Police shootings reignite legal debate

FILE - In this Aug. 22, 2020 file photo, friends, family and community members hold a prayer vigil and protest in Lafayette, La., for 31-year-old Trayford Pellerin, who was shot and killed by Lafayette police officers while armed with a knife the night before. In the span of 48 hours, two Black men in U.S. cities hundreds of miles apart were shot by police in episodes that set off a national conversation about the need for officers to open fire on people walking away from them. (Scott Clause//The Daily Advertiser via AP, File)

By ALANNA DURKIN RICHER and CLAUDIA LAUER Associated Press (08/29)

In the span of 48 hours, two Black men in U.S. cities hundreds of miles apart were shot by police in episodes that set off a national conversation about the need for officers to open fire on people walking away from them.

The Jacob Blake shooting in Kenosha, Wisconsin, and the killing of Trayford Pellerin in Lafayette, Louisiana, two days earlier have thrust into the spotlight a thorny and long-running legal issue that has on several occasions gone all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. And the Blake shooting has raised a host of other questions, including why the officer felt the need to shoot him seven times in the back at close range, and the prudence of police opening fire with children nearby.

Wisconsin authorities are investigating those questions as they weigh charges against the officer in a case that has reignited national protests over racial injustice. The shootings come less than three months after almost daily clashes between police and protesters in response to the death of George Floyd after a Minnesota officer knelt on his neck for several minutes.

Laws governing the use of deadly force differ from state to state, and past shootings of people who were fleeing from officers have played out differently across the country.

An Atlanta officer was charged with felony murder in June in the fatal shooting of Rayshard Brooks, who authorities said had taken an officer’s stun gun and was 18 feet away when the officer shot him from behind.

Prosecutors in South Carolina agreed to drop murder charges against former North Charleston police officer Michael Slager as part of a plea deal in the 2015 fatal shooting of unarmed Walter Scott. Slager, who shot the fleeing man five times in the back, is serving a 20-year federal sentence after pleading guilty to a civil rights violation.

And in Pennsylvania, a prosecutor in Pittsburgh’s Allegheny County said shooting a suspect in the back was unacceptable when he charged a former officer after he fatally shot 17-year-old Antwon Rose as he fled a 2018 traffic stop. But a jury declined to convict the officer, who said he thought he saw a gun.

“Even if it appears to be horrific, it doesn’t mean that there is a law that they have violated,” said Raleigh Blasdell, a criminologist and professor at North Central College in Illinois.

Police said 31-year-old Pellerin, who was killed, was carrying a knife Friday when he tried to enter a convenience store after causing a disturbance at another store earlier. Video shows police following Pellerin and shots are heard as he opens the store’s door. Authorities have not identified the officer or officers who shot Pellerin or said where or how many times he was shot.

Blake, 29, was shot as he leaned into his SUV, where three of his children were seated. The Kenosha police union said Friday that officers were dispatched there because of a complaint that Blake was attempting to steal the caller’s keys and vehicle. A union attorney said in the moments leading up to the shooting, officers saw Blake holding a knife and made multiple requests for him to drop it but he was uncooperative. Blake also “forcefully fought with the officers, including putting one of the officers in a headlock,” the union said. After police tried twice unsuccessfully to use a stun gun on Blake, officer Rusten Sheskey shot him at close range while holding onto his shirt, authorities said.

Blake survived but is paralyzed. Federal authorities said they will conduct a civil rights investigation into the shooting.

Wisconsin law provides officers with a defense to criminal charges if a shooting is “a reasonable accomplishment of a lawful arrest.” The state’s vague law essentially allows officers to use any and all force to accomplish a lawful arrest, Blasdell said.

Furthermore, juries often steer away from second-guessing an officer’s split-second decisions even when other officers on scene testify that they didn’t shoot because they didn’t see a threat, said Philip Stinson, a former police officer and criminologist at Bowling Green State University.

Yet, the tactics used by the officer who shot Blake are highly questionable, said Seth Stoughton, another former officer.

If police believe someone has a knife, they’re supposed to keep their distance, not get closer, said Stoughton, now a law professor at the University of South Carolina. He also questioned why the officer followed Blake around the car with his gun drawn instead of simply grabbing him to stop him.

But David Klinger, who as a rookie Los Angeles police officer in 1981 fatally shot a man who pulled a butcher knife on another officer, urged the public not to rush to judgment in either case.

“If it turns out these officers in Louisiana, these officers in Wisconsin, did something wrong then they need to be held to account,” said Klinger, now a criminologist at the University of Missouri-St. Louis. “But we have a system, we have a process; we need to let that process work itself out.”

It’s difficult to say whether a suspect being shot in the back leads more often to criminal charges or convictions because police often don’t release those details, and recent cases have come to light only through videos, Stinson said.

The legal thinking surrounding such cases has evolved over the years, but even as policing reforms are considered across the country, few have been focused on restricting when officers can shoot someone fleeing police.

In the 1970s, officers were often authorized under state laws to shoot someone in the back to keep them from evading arrest even if that suspect didn’t pose a threat. But a 1985 Supreme Court decision in a Tennessee case said officers could use lethal force to stop a fleeing felon only if they have reasonable grounds to think the suspect is a danger to police or bystanders.

Years later, the high court said an officer’s fear in the heat of the moment, not just the actual threat, was relevant in deciding whether a shooting was legally justified. That could mean an officer could be found justified in a shooting if he or she truly believed the suspect had a gun but turned out to be wrong.

Regardless of whether they result in criminal charges, experts said both cases show an urgent need to better train officers so they don’t resort so quickly to their gun.

“When I was a police officer and someone walked away from you and it looked like they were going to get something, you tackle them … It wouldn’t have crossed my mind to bear down on them and shoot,” Stinson said.

https://apnews.com/4fae9445d18ee4f6c89ef800b872b45f

Copyright 2020 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed

Posted in: Civil Rights, Crime & Criminals, Crime Prevention, Criminal Threatening, Defund/Dismantle Police, Knife Attack, Lawsuits, Officer Safety, Police, Police Brutality/Abuse of Authority, Policies & Practices, Public Safety, Racial Issues, Shootings, Use of Deadly Force, Use of Force

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

sixteen + twenty =

Terms of Use for Posting Comments

Terms of Use

This site (the “Site”) is operated and maintained by Law Enforcement Education Foundation, Corporation (“Company”). Throughout the Site, the terms “we”, “us” and “our” refer to Company.  The words “user,” “you” and “your” as used herein refer to you.

Please read these terms and conditions of use (“Terms of Use”) carefully before contributing content. If you do not agree to these Terms of Use, please do not contribute content. Your use of the Site is subject to the Terms and Conditions found here .

By contributing content to the Site, you represent and warrant that you are at least eighteen (18) years old and that you have read and understand these Terms of Use and any amendments thereto and agree to be bound by them. If you are not at least eighteen (18) years old or you do not agree and accept these Terms of Use, you are prohibited from contributing content.

From time to time, we may permit users to submit content to the Site.  You hereby acknowledge and agree that by submitting remarks, comments, suggestions, ideas, graphics, feedback, edits, concepts, comments, photographs, illustrations and other materials (other than personal information and/or registration information) through the Site (individually and collectively, “Submissions”), you (i) grant us a nonexclusive, royalty-free, perpetual, transferable, irrevocable and fully sub-licensable right to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, translate, distribute, publish, create derivative works from and publicly display and perform such Submissions throughout the world in any media, now known or hereafter created, without attribution to you; (ii) grant us the right to pursue at law any person or entity that violates your and/or our rights in your Submissions; and (iii) forever waive any and all of your rights, including but not limited to moral rights, if any, in and to your Submissions, including, without limitation, any all rights or requirements of attribution or identification of you as the author of the Submission or any derivative thereof.  We reserve the right to remove any of your Submissions from the Site, in whole or in part, without notice to you, for any reason or no reason.

Submissions are made voluntarily. Any submissions which include personally identifiable information are subject to our Privacy Policy found here .  You may not upload or otherwise publish content on the Site that (i) is confidential to you or any third party; (ii) is untrue, inaccurate, false or other than an original work of your authorship; (iii) that relates to or impersonates any other person; (iv) violates the copyright, trademark, patent or other intellectual property rights of any person or entity; (v) contains any content, personally identifiable information or other information, or materials of any kind that relate or refer to any other person or entity other than the provider of the products, goods or services to which the Submission relates; or (vi) violates any law, or in any manner infringes or interferes with the rights of others, including but not limited to the use of names, information, or materials that (A) libel, defame, or invade the privacy of any third party, (B) are obscene or pornographic, (C) are harmful, threatening, offensive, abusive, harassing, vulgar, false or inaccurate, racially, sexually, ethnically or are otherwise objectionable or otherwise contrary to the laws of any place where such Submissions may be accessed; (D) constitute personal attacks on other individuals; (E) promote criminal, immoral or illegal activity; (F) promote or advertise any person, product or service or solicit funds; or (G) are deemed confidential by any contract or policy.

You are solely responsible for any Submissions you make and their accuracy. We take no responsibility and assume no liability for any Submissions posted by you or any third party.

Unless approved by us in writing in advance, you agree not to: (i) provide or create a link to the Site; or (ii) create any frames at any other sites pertaining to any of the content located on the Site.

We reserve the right, in our discretion, to update, change or replace any part of these Terms of Use for Posting Comments by posting updates and/or changes to our Site.  It is your responsibility to check this page periodically for changes.  Your continued use of, and/or access to the Site, following the posting of any changes to these Terms of Use for Posting Comments, constitutes your acceptance of those changes.