[HPforGrownups] Re: TBAY: Canon College: DEs and Aurors 101 (WAS "Despi...

[eloiseherisson at aol.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 43392

Cindy:
> Cindy swallows, licking her parched lips.  "Well.  Uh.  I'm not so 
> sure about that.  I . . . I was doing some reading about the use of 
> deadly force in this *enormous* criminal procedure law textbook that 
> I carry around.  And there are certain *rules* about when cops can 
> use deadly force.  They can use deadly force in defense of 
> themselves or in defense of others, of course, like Elkins says.  
> 
> "But things get murky when we get to the subject of fleeing 
> suspects.  See, cops aren't normally allowed to shoot a suspect in 
> the back when the suspect is trying to run away.  Not normally.  But 
> they *can* shoot suspects in the back in one situation that might be 
> pertinent here – when the suspect poses a danger if allowed to 
> escape.  I think there are limitations on this, of course.  Like 
> cops can only do this for suspects who commit a serious crime in the 
> presence of the cop, maybe.  I think there are other limitations, 
> like there has to be an attempt to apprehend and a warning or 
> something.  That's basically how I think it works in the muggle 
> world.  In the U.S.  About 15 years ago when I last read that law 
> textbook.  Unless something has changed, anyway.
> 
> 

I'm *not* a lawyer, so I don't have any great law tomes handy, but I think it 
might be relevant to add a cultural dimension here.

Remember that over here, the police are *not* normally armed. Only certain 
officers are allowed to bear arms and the circumstances under which they are 
allowed to bear, and even more to use arms are strictly controlled. *Any* 
police killing is news-worthy and ends up in an inquiry. I don't think we 
really have a concept (certainly not a publically perceived concept) of the 
police being *allowed* to kill under certain circumstances: any police 
killing will have to be justified according to its individual merits. We 
don't have a gun culture and the idea that the police should be allowed to 
kill, except in the most extreme of circumstances (probably immediately 
life-threatening), is alien to us. 

By which I mean that the passage in question possibly seems more extreme in 
the measures allowed (whatever they were) to British readers than to American 
readers.

Eloise
(Expecting to be corrected!)


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]