When Is it Prudent for a Police Officer to Shoot a Suspect

Alleged Crimes -- Civil Action

The four alleged crimes in this scenario are: a) an alleged armed robbery and assault on a woman at 2:00 A.M. in a high-crime area; b) an individual refused to comply with an officer's commands; c) that individual was found to be in possession of illegal substances (possibly cocaine); and d) providing false information from the woman who alleged she was robbed and assaulted.

Review of the scenario

The officer was in full uniform and so even though it was nighttime, he could be recognized as a bona fide law enforcement officer. Clearly the woman was lying to protect her husband -- albeit he had apparently assaulted her because she was bleeding -- and that behavior (lying to a police officer) brings the possibility of criminal sanctions.

The assault on the wife is a felony domestic abuse incident, though even though the wife lied to protect her spouse, he is going to be arrested for domestic violence. Of course there are laws against possession of drugs, so the fellow who was shot is up for some felony punishment once the substance in his pocket is proven to be a controlled substance. As to the police shooting of the man with drugs, this opens up the door for possible civil action. A good attorney could make a case in court that there was no justification for the officer to shoot the man (albeit, he was reaching into his pocket); the officer was 7 feet from the man and could have used a Taser, or could have held the man at gunpoint with his hand in his pocket.

Civil action

Regarding the use of police power, it is well-known that police have "broad powers to carry out their duties," and they are backed up by the U.S. Constitution and other laws as far as their jurisdiction and authority is concerned (Findlaw.com, 2011). But when police officers abuse their authority, and violate the civil rights of citizens, they can be brought to justice.

As a general rule police are immune from suits vis-a-vis the performance of their duties, but if their conduct is "willful" and "unreasonable," they can face civil penalties (Findlaw.com). However, just being negligent -- failure to "exercise due care" -- is not sufficient to justify a liability against an officer. Civil rights violations of police actions only kick in when " ... willful police conduct violates an individual's constitutional rights," Findlaw.com explains.

Case law against police officers

"By now we are all too familiar with the narrative: Officers fail to de-escalate, instead choosing to use a weapon on an unarmed ... individual to 'control' the situation" Berardini, 2015).

When police are guilty of misconduct, the statute known as Section 1983 is the "primary civil rights law" that people who were victims of police misconduct can use in special cases. That statute was passed when the U.S. Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1871. At that time there had been " ... oppressive conduct" by groups like the Ku Klux Klan and others.

The claim against police that is most often made is "false arrest," which means that an officer had violated the Fourth Amendment rights against "unreasonable seizure" (Findlaw.com). The cases brought against police, such as the one that could be brought based on the scenario presented in this assignment, are not easy to win. Moreover, making a claim against a police officer is often expensive for a citizen, because legal representation is costly and police departments have their own legal strategies that can thwart claims against police.