No. Well, they're not supposed to anyway. There's a cop in South Carolina being charged with murder[0] because he shot a fleeing suspect in the back. The only reason that officer is being charged is because someone caught it on video. Had it not been for that, he probably would not have been charged.
So yeah, I suppose it happens. But it's not legal.
I see that sort of incident in the news several times a year, and I can't possibly be seeing all of the reported incidents. There are just too many deaths for one person to keep up with:
Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)[1], was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that, under the Fourth Amendment, when a law enforcement officer is pursuing a fleeing suspect, he or she 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 officer or others."
Which to say, yes. Although I don't think there's actually a requirement to verbally warn them.
>> do police in the US shoot suspects when there is no threat other than the risk they will get away?
> he or she 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 officer or others."
> Which to say, yes. Although I don't think there's actually a requirement to verbally warn them.
"If you're running from a cop, you must be guilty. Right?" - Guilty or not is for judge and jury to decide. So far the only charge will be "fleeing/evading the police".
"Which means you're a criminal" - you are not a criminal unless convicted.
"which means you're probably a serious threat to others." - 'probably' is the key word. Cops cannot shoot people because they are probably dangerous. "Probable cause to believe" is not the same as "probably".
In 1985 the Supreme Court ruled that police are allowed to use deadly force to stop a fleeing suspect only if they have "probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others." It was soon tightened up to a standard of "objective reasonableness", so one can't simply "believe" in a threat.
Before 1985, using force, including lethal force, to stop a "fleeing felon" was accepted from common law--for any party, not just police. Lethal force would not be acceptable for minor or non-violent crimes. Doubtless the trope comes from practices pre-1985. I'd imagine the same provision of common law applied in the UK at one point, but I couldn't say when or how it stopped. Perhaps quite a long time ago.
Police and civilians also have legal justification for use of lethal force in defence of one's self or others from imminent use of deadly force (and usually other serious violent crimes like kidnapping or rape). Exactly how that line is drawn varies slightly; some states have a strong "duty to retreat" whenever possible, but most don't.
If the suspect is making advances towards the officer - even without a visible weapon - yes. The Tueller Drill [0] offers an explanation that few people seem to be aware of. A person 20ft/6m away is still dangerous. The issue is that a large amount of the public consider this a "safe, non-threatening" distance. Many people even think 6ft/2m is a safe distance because it is "outside of arm's reach".
At distances of ~5 meters the officer could be overpowered, wrestled to the ground, and have their own gun used to shoot them. So "unarmed" is a pathetic joke when people (and the media) use it as a synonym for "not dangerous".
Tueller Drill departs from the premise that you can only use your hand gun. This attitude is part of the problem. There is more to self-defense than wielding a hand gun. In certain situations, e.g., in a crowd of people, using a hand gun is definitely not a good idea. The notion of what distances is dangerous seems like a red herring; to me it only seems to prove that distance is not a very good indicator of what is threatening.
The number isn't plucked out of thin air and has some variance due to factors such as reaction speed and speed of the runner, but it's an average. 21 feet is a good "rule of thumb" but isn't an exact measurement of "safe distance". You could have a bit more distance - you could have less. It's a rule of thumb.
>Tueller Drill departs from the premise that you can only use your hand gun. This attitude is part of the problem.
TASER guns have a single shot. I wouldn't risk my life on me hitting my target in a single shot. Stunguns require proximity.
For pepperspray, would you bet your life on an 85% chance of something working? OC spray is not 100% effective and some people are straight up immune to the spray. AFAIK, humans are not immune to bullets.
I'd advocate for the use of the above non-lethals in reliable scenarios where the officer is concerned about possible escalation but does not yet feel to be in mortal danger. Which isn't many scenarios and draws into question if force was needed at all. Many non-lethal actions seem to be punished more than lethal actions, because "if force was necessary it should have only required lethal force if their life was in danger".
Which brings me back to the "legitimate danger" vs "public concept of danger" issue...
If you want more non-lethal options to be used, the justification of using them needs to be realistic - which involves educating the public on what is and isn't a dangerous/escalating scenario. I don't see that happening anytime soon, which is unfortunate.
I am really disturbed by the difference between the report filed and the video. I almost want to say that we need to start thinking about mandating video recording whenever deadly force is used... for example, the cops could deploy this thing whenever they were dealing with a suspect (although I'm sure its creators never intended for this particular use lol): The Lily Camera https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vGcH0Bk3hg
IF someone is running by foot, he is not a threat to anyone, unless he is swinging a weapon of somekind. Shooting someone while fleeing is terrible in so many levels.
If he is running by foot at the officer, he is a threat. If he is running at another person, he is a threat. If he is running away, he is NOT a threat. Simply, "unarmed and running" is not enough information.
I get the feeling from talking to folks who were tribal police or reserves, that charging a police office will get you shot. Trying to take a weapon from a police officer will get you shot.
The answer is no sane officer is going to shoot a non-dangerous person. Although the nature of non-dangerous is the problem. Several cases (New Mexico) that should have been national outrages have gone unreported, but a case (Ferguson) that the final report said was justified were demonized (although the report does make some very valid points about the police department in general and should have been part of an investigation years before). How we keep ignoring the problems with flash bangs, I will never know.
So yeah, I suppose it happens. But it's not legal.
[0] http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2015/06/08...