When Can the Police Shoot to Kill?

The Justice Department will, thankfully, probe into the activities of the Ferguson police force. While there are plenty of reasons to do so, I wonder whether the probe will question the original use of lethal force that led to Michael Brown's tragic death at the hands of police officer Darren Wilson (the recipient of supportive donations), because there are some difficult questions to ask.

This Washington Post story critically examines the authority of police officers to use lethal force.

The first of the Supreme Court rulings that still govern law enforcement policies nationwide on the use of deadly force is Tennessee v. Garner. In the 1985 case, the court concluded that police officers could not shoot at a fleeing suspect simply to prevent their escape. They could shoot, however, if they had probable cause to believe the person was a violent felon and posed a significant threat of death or serious harm to the community.

The more overarching decision is the 1989 Graham v. Connor ruling, written by Chief Justice William Rehnquist and at a time when violence against police was rising amid a crack epidemic. In that case, Charlotte diabetic Dethorne Graham had rushed into a convenience store to get orange juice to stop an oncoming insulin attack but left the juice inside and left suddenly because of the long line. He asked a friend who had driven him to the store to instead drive him to another friend’s house for food.

Charlotte city police officer M.S. Connor, suspicious at Graham’s hasty exit, followed him and his friend, stopped them for questioning and didn’t believe Graham’s story about being diabetic. As Connor was checking by radio with the store, Graham got out of his car and passed out briefly. Backup officers arrived, told Graham to shut up and rammed his head into a patrol car while throwing him in the back of it.

Graham sustained minor injuries and argued that the officer’s use of force was excessive. But the Supreme Court found that the officer’s actions were justified because he reasonably believed the force he was using was necessary to prevent or detect a crime in progress.

More on this in coming weeks.