Fleeing Felon Rule?

[F16vipers]

Has anyone ever heard of this? I was browsing wikipedia the other day and came across this article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleeing_felon_rule

In Common law, the Fleeing Felon Rule permits the use of force, including deadly force, against an individual who is suspected of a felony and is in clear flight.[citation needed] Force may be used by the victim, bystanders, or police officers.

I've been unable to find an actual Federal Law that says anything about this. I'm wondering if this is legit or if it's just another BS wiki article that someone invented. It's interesting because in theory it may sanction the use of deadly force against a 'retreating' assailant.

Any ideas/laws?

[customloaded]

Yes, that doctrine (fleeing felon) was not law per se but was old and outdated doctrine, nothing to do with Federal Law. Reseach Tennesse v Garner and that case will shed some light on this subject. The case brought about what is now referred to "FLeeing Felon Rule."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_v._Garner

http://www.4lawschool.com/criminal/garner.htm

http://supreme.justia.com/us/471/1/case.html

CL

[Steve_NEPhila]

Skip the Federal law and check state laws. It is the responsibility of the states to have laws concerning intrastate criminal activity.

I must add that I personally would not shoot a "fleeing felon." That person fleeing may be fleeing the crime, you might have the wrong person. Considering that the fleeing person is not actually posing a threat of life or limb at that moment makes it likely to be prosecuted. Furthermore, I believe that the one rule that will apply in all states of the Union for self defense is using deadly force when one is in immediate fear for his/her life.

Permit me to put a more simplistic explanation on this matter... a fleeing suspect is the problem of the police, not me. I am a private citizen and I am interested in my safety first and the safety of my people second. Crime, criminals and law breaking is the problem of the state. With that being said, I do not have any kind of immunity like the state receives. Qualified immunity and absolute immunity exists for agents of the state, as a private citizen I am open to all types of liability. Because of this I will only concern myself with my safety and the safety of my people, period.

Take note of the current prosecutorial climate, a fleeing felon shooting will quite possibly lead to a criminal trial. If one were to shoot the wrong person, God save him. In my opinion, there are too many things that could go wrong here and very little that could go right. It would be best to use the time that a "fleeing felon" is running for you to do the same, and put some building between you as well. It is less expensive, safer and generally a better bet for survival. Make smart choices.

[The_War_Wagon]

This is the WHOLE reason I think Amber alerts are useless.

1) if you're not going to give me a DETAILED description of the PERP, the suspect vehicle (including license plate number), which way they were headed, etc., than what's the FRICKIN' point!?!? "OooooOoOOoOoOOoOOoh... a CHILD is missing!" SO WHAT?!?!? I can't do SQUAT about it, based on the piddly-ass NON-description you get in an Amber alert!!!

2) You give me a decent description, and license to go DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!!! Run the perp off the road, open fire on their car if I see it, pull him from the burning wreckage and let me beat him with a tire iron, etc. You put some damn TEETH into an Amber alert, and the thuggaz will be a shiiteload more scared of the citizenry, than they ever will be the cops and judges!!!

As the old doctrine allowed for, which the OP cited, the idea was to put the FEAR OF GOD into bad guys, so they wouldn't BE bad guys! All the current system allows for, is hand-wringing...

[TheWolff]

This is the WHOLE reason I think Amber alerts are useless.

2) You give me a decent description, and license to go DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!!! Run the perp off the road, open fire on their car if I see it, pull him from the burning wreckage and let me beat him with a tire iron, etc. You put some damn TEETH into an Amber alert, and the thuggaz will be a shiiteload more scared of the citizenry, than they ever will be the cops and judges!!!

Right, open fire on a vehicle with an abducted child inside. Good call. They want you to keep your eyes open. If you see the car, call the cops.

[F16vipers]

Skip the Federal law and check state laws. It is the responsibility of the states to have laws concerning intrastate criminal activity.

I must add that I personally would not shoot a "fleeing felon." That person fleeing may be fleeing the crime, you might have the wrong person. Considering that the fleeing person is not actually posing a threat of life or limb at that moment makes it likely to be prosecuted. Furthermore, I believe that the one rule that will apply in all states of the Union for self defense is using deadly force when one is in immediate fear for his/her life.

Permit me to put a more simplistic explanation on this matter... a fleeing suspect is the problem of the police, not me. I am a private citizen and I am interested in my safety first and the safety of my people second. Crime, criminals and law breaking is the problem of the state. With that being said, I do not have any kind of immunity like the state receives. Qualified immunity and absolute immunity exists for agents of the state, as a private citizen I am open to all types of liability. Because of this I will only concern myself with my safety and the safety of my people, period.

Take note of the current prosecutorial climate, a fleeing felon shooting will quite possibly lead to a criminal trial. If one were to shoot the wrong person, God save him. In my opinion, there are too many things that could go wrong here and very little that could go right. It would be best to use the time that a "fleeing felon" is running for you to do the same, and put some building between you as well. It is less expensive, safer and generally a better bet for survival. Make smart choices.

I agree 100% with what your saying. Another thing to think about with the Tennessee v. Garner is the impact this has on police.

Hymon acted according to a Tennessee state statute and official Memphis Police Department policy authorizing deadly force against a fleeing suspect. The statute provided that "if, after notice of the intention to arrest the defendant, he either flee or forcibly resist, the officer may use all the necessary means to effect the arrest."

So basically if a cop orders you to stop and you don't and you're suspected of perpetrating a felony...he can shoot you? I could understand if the felony is actually witnessed by the officer...but the term 'suspect' can apply to anywhere...whether the crime was witnessed or not.

Obviously I started this topic out in a different direction but after doing a little reading into it it seems like this 'rule' gives the police ALOT of grey area for using deadly force. It's literally stop or I shoot. That bothers me. I would hope that most police dept's policies follow similar requirements to use deadly force as the one's in the PA statutes.

[The_War_Wagon]

Right, open fire on a vehicle with an abducted child inside. Good call. They want you to keep your eyes open. If you see the car, call the cops.

WHAT CAR?!?! They don't even give THAT much, MOST of the time!!!

[F16vipers]

Right, open fire on a vehicle with an abducted child inside. Good call. They want you to keep your eyes open. If you see the car, call the cops.

I think you missed his point.

[MDJschool]

What is a felon?

Suppose I see someone possessing a machinegun or a firearm with an altered, changed, removed or obliterated manufacturer's number. I tell them that I am arresting them for a felony. They run. They run forever. I can just shoot him in the back, right?

When is a felon not a felon?

"A private person in fresh pursuit of one who has committed a felony may arrest without a warrant. And in Pennsylvania we have always followed the common law rule that if the felon flees and his arrest cannot be effected without killing him, the killing is justified. We hasten to note that before the use of deadly force is justified the private person must be in fresh pursuit of the felon and also must give notice of his purpose to arrest for the felony if the attending circumstances are themselves insufficient to warn the felon of the intention of the pursuing party to arrest him.
The common law principle that a killing necessary to prevent the escape of a felon is justifiable developed at a time when the distinction between felony and misdemeanor was very different than it is today. Statutory expansion of the class of felonies has made the common law rule manifestly inadequate for modern law.2 Hence, the need for a change or limitation in the rule is indicated. We therefore hold that from this date forward the use of deadly force by a private person in order to prevent the escape of one who has committed a felony or has joined or assisted in the commission of a felony is justified only if the felony committed is treason, murder, voluntary manslaughter, mayhem, arson, robbery, common law rape, common law burglary, kidnapping, assault with intent to murder, rape or rob, or a felony which normally causes or threatens death or great bodily harm. We also note that for the use of deadly force to be justified it remains absolutely essential, as before, that one of the enumerated felonies has been committed and that the person against whom the force is used is the one who committed it or joined or assisted in committing it. If the private citizen acts on suspicion that such a felony has been committed, he acts at his own peril. For the homicide to be justifiable, it must be established that his suspicion was correct."
Commonwealth v. Chermansky, 430 Pa. 170, 173-174 (Pa. 1968) (citations and footnotes omitted). http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...13411915377100

[TheWolff]

I think you missed his point.

No, I got it loud and clear. He said he wants a description and license plate of the vehicle and he wants the authority to open fire on it or run it off the road. Those are his words.

Maybe that's why they don't give people like him authority to do things like that. There's a serious lack of critical thinking going on there. Opening fire on a car with a kid in it? Even if you happen to miss the kid, the car is going to crash when you shoot the driver or run it off the road. You think that'd be good if a kid is in the trunk?