Protect & Serve: lethal force last not first option
Darrell Smith
Military Veteran: Afghanistan, Albania, Germany, Iraq, Japan, Korea, Turkey
Police all over the world face a complex situation in regards when to use lethal force. Police must to protect citizens against Islamic extremist attacks and dangerous criminals. However, police cannot keep killing citizens who do NOT pose the same level of threat as an terrorists and dangerous criminals.
Inherent in modern jus ad bellum is the customary requirement that all uses of force satisfy both the necessity and proportionality criteria (99). While we are not trained in police protocols and tactics, we served in the U.S military in several combat zones and were required to follow specific rules. Yes, even in a war zone, military personnel must follow Rules of Engagement (ROE). We believe that American law enforcement must do the same in a more effective manner.
Video footage show Tulsa police shooting an unarmed man to death (98) on 16 September 2016 after he approached his SUV with his arms raised. We are a white middle class family who had a brother killed by police, a friend who was a police officer killed during routine traffic stop and we have served in the military in combat zones. We have earned the right to express our opinion.
We are a white family who has experienced the killing of our brother by police and we have experienced the killing of a law enforcement officer who was known in our community as a good friend. The officer was killed by a man who was stopped for a routine speeding ticket. We have the right to voice our opinion that if law enforcement officers are going to carry guns and bullets, they must have better training and rules of engagement. We cannot allow police officers to believe that no matter the situation, they have a "get out of jail" card simply by claiming they felt threatened. We are a military family who has served in combat zones, love our country, and support and respect law enforcement.
We understand and appreciate that the police deal with angry and potentially dangerous people everyday. The family of the unarmed black man shot and killed by police in Oklahoma on 16 Sep 2016 is calling for criminal charges against the police officer. The on-the-ground and helicopter videos seem to strongly support the family's position. If an independent investigation supports what we see on the video, this appears to be an ugly and unnecessary killing of a American citizens and it must be stopped.
Even the United Nation's Charter (99) provides legal prohibitions against the use of force. UN Charter Article 51 ( provides: "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense..." Does this customary right of self-defense eliminate the concept of "anticipatory self-defense"? It is well-accepted that the UN Charter provides the essential framework of authority for the use of force, effectively defining the foundations for a modern jus ad bellum. Inherent in modern jus ad bellum is the customary requirement that all uses of force satisfy both the necessity and proportionality criteria.
Necessity. To comply with the necessity criterion, States must consider the exhaustion or ineffectiveness of peaceful means of resolution, the nature of coercion applied by the aggressor ....the likelihood of effective community intervention. In other words, force should be viewed as a "last resort."
Proportionality. To comply with the proportionality criterion, States must limit the magnitude, scope, and duration of any use of force to that level of force which is reasonably necessary to counter a threat or attack. In the context of jus ad bellum, proportionality is sometimes referred to as "proportionate force." However, the principle does not require limiting the response to mirror the type of force constituting the threat or attack.
Recent deaths at the hands of police continue to raised questions about the rules of engagement used by police. When should police be permitted to initiate force? Perhaps the use of force must satisfy both the necessity and proportionality criteria. If our military in combat zones must follow these standards, then perhaps the police should too.
In footage filmed from a police helicopter, Terence Crutcher, 40, can be seen slowly walking from the edge of a street north of Tulsa toward his vehicle, which authorities said had been reported abandoned at 7:36 p.m. (8:36 p.m. ET) and left running in the middle of the road; 16 Sep 2016. One officer follows Crutcher from behind with a gun trained on him; 3 more officers converge on the scene as Crutcher lowers his hands and approaches his SUV. Moments later when Crutcher reached into the stalled car in the middle of the north Tulsa road, one of the officers fired a Taser gun and a 2nd officer fired a single gunshot at the man. Crutcher immediately dropped to the ground and was rushed to the St. John Medical Center, where he later died. (98)
(99) https://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/operational-law-handbook_2013.pdf
(98) https://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/unarmed-driver-killed-police-tulsa-oklahoma-42209298
Military Veteran: Afghanistan, Albania, Germany, Iraq, Japan, Korea, Turkey
8 年H.R. 1877 would reauthorize and amend programs that provide grants for training on mental illness awareness to teachers, emergency personnel, law enforcement and other individuals. Assuming appropriation of the specified amounts, CBO estimates implementing the bill would cost $62 million over the 2017-2021 period.H.R. 1877, Mental Health First Aid Act of 2016. September 26, 2016.|Cost Estimate As passed by the House of Representatives on September 26, 2016. https://www.cbo.gov/publication/52053
Military Veteran: Afghanistan, Albania, Germany, Iraq, Japan, Korea, Turkey
8 年Hello America, we need to change the law and the training if it is too easy for a police officer assert a defense that he used deadly force to defend himself from the use or imminent use of deadly physical force, the prosecutor would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that (1) the police officer did not believe that the person was using or about to use deadly force against him, (2) the officer did not use the deadly force to protect himself, or (3) the officer's belief was unreasonable.
Military Veteran: Afghanistan, Albania, Germany, Iraq, Japan, Korea, Turkey
8 年law enforcement officer who is prosecuted for murder or manslaughter would be able to claim as a defense that he complied with the statutory standard for using deadly force. Once this defense has been properly raised at trial, the state would have to disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt in order to get a conviction (State v. Hardwick, 1 Conn. App. 609, cert. den 193 Conn. 804 (1984)). To meet the initial burden of proof to establish this defense either the state or the defense must present sufficient evidence to raise a reasonable doubt in the mind of a rational juror as to whether the officer's use of deadly force was justified under CGS § 53a-22 (State v. Lewis, 220 Conn. 602 (1991) and State v. Bailey, 209 Conn. 322 (1988)). The test for evaluating self-defense claims under CGS § 53a-22 is a subjective-objective test. The jury must first determine whether the defendant honestly believed that the use of deadly force was necessary in the circumstances. If the jury determines that the defendant in fact had believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, the jury must make a further determination as to whether that belief was reasonable, from the perspective of a reasonable police officer in the defendant's circumstances (State v. Smith, 73 Conn. App. 173, cert den. 262 Conn. 923 (2002)).
Military Veteran: Afghanistan, Albania, Germany, Iraq, Japan, Korea, Turkey
8 年Hello Police. Common Sense and the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the Fourth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution prohibits the use of deadly force to effect an arrest or prevent the escape of a suspect unless the police officer reasonably believes that the suspect committed or attempted to commit crimes involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical injury and a warning of the intent to use deadly physical force was given, whenever feasible (Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)).
Military Veteran: Afghanistan, Albania, Germany, Iraq, Japan, Korea, Turkey
8 年Will the Tulsa Police please explain how the female police officer who was supported by other officers and a helicopter decide to kill the man who had reported his SUV stalled on a street? The law authorizes law enforcement officers to use deadly physical force only when they reasonably believe it is necessary to: 1. defend themselves or a third person from the use or imminent use of deadly physical force or 2. make an arrest or prevent the escape from custody of a person whom they reasonably believe has committed or attempted to commit a felony involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical injury and, where feasible, they have given warning of their intent to use deadly physical force (CGS § 53a-22 (c)).