New Policy Allows Chicago Police to Shoot at Fleeing Vehicles

[dsnover]

OK. But the citizens that live there can't defend themselves. Note that the only qualifier is that the 'driver or passengers are suspected of committing a felony'. SUSPECTED Wow.


http://cbs2chicago.com/local/police....2.1105766.html

CHICAGO (CBS) ―
Click to enlarge
1 of 1
Related Slideshows

In To Be Out: Gay Celebrities Coolest Fighter Jets ... EVER! Top 10 Smartest And Dumbest Dog Breeds Jewish Celebrities Celebrities Separated At Birth? ESPN Star Erin Andrews The Chicago Police Department has instituted a major change in policy regarding the use of deadly force.

Effective next Monday, police officers will be able to fire their guns under circumstances where they previously could not.

The new policy, from police Supt. Jody Weis and confirmed by WBBM Newsradio 780 Wednesday morning, allows police officers to shoot at fleeing vehicles if the driver or passengers are suspected of committing a felony.

The old policy allowed officers only to shoot at vehicles that pose a threat to them or others, such as if the driver were trying to run down the officer.

But now, officers need not be under attack to open fire.

Mike Krauser, WBBM 780
(© MMIX, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.)

[General Geoff]

Shoot first & ask questions later. There's no potential for abuse here, at all...


Also, how does this constitute a mere policy change? This seems to condone murder.

[Yellowfin]

Consider that in Chicago owning and/or possessing a pistol is a felony. Cops can shoot at you in your car to kill you because they SUSPECT you might be doing something 100% legal in the real America. Think about that for a minute.

[MostlyHarmless]

I must be missing something. How are they going to make sure the driver is actually aware that they want him/her to stop? Note, they are allowed to shoot if they suspect a felony. That doesn't mean that the driver actually did/does commit a crime or is aware of being suspected of such. Now all of the sudden the car gets riddled with bullets ... I don't know about you, but I certainly would be more likely to floor the accelerator than the brakes.


Jan

[FireHawk77028]

And its good that chicago isn't crowded and police are expert marksmen.

[customloaded]

I mean, we wouldn't want 25 year old Supreme Court Decision to stand in the way of Chicago's PD's new policy...Tennessee vs. Garner...fleeing felon rule...

Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)[1], was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that under the Fourth Amendment, when a law enforcement officer is pursuing a fleeing suspect, he or she may use deadly force only to prevent escape if 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.

At about 10:45 p. m. on October 3, 1974, Memphis Police Department Officers Matthew Negard and Elton Hymon were dispatched to answer a burglary call. The neighbor, who had made the police call, told the officers upon their arrival at the scene that someone was breaking into the house next door. Officer Hymon went behind the house as his partner radioed back to the station. Hymon witnessed someone running across the yard. The fleeing suspect, Edward Garner, stopped at a six-foot high chain-link fence. Using his flashlight, Hymon could see Garner's face and hands, and was reasonably sure that Garner was unarmed. After Hymon ordered Garner to halt, Garner began to climb the fence. Believing that Garner would certainly flee if he made it over the fence, Hymon shot him. The bullet struck Garner in the back of the head, and he died shortly after an ambulance took him to a nearby hospital. Ten dollars and a purse taken from the burglarized house were found on his body.

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."

Garner's father, whose name was Gregory Brown, then brought suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee under the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, naming the City of Memphis, its mayor, the Memphis Police Department, its director, and Officer Hymon as defendants. The District Court found the statute, and Hymon's actions, to be constitutional. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed. The Court of Appeals held that the killing of a fleeing suspect is a "seizure" for the purposes of the Fourth Amendment, and is therefore constitutional only when it is reasonable. The court then found that based on the facts in this case, the Tennessee statute failed to properly limit the use of deadly force by reference to the seriousness of the felony.


[edit] Majority opinion
Justice White wrote for the majority, first agreeing with the Sixth Circuit's determination that apprehension by use of deadly force is a seizure, then framing the legal issue as whether the totality of the circumstances justified the seizure. In order to determine the constitutionality of a seizure, White reasoned, the court must weigh the nature of the intrusion of the suspect's Fourth Amendment rights against the government interests which justified the intrusion.

The use of deadly force against a subject is the most intrusive type of seizure possible, because it deprives the suspect of his life, and White held that the state failed to present evidence that its interest in shooting unarmed fleeing suspects outweighs the suspect's interest in his own survival.

White examined the common law rule on this matter and its rationale. At common law, it was perfectly legitimate for law enforcement personnel to kill a fleeing felon. At the time when this rule was first created, most felonies were punishable by death, and the difference between felonies and misdemeanors was relatively large. In modern American law, neither of these circumstances existed. Furthermore, the common law rule developed at a time before modern firearms, and most law enforcement officers did not carry handguns. The context in which the common law rule evolved was no longer valid. White further noted that many jurisdictions had already done away with it, and that current research has shown that the use of deadly force contributes little to the deterrence of crime or the protection of the public.

On the basis of the facts found by the district court, Hymon had no reason to believe that Garner was armed or dangerous. White ordered the case to be remanded for determination of the liability of the other defendants.


[edit] Dissent
In her dissent, Justice O'Connor highlighted the fact that police officers must often make swift, spur-of-the-moment decisions while on patrol, and that the majority did not properly consider this aspect of the case. Moreover, burglary is a serious crime which often leads to rape and murder, and the Tennessee statute represents the state legislature's judgment that such crimes may require the use of deadly force in order to protect the public against those who commit such crimes. She also disagreed that a suspect's interest in his own life necessarily extends to the right to flee from the scene of a crime.

[TXDMERC73]

well what if they decide to fire at someone they think is fleeing and the driver is deaf ? a deaf driver wont be able to hear sirens and keep driving till he sees them in his rear view mirrors....

[jerkin]

Wow, I can't wait to see the lawsuit that stems from this the first time some unarmed woman with a baby in the back seat gets shot because the cop "suspected" she had committed a felony, lol.

[mrjam2jab]

And its good that chicago isn't crowded and police are expert marksmen.

^^^^exactly

[camper]

Wow, I can't wait to see the lawsuit that stems from this the first time some unarmed woman with a baby in the back seat gets shot because the cop "suspected" she had committed a felony, lol.

The next law will be that police cannot be sued for accidents while in the performance of their duties.

camper