The situation of police officer Jones shooting has raised disturbing questions about his situational judgment with the investigative process, the total use of force, in additional the searching of the suspect. The questions arise when if ever, police officers are justified in using deadly force in an investigated stop. Officers Jones use of unjustified deadly/lethal force may simply symbolize unjustifiable violence. How does the constitution requirement apply to when a police officer is or isn’t justified in the application of deadly/lethal force? When a police officer use of deadly/lethal force is justified or when is it just a felonious assault? One resource to locate information concerning justified and unjustified uses of deadly force would be in the
…show more content…
The suspect Officer Jones was addressing failed not only to place his hands where they could be seen, there was no pre-existing threat of a weapon no adequate grounds for officer Jones firing his weapons. Since officer Jones had reason to believe that the male was armed and dangerous. It is arguable that an officer must assess the threat in every situation to properly identify furthermore selecting the correct use of force for the threat (Terry v. Ohio 392 U.S. 1 (1968), 1968, p. xx).
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). Thus, our statutory standards for using deadly force seem to parallel the federal constitutional
The suspect Officer Jones was addressing failed not only to place his hands where they could be seen, there was no pre-existing threat of a weapon no adequate grounds for officer Jones firing his weapons. Since officer Jones had reason to believe that the male was armed and dangerous. It is arguable that an officer must assess the threat in every situation to properly identify furthermore selecting the correct use of force for the threat (Terry v. Ohio 392 U.S. 1 (1968), 1968, p. xx).
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). Thus, our statutory standards for using deadly force seem to parallel the federal constitutional