Mister Moose wrote: ↑Sep 2nd, '20, 20:16Right here you assign a higher duty to take risk.
I don't even know what this means. Higher than whose duty? Higher than what? All I meant by the piece you quoted was that police have a dangerous job, and one that entails risk. If they are not willing to undertake that risk, they should not be police. The same could be said of firefighters, soldiers, and many other occupations. Having a risky job does not give you a license to shoot people.
Mister Moose wrote: ↑Sep 2nd, '20, 20:16On your first statement, just because it deals with use of force (1) in a frisking case involving 2) a shooting from a distance 3) of a suspect whose hands were visible and 4) not reaching for what might be a weapon, does not make it a very compelling to the case at hand.
I'm not going to belabor this, but the Terry case defines what constitutes reasonable suspicion to stop someone - it says you need specific and articulable facts that support a reasonable believe that the person is armed. You can take that definition of reasonableness and apply it to a situation analyzing the use of force. The idea being, police need specific and articulable facts to support a reasonable belief in something, not just mere suspicion.
Mister Moose wrote: ↑Sep 2nd, '20, 20:16When you go further and read the finding that the standard for use of force is expressed as "the standard of whether a man of reasonable caution...", not a trained police officer
I never said this and it's not what the case law says.
Mister Moose wrote: ↑Sep 2nd, '20, 20:16not a trained police officer, it negates your prior assertions that the cop has a duty to see the weapon first, or be told the suspect has a weapon, etc, as opposed to exercise
reasonable caution which would include making a reach towards a storage area after resisting arrest and ignoring commands to stop. I understand you want to make that assertion, that a cop should take that risk. I don't think that view will hold water in any precinct or any court, and you have provided no foundation for it, rather your cases weaken your assertion.
This is where you are confusing issues. There's a continuum of things a police officer can do in response to facts that suggest he needs to exercise reasonable caution. That's what the Terry case is about - a police officer pat frisking someone out of reasonable caution because of a belief that they are armed and dangerous based on specific and articulable facts. Also, I've made no assertion that a cop should take a certain risk or not. All I have done is discussed when police use of force is justified. In the case of a person refusing to obey orders and reaching for a storage area, it seems to me there are multiple alternatives to exercise reasonable caution before shooting the person in the back. As to your thoughts on what might hold water in a court, I'll disregard them completely until you provide a cite to just one case. I've cited to many. If you were paying attention to that ABA article, you would have realized that it is discussing a case where a police officer was found guilty of murder in a shooting where the suspect had a knife and was walking away from police officers. Not all that dissimilar to the Blake case.