In the 1987 casino robbery flashback, we see 3 police shoot (and presumably kill) the guy escaping from the casino. I was under the impression that police can only shoot if a suspect is a danger to either police or the public. How is a guy running out of a casino with cash a danger to anyone? I don't think they would be justified to shoot in this instance. If this was the case, then every suspect who ran from police would be shot dead.
shareThere is a law on the books in most states that says us as police offers are justified in shooting a convicted felon if they are fleeing, additionally we are also justified if we witness a suspect commit a felony. It's call the "fleeing felon" law.
That being said, there are instances where a jury has determined that although the law says what it says it has ruled against several police officers when it was determined the convict or suspect didn't pose a threat. Because of that, it has become common practice to only shoot if the person poses a threat, and def never in the back (like they did in the movie, a big no no).
Thanks for the reply. I live in Australia and it's unheard of here to shoot a fleeing suspect. Police here will only shoot if the suspect pulls a weapon which is a threat to the police or public.
shareI see. Just important to realize it's not any suspect, has to be a convicted FELON or a suspect of a FELONY. A misdemenor, like petit larceny or other small stuff like that doesn't qualify.
shareNot Police Officers, they were casino security...Cop rules do not apply.
____________________________________
"F##k around, lay around." -Unknown
@MisterZed I didn't see it as an America thing so much as a casino thing. Their private security guards are usually ex-cops, so it's not like the police are itching to arrest one of their own.
Casinos seem to have their own laws:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYa1IsxGVuc
Weren't they private security guards?
shareOh wow, in that case those guys are in serious trouble... murder charges probably.
shareI'm not so sure about that. Dunno if you're from America, but I'd expect American states to have laws allowing you to shoot thieves.
Why else would every other person have a gun in their house or under the counter in stores? Considering Vegas is out in the middle of nowhere they probably have lax laws.
Well what are the use of my brains if I'm tied up with a dumb cluck like you?
To answer: You're asking two different questions:
In America, you are allowed to defend yourself, especially in your own home.
Generally, we respect life over property. So, it's not "open season" on all thieves. If I am unarmed and I rob you of cash and I run away, you are not "allowed" to use deadly force UNLESS you have a reasonable expectation that I am a clear and present danger.
As depicted in the film, if I am running away with my hands full of money, I am not an immediate threat to you nor anyone else. Now, "IF" I had caused great bodily harm to someone in commission of the crime, you could claim self-defense (fearing for your life) OR defense of others. Someone who has/had just caused great bodily harm may be considered a clear and present danger when fleeing.
As depicted, private security AND the casino could face serious charges for shooting a non-violent fleeing thief in the back (especially if it's on video tape, as it would be today).
In the uk a man shot a thief in the back with a shotgun on a farm it was quite a big story, he was sent to prison for manslaughter. in the uS i remember seeing a very similar story about a man shooting and killing some unarmed theif in the back also as he tried to flee. He was hailed as a hero and treated as a local celerity lol i think as he was nealry 80 or something.
shareon weekends, sure.
His name...was Julio Iglesias!
Those casinos were run by the mob in the 80s. Those security guards were following their bosses orders, regardless of the law.
----------------------
Boopee doopee doop boop SEX
No. Not in 1987. Police could not legally shoot a fleeing suspect in the back under those circumstances. Not then or now. That being said, they would probably have gotten away with it at that time in Vegas.
[deleted]
It's important to understand that Vegas is owned and run by the casinos. Without them, it would just be an empty stretch of desert there. To not expect the law to be "flexible" there would be naive.
share