[Leaning Right]

I don’t know about Missouri, but in Tennessee if someone commits a crime and a citizen or a cop tries to apprehend them, they are authorized to use whatever force is necessary to bring them to justice, including deadly force.

Not so, at least not since 1985. That was when the US Supreme Court ruled that deadly force "may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others."

So it seems that a cop (or a citizen) had better be able to make a very strong argument that the suspect poses a significant threat. Shooting simply to prevent an escape isn't enough.

Fleeing Felon Rule

[DannyTN]

"Not so, at least not since 1985. That was when the US Supreme Court ruled that deadly force "may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others."

Okay, well, I think it was the summer of '86 when they told me that. So maybe it had changed and they were just not informed.

But again, in this case, Brown had assaulted the officer and used physical force against a store clerk. I think could make the case.

[DCBryan1]

"may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others."

I would say that beating an on-duty cop, in accordance with his duties, and authorized by the state and city AND ALMOST HAD HIS FIREARM taken away presents a "significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others".

Good shooting officer.

Civilization thanks you!

[SeaHawkFan]

See my post #80:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3194143/posts?page=80#80