Glad you and your family were not hurt.
here is some reading for all.......these are the federal guidelines that Law Enforcement Officers have to abide by in the spit second decision on the use of force. Sorry had to copy and paste so not the easiest to read.
Read the last line.........even if the force is justified..........you as a civilian or a sworn officer can be sued and possibly lose the case. SAD but true.
USE OF FORCE
Federal Guidelines for the Use of Force
In 1973, excessive force guidelines were established in Johnson v. Glick, 481 F.2d 1028 (2nd Cir. 1973), which was a corrections case. These guidelines were follows:
1. The need for the application of the force;
2. The relationship between the need for the force and the amount of force used;
3. The extent of injury; and
4. Whether the force was applied in a good faith effort to restore order, or maliciously and sadistically for the sole purpose of causing harm.
A similar decision was administered in a case involving police in Wise v. Bravo, 666 F.2d 1328 (10th Cir. 1981). The court found that a use of force was unconstitutional if:
1. It causes severe injury;
2. The injury was grossly disproportionate to the need for the action under the circumstances; and/or
3. The action was inspired by malice rather than merely careless or unwise excess of zeal so that it amounted to an abuse of official power that shocks the conscience.
In 1985, the U.S. Supreme Court established what is known as the "fleeing felon rule" in Tennessee v. Garner. In this case, an officer in Memphis, Tennessee, shot a fifteen year-old that was fleeing the scene of a residential burglary. The youth was about to get away, and the officer was "reasonably sure" that he was not armed. Under the authority of Tennessee Statute and Memphis P.D. policy at that time, officers were allowed to use deadly force to prevent the escape of fleeing felons. The U.S. Supreme Court ruling was as follows:
"The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony subjects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable. It is not better that all felony suspects die than that they escape. Where the suspect poses no immediate threat to the officer and no threat to others, the harm resulting from failing to apprehend him does not justify the use of deadly force to do so. It is no doubt unfortunate when a suspect who is in sight escapes, but the fact that the police arrive a little late or are a little slower afoot does not always justify the killing of the subject. A police officer may not seize an unarmed, non-dangerous suspect by shooting him dead."
USE OF FORCE
The Court went on to define under what circumstances deadly force could be employed:
"Where the officer has probable cause to believe the suspect poses a threat of
serious physical harm, either to the officer or others, it is not constitutionally
unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force. Thus, if a suspect
threatens the officer with a weapon, or if there is probable cause to believe that he
committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious
physical harm, deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape and if –
where feasible – some warning has been given."
In the case of Graham v. Connor, 409 U.S. 1, 105 S. Ct. 1649, 85 L.Ed.2d 443 (1989), the
U.S. Supreme Court heard a case with a less than lethal issue. The court reviewed the
standards of evaluating officer conduct according to those used in Tennessee v. Garner. The
court held that a central issue in physical force cases was whether the officer's actions are
objectively reasonable in light of the facts and circumstances at the time of the incident. This is
referred to as the Fourth Amendment "reasonableness" standard. The application of
reasonable force will require a careful case -specific review of the following factors:
1. The severity of the crime in question;
2. The apparent threat posed by the suspect;
3. Whether the suspect was trying to resist or flee; and
4. Judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer coping with a tense, fastevolving
situation.
The court further stated that an officer's "evil intentions will not make a Fourth Amendment
issue out of an objectively reasonable use of force; nor will an officer's good intentions
make an objectively unreasonable use of force constitutional."
USE OF FORCE
Tenn State Law
The laws of self defense and defense of a third person are crucial to the mission of the law
enforcement officer. Tactical officers as well as patrol officers should be well acquainted with
the statutes regarding use of force in their states. In most cases, the statutes will be divided into
three areas:
? Self-defense. (TCA 39-11-611)
? Defense of a third person. (TCA 39-11-612)
? Use of deadly force by a law enforcement officer. (TCA 39-11-620)
While many states will delve further into areas such as protection of property, prevention of
trespassing and use of force by civilians, the basic elements of the use of force for law
enforcement are covered by these three areas.
Liability
Criminal Liability: The law enforcement officer should be cognizant that his actions in any use
of force situation can bring about grave consequences and he should therefore be intimately
familiar with his department's use of force continuum, its policies and procedures, as well as
state and federal laws. In any use of force situation that results in death or serious bodily injury,
the law enforcement officer must face the fact that his actions will be scrutinized and if he has
acted improperly, he could face criminal prosecution in State and Federal court. Prosecution
and conviction can result in criminal penalties including jail time, fines and punitive damages.
Civil Liability: In addition to the possibility of criminal prosecution, officers can expect some
type of civil action to take place following any serious use of force incident. This could include a
Federal Civil Suit under Sec. 1983 which could result in civil penalties awarded to the plaintiff.
As with criminal prosecution, punitive damages may be awarded to the plaintiff. Punitive
damages are required to be paid by the defendant as a means of punishment. The important
thing to remember in dealing with a civil trial is that the burden of proof for civil action is less
than that of a criminal prosecution. A law enforcement officer may escape a conviction or even
charges in criminal court only to be sued by the plaintiff and a judgment awarded.
