Duty to meet with equal force?

[doc_strange]

Recently, the Arizona Sun ran a story about the pending trial of a man who shot and killed an alleged attacker. Give it a read - it's short and plaintext. I'll wait...

Done? Ok. As there were no witnesses, I can see how the prosecutors could want to test the facts before a jury. I have no argument actually with that - and there may be facts unrevealed to the press that contradict the defendant's story. For the sake of this discussion, let's set aside the "who is funding the defense" controversy (which I have to say, really is technically irrelevant in our system of justice - How are the defendant's actions changed by what organization subsequently steps up to fund the defense? A defendant should not be judged by who helps fund the defense; that if anything is utterly unjust.).

That aside, there are some peculiar statements in the article. Here, I think is the big one:
After several warnings for [alleged attacker] to stop, [defendant] shot [alleged attacker] three times in the chest at close range. [defendant] was not harmed, and [alleged attacker] did not have a weapon in his hands at the time he was killed. . . other options were available.

My comments in the... um, comments. Discuss.

Comments

[docstrange.livejournal.com]

If the dogs just up and attacked him, ran off when he fired the warning shot, and then Kuenzli flipped out and came at Fish, then it's a little murkier.

Hmm. Interesting. So although there's a "flipped out" guy who comes at Fish, you think that's murkier. Can you go into a little detail on what you think makes the question of use of force murkier?

It sounds to me like you're taking the "equal force" argument - disarmed of his dogs, Kuenzli deserves to be met with equal and not superior force?

[erik]

No...I was assuming there was some established standard of which I was not aware...your response (which made clear to me that there was not, for non-law-enforcement people) and mine were written at the same time.

[docstrange.livejournal.com]

Ah. Yeah, I think the issue is that the standard for the ordinary citizen is a "reasonable" sense of immediate threat of bodily harm. When the guy is yelling and gesticulating, not reasonable. When he's rushing you to tackle, it could be reasonable depending on circumstances. I think the effort to make citizens meet the immediate threat of unknowable levels of bodily harm with only as much force as the attacker seems to be using is just unreasonable. Of course there must be a line, and that line is generally said to be the immediate threat of injury or death.

LEOs in some respects are held to lower standards during the arrest of a suspected felon who violently resists, but the officer still must reasonably believe that if the person escapes, they will represent a threat to others or the officer, and force must be the only reasonable option at the time.