Lieutenant Baxter Case Study

On his person were 10 dollars and a purse from the house he just stole from. The father filed a lawsuit on the officer and the court found that since there was no immediate danger to that officer or the public the deadly force was unconstitutional. Added to that, a police officer may not seize an unarmed nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead.

Explain your answer. The officer had probable cause. Also there was a call from someone that seemed lives could be endangered because he had that handgun. There's no way of knowing if someone actually has a valid permit to carry by just looking at them. You have to do a search to find out. The best thing to do is take the gun until they get the information of whether they have a permit or not. You need to do this to insure you and the witnesses are safe. Since it was found the man had a permit and had committed no actual crime he was let go.

He could have waited for Billy to leave the liquor store and approach him differently than withdrawing his weapon. The Fourth Amendment is In the Garner decision and it says that in excessive force claims becomes the matter of seizure and the court must balance when seizure is needed against the nature and quality against seizure to figure out if the seizure was reasonable (Ross, 2015) Under the Garner decision, the officer must have probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of serious injury or death to officers or citizens, Lethal force may be warranted to prevent an escape or to protect a citizen, It may also be used only when a felony has been committed. The felon must be dangerous involving violence or a threat of violence, A suspect is only dangerous if he threatens the officer with a weapon or the officer has probable cause to believe the suspect committed an offense which he inflicted or threatened to inflict serious physical injury. (Ross, 2015) The officer must also give warning before using lethal force. Billy could sue for punitive damages and compensation because the officer did not warn him before he fired the weapon. The officer was very

In defense, Mr. Ceballos pleaded that if he were present his actions would have been the same. To stop or hurt the person that was trying to take what is rightfully his. Mr. Ceballos argued that his actions were justifiable because Stephen had come to his home previously attempting burglary and this second time he was prepared. Evidence of the previous break in that happened in March of the same year and testimonies do show that Stephen was there with an attempt to commit another crime, burglary. But the jury argues that had Mr. Ceballos been present for the incident his actions would have been justified due to the nature of the crime that was about to be committed. Had he been present there would have been cause for excessive force to defend his home, property, and himself. However, Stephen and Robert were the only people on the property and were not armed and there was no excuse for excessive/deadly force. In U.S. Courts, the law claims that it is illegal for anyone to own a deadly mechanical device that could bring harm or even death to the lives of those that are innocent or law enforcement officials who are acting within the scope of their employment. Concluding the case, Mr. Ceballos defense was not justifiable because he was not present for the incident and had he been present, he would have assessed

First and foremost Police officers are instructed during their grooming at the police academy to use deadly force when stopping a fleeing suspect, however Police Officers are also taught, but when there are no other options. As we have learned from a landmark case Tennessee V. Garner, That the use of lethal force by law enforcement in the United States is subject to the 1985 Tennessee v. Garner decision. Under “Garner, deadly force may be permissible if “the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe that he has charged a criminal offense involving the infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical injury”. Upon watching the video several times it appears to me that suspect Scott was not in

For this reason alone, the officer was allowed to point the gun at the man because he felt his life was at risk once the man had pointed an object that looked like a gun in his direction. The article title is not accurate at all because when you watch the video, it is clear to see that the man is swaying back and forth not complying with the officer. This alone shows the reader that this man was not compliant and an obvious threat to the

I reviewed the Brownwood Police Department Use of Force Supplement provided by Officer Bowman and Sgt. Carroll. I also reviewed L3 video 154500 and 154498.During the call for service 17-001493 Officer Bowman encountered a subject with a shotgun. In the report the subject pointed the shotgun at Officer Bowman in which Officer Bowman pointed his firearm at the suspect and began ordering the suspect to drop the gun. The suspect was ultimately disarmed by his father and taken into custody.

When looking at the case the judges were trying to see if there was an issue since the officer had reason to believe that the suspect was unarmed and not dangerous. One of the big factors that made the case an issue was that while the officer shot the young man he was only acting under the rules that he was allowed to follow. If the criminal was trying to evade arrest they could use deadly force in order to finish the arrest. The officer had a thought that if the young man had made it over the fence that he would have evaded the arrest totally. Another detail of the court was that they said the boy was under seizure of the police since the police had tried to detain him of his freedom to leave which had been decided in another court case back in 1975. The outcome of the case was 6-3 in favor of yes, that deadly force could

With knowing that the suspect had already prior run-ins with the law and that they were trying to run from officer's it gives an understanding that getting them into custody is of greater need since they have a firearm. Since the suspect was in a public area with a firearm the situation

Due to state laws, police officers are legally authorized to use deadly force under certain circumstances which may include, persons fleeing from the police, assaulting someone, or attempting to use lethal force against another person (including a police officer). Therefore, I picked this case not only because there has been many investigations and questions involving police discretion but because this investigation strongly questions if the force used by Lieutenant Tiller was reasonable enough. Primarily, Tiller confidently gave a reason to everyone why he shot Hammond, which was because he felt his life was in danger because he thought the driver was going to run him over. According to the textbook, “Officers may use deadly force when they reasonably believe that the action is necessary in defense of human life, including the officer’s own life, or defense of any person in immediate danger of serious bodily injury” (Lyman

The military supervisor that I have chosen for my supervisory interview has shown some extraordinary traits to being in the position that he’s held. Master Sergeant William Cope has displayed team building skills, military core values that are held to a high standard in the United States Air Force, and respects his troops and younger supervisors that represent loyalty, productivity, and commitment. Master Sergeant Cope has been one of the best supervisors I’ve had in any job that I’ve taken on. Master Sergeant William Cope is an effective and efficient team leader when it came to the job in Okinawa, Japan. He continuously believed in leading and maintaining the mission at hand from a day to day basis.

Another important finding Walker discovered from his research involves the “Confining the Use of Force” (Walker 510). In this chapter he discussed the importance of the law enforcement identifying when it is appropriate for them use force. According to the text, “A key element in a use of force policy is confining the use of force by specifying the circumstances what it may and may not be used” (Walker 51). If officers were aware of the lawful and unlawful acts that could take place, then maybe the police Walker then goes on to explain four lawful reasons to why officers would have probable cause to use force when constraining on someone. “Members may use the department approved non-lethal force techniques and issued equipment to: a. Effect an

I would like to recommend Captain Burke Tervort for the Army Baylor Program. Burke worked for me for a year while I was the Commander of the 48th Combat Support Hospital. During this time He worked toward meeting the program prerequisite such as Professional Military Education and personal study in preparation for the GRE. I asked his to work as the Bravo Company XO to help clear up some challenges that faced this company, he willingly accepted this assignment.

Captain Boning failed to apply the SOF imperative of “Anticipate Long-Term Effects” with the choices he made. His decision to have an improper relationship with Tsung led to his manipulation, which led to him not being able to perform his only task, and compromised the mission. His actions undermined the American Delegation by putting his personal interest above his responsibilities. He was not able to recognize that his actions led to the American Delegation to failure and the long term consequences from it. Boning also failed to apply the SOF imperative of “Recognize Political Implications”; his actions had international consequences that hurt American interest in Asia. This led to the loss of American credibility with the Asian delegations

Commander Fischer demonstrated superb leadership, strategic thinking and keen vision in all of his war-fighting missions. Directly supporting ten Flag Officers, Commander Fischer provided exemplary and exceptional leadership as Deputy Commander, Task Group (CTG) 1010.7 and Executive Officer of U.S. Naval Computer and Telecommunications Station, Far East (NCTS FE) from March 2014 through November 2016. CTG 1010.7 flawlessly executed Department of Defense Information Network (DODIN) defensive cyber and electromagnetic spectrum operations resulting in assured command and control and battlespace awareness for Commander, U.S. Fleet Cyber Command, Commander, U.S. TENTH Fleet, Commander, Task Force (CTF) 1010, Commander, U.S. SEVENTH Fleet and his