are an active threat to the community wholeness fleeing from police. Any use of force is a seizure based on the fourth amendment. That use of lethal force must be able to prove that the need for the state to use that seizure under the 4th, the need of the community must outweigh the rights of the suspect. Also, Graham v Connor, has 7 factors that include the crime the suspect is being arrested for, suspect actively fleeing or fighting with police, suspect armed-all of which are checked in this incident.

It’s not in the video, and body cam may reveal what I read, which is that officers claim that he displayed a gun at officers before running. Plus, he just robbed someone at gunpoint. I would say that makes him a threat to the community.
I dont know when the officers knew he had a gun but that makes a world of difference. Even with the report of being held a gun point, I would feel the officers would need to actually identify the gun before shooting.
 
A pedo illegally possessing a handgun? The cops should be promoted.
 
Even with the report of being held a gun point, I would feel the officers would need to actually identify the gun before shooting.

Nope. If you're a suspect in an armed robbery, don't run. You are assumed to be armed and dangerous, and they have every right to put your ass down if you don't comply and pose a risk to public safety.

It's also another reason why you don't run from the police, period. They may indeed sometimes get bad information, and finger the wrong person. Bottom line though, you don't run. If you do, you're just incriminating yourself further, and all bets are off on how it might end.
 
video


looks fairly clear that he was shot from behind while running from the police. seems certain the guy is a criminal that needed to be dealt with, but i dont think this is considered proper use of deadly force.


You can shoot a fleeing suspect if there us a high (enough) risk they will commit a violent felony if not apprehended. It's a high bar.
 
If he's armed and dangerous, it's a good kill. Doesn't matter if it was in the back. He's a potentially lethal threat to the public. Don't run with a gun.
.. after committing violent felony.
 
Nope. If you're a suspect in an armed robbery, don't run. You are assumed to be armed and dangerous, and they have every right to put your ass down if you don't comply and pose a risk to public safety.

It's also another reason why you don't run from the police, period. They may indeed sometimes get bad information, and finger the wrong person. Bottom line though, you don't run. If you do, you're just incriminating yourself further, and all bets are off on how it might end.

While I understand how people can look at a case like this and feel it was a "good" shooting after the fact. We now know he was a felon in possession of a gun and likely had committed the crime in question. I disagree that it should be ok for police to shoot without identifying a threat first. If they did see the gun before firing then it might change my mind on this shooting.

Seeing a firearm, in a country full of guns doesnt automatically clear the police to shoot though. They would need a strong indication that a crime has been committed and the the person is a danger.
 
While I understand how people can look at a case like this and feel it was a "good" shooting after the fact. We now know he was a felon in possession of a gun and likely had committed the crime in question. I disagree that it should be ok for police to shoot without identifying a threat first. If they did see the gun before firing then it might change my mind on this shooting.

Okay, but they obviously were in pursuit of an armed suspect. You're operating on a false assumption that they didn't know who the guy was. That's not a factor in this case. In this case, they shot a fleeing armed suspect. What's the argument against it? If that guy gets away, he could theoretically endanger more lives. Is that a better response? Let them run away, put more lives in danger, and don't shoot until you're staring down the barrel of his gun?

I don't understand what you're arguing here, as pertains to this case. It was a good shoot, yes?
 
Okay, but they obviously were in pursuit of an armed suspect. You're operating on a false assumption that they didn't know who the guy was. That's not a factor in this case. In this case, they shot a fleeing armed suspect. What's the argument against it? If that guy gets away, he could theoretically endanger more lives. Is that a better response? Let them run away, put more lives in danger, and don't shoot until you're staring down the barrel of his gun?

I don't understand what you're arguing here, as pertains to this case. It was a good shoot, yes?

Them identifying the weapon before shooting. @nhbbear said he had read that the officers did see the gun before the chase. Which would be lean me to siding with the officers over the suspect.

So what I believed we were discussing is if it was ok for the officers to shoot a fleeing suspect, with only a report and the suspect running. Without the officers actually being able to identify him as a danger to the public (seeing the actual weapon and knowing he had held someone at gun point), then I would consider this a bad shooting.
 
Need CNN and Fox News take on it first before I can make judgment...
 
Still shot in the back, so preemptively saying 'well he was accused of robbery and had a gun' is not enough to convince me this was a good kill. Definitely gives an indication, though, that someone may have been playing stupid games.




Will you add those or am I blind?
You can shoot a fleeing violent felon in the back. And armed robbery counts as a violent felony.
 
Them identifying the weapon before shooting. @nhbbear said he had read that the officers did see the gun before the chase. Which would be lean me to siding with the officers over the suspect.

That's still beside the point. If you're reported to be an armed suspect, you're an armed suspect as far as they know, and expecting them to have to wait and see if you have a gun while fleeing, is a ridiculous standard. You can easily conceal a gun, and they're not taking a chance of letting you get away and endangering more lives.

The more common sense approach is don't run from the police, period.

So what I believed we were discussing is if it was ok for the officers to shoot a fleeing suspect, with only a report and the suspect running.

It's not just a vague "suspect" of no particular crime. It's an armed robbery suspect. ARMED. If the guy was running from a speeding ticket, and there was no indication a weapon or that the guy is dangerous, okay fine. That however, is a different scenario altogether than this one.

Without the officers actually being able to identify him as a danger to the public (seeing the actual weapon and knowing he had held someone at gun point), then I would consider this a bad shooting.

All they know is what's reported to them, or what they have personally witnessed. They're not clairvoyant.

Bottom line is, don't run from the cops. If you're innocent of what they suspect you of, stay put, and let the process work itself out. No good will come from running.
 
Hey if they thought he had a gun or was reported to have a gun and fleeing them this is his fault. At any moment he could have taken a hostage or turned and started shooting at the cops.

Look at the cops who was walking behind the guy a few years back trying to get the guy to stop. Once the cop got close he just turned and shot the cop.
 
I need to see what the Young Turks have to say before I comment on this.
 
That's still beside the point. If you're reported to be an armed suspect, you're an armed suspect as far as they know, and expecting them to have to wait and see if you have a gun while fleeing, is a ridiculous standard. You can easily conceal a gun, and they're not taking a chance of letting you get away and endangering more lives.

If the gun is concealed and not in hand, I'm not sure you can call them an immediate danger. Nor can you be sure that they even have a gun.

It's not just a vague "suspect" of no particular crime. It's an armed robbery suspect. ARMED. If the guy was running from a speeding ticket, and there was no indication a weapon or that the guy is dangerous, okay fine. That however, is a different scenario altogether than this one.

If they were not present can they be sure that there was gun actually involved. The police at this point were operating on a description of the people that committed the crime. How detailed was that description? I dont know. It could have been as vague as "two men one in black shorts and a black shirt". You are assuming they found the right guys.

All they know is what's reported to them, or what they have personally witnessed. They're not clairvoyant.

Bottom line is, don't run from the cops. If you're innocent of what they suspect you of, stay put, and let the process work itself out. No good will come from running

I agree they have to operate on the information available.

So the question for me is when the officers saw the gun. The video catches the very tail end of the chase. I dont know when they saw the gun during the encounter. However running from the police, regardless of how dumb it is to do so, does not make it automatically ok to shoot the suspect. A threat needs to be identified. If the officer did not identify the gun before he was shot then it would be a bad shooting.
 
If the gun is concealed and not in hand, I'm not sure you can call them an immediate danger. Nor can you be sure that they even have a gun.

If they are a suspect in an armed robbery, they are considered armed and dangerous and threat to public safety. This isn't complicated.

If they were not present can they be sure that there was gun actually involved.

Doesn't matter. They go by reports.

The police at this point were operating on a description of the people that committed the crime. How detailed was that description? I dont know. It could have been as vague as "two men one in black shorts and a black shirt". You are assuming they found the right guys.

Again, doesn't matter. They go by reports. If you've done nothing wrong, you've got no reason to run. Don't run. Don't get shot. Not hard rules to live by.

So the question for me is when the officers saw the gun.

But again, that point is moot. They don't have to see a gun. They just go on the reports. If you're reported to be armed, they go on the presumption that you are armed.

However running from the police, regardless of how dumb it is to do so, does make it automatically ok to shoot the suspect.

I don't know how many times I have to say it. They were chasing a suspect that was reported to be armed. That's all it takes. If they are mistaken, you let them apprehend you, and let the process sort itself out. If you run, you're just incriminating yourself further, and all bets are off on how they deal with you.

You want all these special little rules for the cops, but yet there is one little simple rule citizens guilty or not should follow, if they don't want to end up shot in this kind of situation. Don't fucking run from the cops.
 
If they are a suspect in an armed robbery, they are considered armed and dangerous and threat to public safety. This isn't complicated.



Doesn't matter. They go by reports.



Again, doesn't matter. They go by reports. If you've done nothing wrong, you've got no reason to run. Don't run. Don't get shot. Not hard rules to live by.



But again, that point is moot. They don't have to see a gun. They just go on the reports. If you're reported to be armed, they go on the presumption that you are armed.



I don't know how many times I have to say it. They were chasing a suspect that was reported to be armed. That's all it takes. If they are mistaken, you let them apprehend you, and let the process sort itself out. If you run, you're just incriminating yourself further, and all bets are off on how they deal with you.

You want all these special little rules for the cops, but yet there is one little simple rule citizens guilty or not should follow, if they don't want to end up shot in this kind of situation. Don't fucking run from the cops.

The supreme court has ruled that an officer must have reason to believe that the suspect is an immediate threat. So while he may be a suspect in an armed robbery, at what point during the chase was he an immediate threat?

Crime was reported.
Description given.
Two men matching the description are approached.
One suspect flees.
Gun is identified?
Fleeing suspect shot in back.

At what point, if no action is taken, will there be injury to someone? If the gun is not in hand, one could argue that there was no immediate threat from the fleeing suspect.
 
Back
Top