How to evaluate a force decision

When you read about a police officer shooting somebody, how can you tell what happened and whether the officer made the right decision? Maybe the person on the street can't really tell, but there are investigators and panels of people who make these judgments, and they have developed ways of evaluating the evidence to help them make these decisions.

Here's one of the ways they do it. Excerpt:

1) Know the rules. The basics of self-defense law, going all the way back to English Common Law, can be summed up: “You may use the minimum force you believe is reasonably necessary to safely resolve the situation.”

‘May’—not required, though officers have a duty to act and may be required to go in, no citizen is under a legal obligation to defend self or third party. Moral obligation is another story.
‘Minimum Force’—The least impact on the other person’s life. Kill only if injuring won’t work, injure only if pain won’t work, pain only if pushing or holding won’t work, verbal if that will work, and no force at all is best.
‘Reasonably necessary’—Do you need to do this at all? Can you leave? Would another reasonable person also believe there was no choice?

That’s not enough, of course. You need to know the particular statutes of the relevant state, the exact wording of the stand-your-ground law or castle doctrine, if that is relevant. If you are trying to evaluate an officer’s use of force, you must also know the policy and procedure the officer was working under.

Worth reading all of it.

This entry was originally posted at http://snippy.dreamwidth.org/346756.html, where there are comments. You may comment here or there.