10

Self-Defense Law In A Nutshell Self-defense (or defense of others) with deadly force is generally authorized when a reasonable person would believe that the use of death force is necessary to prevent death or serious bodily harm to a person (i.e. there aren't non-deadly options that can accomplish this end) and a reasonable person would believe that the use ...


6

Rolfe and his partner should have apprehended Garrett using non-lethal force, or else just let him get away. In Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985): [Deadly] force may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the ...


5

Treason, per se, is probably not a valid reason to shoot someone on the spot given how that crime is defined in the U.S. Constitution. But, keep in mind that in Arrival the situation has been defined as a military operation. As a result, the relevant body of law would be the law pertaining to actions that a military officer may take to carry out a mission ...


4

Yes, police have special permission to use force For example, from s230 of the new-south-wales LAW ENFORCEMENT (POWERS AND RESPONSIBILITIES) ACT 2002: It is lawful for a police officer exercising a function under this Act or any other Act or law in relation to an individual or a thing, and anyone helping the police officer, to use such  force  as is ...


4

In Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985), the Supreme Court held that, under the Fourth Amendment, when a law enforcement officer is pursuing a fleeing suspect, the officer may not use deadly force to prevent escape unless "the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the ...


4

The answer to the titular question is, "Yes, and it need not even be a treasonous phone call." In the United States anyone can be justified in using lethal force if they can establish that, in the moment, it was reasonably necessary to prevent imminent, grievous, and unlawful bodily harm to themselves or to another person. (The italicized terms may vary by ...


4

It appears that Plummer v. State is still valid, but only in a very limited fact pattern. It is often quoted on the internet to justify the idea that a person may resist any unlawful arrest with force. That may have been true when Plummer was decided, and it was the clear holding of Bad Elk v. United States, 177 U.S. 529 (1900) But Bad Elk is bad law today ...


4

The case Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 may help to explain this. In a use-of-force case, "courts must identify the specific constitutional right allegedly infringed by the challenged application of force, and then judge the claim by reference to the specific constitutional standard which governs that right", therefore "The notion that all excessive force ...


2

Police officers are authorized to use force regardless of what they are wearing, to effect an arrest. One issue will be whether the defendants should know that they were under arrest, but there is no requirement to utter particular phrases when dealing with a combative lawbreaker. There will be an internal investigation at some level to determine whether the ...


2

Adding to all this is a recent case in Maryland where a homeowner shot two officers (both survived). The police served a warrant for a drug dealer to the wrong address and the home owner was not aware that the unlawful intruders were police officers until after he downed two of them. He immediately surrendered peacefully when he learned they were officers. ...


1

Since there is already an answer regarding the use of deadly force, I'll only address the other part of the question. Namely, Is the violent entry that police may use when serving a warrant different than violent entry that a criminal uses when breaking in? Given that the police were executing a warrant, they were within their legal right to break down any ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible