[Peace-discuss] Police policy on lethal force

[Mikhail Lyubansky]

John,

The Champaign policy actually addresses this directly (yes, shooting a
fleeing felon is not allowed). See below:

a. Officers are prohibited from using deadly
> force against "fleeing felons" when the only
> condition for the application of deadly force
> is that the individual is a "fleeing felon".
>
> b. A 'fleeing felon" should not be presumed to
> pose an immediate threat to life in the
> absence of actions or circumstances that
> would lead one to believe that a threat to life
> exists.
>


And yes, the distinction between "fleeing" and "escaping arrest" is not at
all clear to me.

Mikhaill





On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 3:32 PM, John W. <jbw292002 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Beyond all this discussion of procedure, I would think that Champaign's new
> use of deadly force policy is flat-out illegal.  At least I've heard
> virtually all my life that a cop can't shoot a fleeing felon.  That's why,
> in all the crime movies and TV shows, the cop chases the fleeing felon on
> foot for blocks and blocks and over fences and rooftops and so on.  If it
> were legal, it'd be much easier to stop the fleeing felon by simply shooting
> him in the back.
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 3:18 PM, LAURIE SOLOMON <LAURIE at advancenet.net>wrote:
>
>   I concur that Barbara’s bringing it out into the light of day and
>> focusing public attention not only on the change in the “Deadly Force”
>> policy but  on the substance of the  new provisions in that changed policy
>> was very important and relevant to not only the this particular incident
>> being discussed but policy and policy making in Champaign in general.  I
>> have to admit that I was caught unawares of this change although I was not
>> really surprised by the substance of the change in that I sort of expected
>> such changes – even though not as extreme or vague as this.  I was really
>> offended by the non-transparent nature of the process  by which such a
>> changes in policy were developed, instituted, and became part of the
>> established policy without any public hearings, any public discussion or
>> formal official approval of the City Council, or publication of the new
>> policy allowing the public easy access to its content. The changes are not
>> mere mundane administrative changes such as the introduction of new data
>> collection and assemblage forms and processes, new uniforms and dress codes,
>> new complaint response protocols, etc. that affect routine internal police
>> operations; they are significant and substantive changes in the scope and
>> range of permissible  police discretionary behaviors and  of approved
>> courses of action by officers in the field.
>>
>>
>>
>> The most significant question that the establishment of this new policy
>> raises revolves more around the general issues than issues pertaining to
>> this particular tragic incident. The focus should be on issues of
>> transparency in the administrative policy making process, the public
>> participation in the process by which such policies are considered,
>> developed, and established, the need for elected officials to officially
>> vote on and approve policy changes when they are substantive in nature as
>> contrasted to merely mundane procedural changes in substantive policies or
>> changes in procedural policies, and the making public aware of all such
>> policies and policy changes and  their contents easily accessible to the
>> public in written form.  There should be an insistence on all administrative
>> policies, rules, and regulations being published in written form and easily
>> available to the public before they can be made effective.  There are too
>> many administrative policies, rules, regulations, and routine operating
>> procedures that are informal unwritten in nature, that are uncoedified ,
>> that are vague as well as ambiguous as to their meaning and concrete
>> applicability so as to be capricious or allow for capricious implementation
>> in actual concrete ciscumstances.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net [mailto:
>> peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] *On Behalf Of *John W.
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 21, 2009 12:14 PM
>> *To:* C. G. Estabrook
>> *Cc:* Peace-discuss List; Barbara kessel
>> *Subject:* Re: [Peace-discuss] Police policy on lethal force
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 11:41 AM, C. G. Estabrook <galliher at illinois.edu>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Barbara--
>>
>> Your comments last night on the changes in the police policy document on
>> lethal force seem to me very important indeed.  Nice work.
>>
>> I hope they will be followed up.  How e.g. is the policy established?
>>  City council who permitted it must be retired.
>>
>> Regards, Carl
>>
>>
>>
>> For those who haven't read it and didn't hear Danielle's comments last
>> night, the policy says,
>>
>> "A peace officer is justified in using deadly force only when ... such
>> force is necessary to prevent the arrest from being defeated by resistance
>> or escape."
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20091021/fcc39bcc/attachment.html