Page 22 - August 2018

Critics should refer to the law regarding police shootings
Recent shootings by law enforcement have been roundly criticized and improperly analyzed by the
d
are required to arrest criminals. They are not allowed to retreat; they must take action.
The Illinois legislature recognized this fact when it draft- ed and implemented the Peace Officer Use of Force stat- ute. Millions of dollars have been spent on legal think tanks devoted to analyzing police officers’ use of deadly force. However, they have consistently failed to recog- nize the legal duty imposed on officers by politicians. Task forces have been formed; reports and memoranda have been issued; consent decrees have been shaped; but they all ignore the fact that law enforcement is legally required to use deadly force against criminals, even those who do not pose an imminent threat to the officer. Apparently, none of these scholars bothered to look at the law when conducting their re- view. Had they done so, they would have seen that the law im-
poses a duty on law enforcement to shoot dangerous criminals.
720 ILCS 5/7-5 Peace Officer’s Use of Force in Making Arrest (in pertinent part, emphasis added)
(a) A peace officer, or any person whom he has summoned or directed to assist him, need not retreat or desist from efforts to make a lawful arrest because of resistance or threatened resis- tance to the arrest. He is justified in the use of any force which he reasonably believes to be necessary to effect the arrest and of any force which he reasonably believes to be necessary to de- fend himself or another from bodily harm while making the ar- rest. However, he is justified in using force likely to cause death
detractors. Much of the reproach comes when biased individuals view a shooting captured on video. The knee-jerk response is that the police officer was not in danger at the point at which he or she fired the weapon. They complain that the offender was mov- ing away from the officer, and therefore the officer was not in any danger. Therefore, the shooting was not justified.
FOP
Legal Report
DANIEL HERBERT
The detractors fail to acknowledge that the images on the screen, viewed from the comfort of their living rooms, are not what is experienced by the officer at the time of the shoot- ing. The video depicts two-dimensional images, rarely from the perspective of the officer. Moreover, the video does not account for actions which occurred before the video yet were known to the officer. Often, there is no sound, and the video never ac- counts for the physiological changes experienced by the officer in a rapidly evolving, highly intense situation.
Most disturbingly, though, the critics fail to acknowledge that the officer is legally authorized to shoot someone even when not personally threatened. Anyone, civilian or police, can use dead- ly force to protect themselves from immediate harm; however, police officers are given expanded authority to use deadly force because of their sworn duties as law enforcement. Police officers
22 CHICAGO LODGE 7 ■ AUGUST 2018