Unarmed Man shot by Amtrak Police
- Thread starter crescent-zephyr
- Start date
Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:
All Law enforcement officers take an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. By definition, among other things, that includes respecting and upholding civil rights, the Bill of Rights, (that includes) the right to peaceably assemble, and the protection against illegal search and seizure. I cannot find any justification for an LEO shooting any unarmed person in the back. If the story was reported correctly it is likely that the Amtrak officer could be charged with felonious assault with a deadly weapon. .
KC Ghost Rider
Service Attendant
I will agree this is what most reasonable people think should be the rule for using deadly force. However, federal law enforcement personnel have up to six circumstances where the use of deadly force is authorized:
- Self defense and/or defense of others
- Assets involving National security (Think weapon of mass destruction here)
- Assets not involving National security, but are inherently dangerous to others (missiles, mortar shells, car bombs, etc)
- Serious offenses against persons (Think armed robbery, an act of murderous intent, attempted arson of a hospital, to prevent an aggravated assault, etc)
- To protect the public health and safety
- Arrest and apprehension (When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to arrest or apprehend a person who, there is probable cause to believe, has committed one of the serious offenses listed above or to prevent the escape of a person who as committed one of the serious offenses listed above).
Just my two cents.
Last edited by a moderator:
BCL
Engineer
So, Amtrak Police are both federal law enforcement and railroad police, correct? At least in my state, federal law enforcement (with one specific exception) have to be authorized by a local law enforcement head to enforce state or local laws, except in the case of an "emergency". Even the FBI doesn't have that authority unless invited or given that specific authority. I heard of one county where the Sheriff rescinded the authority of Forest Service law enforcement to enforce state/local laws in his county. However, railroad police in California are specifically given the the authority of a state peace officer.
It is different under the laws of each state. Peace officer and police officer powers may not be the same thing, treatment of Federal LEO, and railroad police also differs state to state. Illinois obviously is what is relevant here. Of course, if it was on Amtrak property, (or in most places in pursuit from) they can act on any Federal statutes they believe are being violated.
Don Newcomb
Lead Service Attendant
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2008
- Messages
- 287
HP_Lovecraft
Service Attendant
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2008
- Messages
- 236
I think we will have to wait until the officer explains his actions. The victim just died, so I think this increases the seriousness.
Its hard to imagine why the officer would have fired, but witnesses have stated that he threatened he was going to fire before he did. Shooting someone because they were trespassing and doing drugs at a train station is clearly not justified. Maybe he meant to give "warning shots"? but missed? Or thought they were part of the nearby felony burglary? Maybe he though the victim was reaching for a weapon? (seems a common reason).
For once, it would be nice for the officer to just admit he made a mistake, and take full blame and responsibility. Instead of coming up with 1000 excuses.
Its hard to imagine why the officer would have fired, but witnesses have stated that he threatened he was going to fire before he did. Shooting someone because they were trespassing and doing drugs at a train station is clearly not justified. Maybe he meant to give "warning shots"? but missed? Or thought they were part of the nearby felony burglary? Maybe he though the victim was reaching for a weapon? (seems a common reason).
For once, it would be nice for the officer to just admit he made a mistake, and take full blame and responsibility. Instead of coming up with 1000 excuses.
Law Enforcement Officers do NOT fire "Warning Shots" in any Jurisdiction!
In fact it is Prohibited per Policy in all Agencies.
As for shooting unarmed persons in the back that are fleeing, this is a far too common occurrence and also is prohibited in all LE agencies I am aware of. YMMV
In fact it is Prohibited per Policy in all Agencies.
As for shooting unarmed persons in the back that are fleeing, this is a far too common occurrence and also is prohibited in all LE agencies I am aware of. YMMV
Devil's Advocate
⠀⠀⠀
That works fine for middle class white men like me. Doesn't work out quite as well for people of other colors and races and social backgrounds. At this point I've seen enough to consider police testimony as no more credible than anyone else. They're just as deliberate and desperate to push their agenda as the people they arrest/maim/kill. Out of all the people I grew up with only the unapologetic racist ever tried to become a police officer.
BCL
Engineer
California Penal Code 830.
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=830.33.&lawCode=PEN
830.33.
The following persons are peace officers whose authority extends to any place in the state for the purpose of performing their primary duty or when making an arrest pursuant to Section 836 as to any public offense with respect to which there is immediate danger to person or property, or of the escape of the perpetrator of that offense, or pursuant to Section 8597 or 8598 of the Government Code. Those peace officers may carry firearms only if authorized and under terms and conditions specified by their employing agency.
(e) (1) Any railroad police officer commissioned by the Governor pursuant to Section 8226 of the Public Utilities Code, if the primary duty of the peace officer is the enforcement of the law in or about properties owned, operated, or administered by the employing agency or when performing necessary duties with respect to patrons, employees, and properties of the employing agency.
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=830.8.&lawCode=PEN
830.8.
(a) Federal criminal investigators and law enforcement officers are not California peace officers, but may exercise the powers of arrest of a peace officer in any of the following circumstances:
(1) Any circumstances specified in Section 836 of this code or Section 5150 of the Welfare and Institutions Code for violations of state or local laws.
(2) When these investigators and law enforcement officers are engaged in the enforcement of federal criminal laws and exercise the arrest powers only incidental to the performance of these duties.
(3) When requested by a California law enforcement agency to be involved in a joint task force or criminal investigation.
(4) When probable cause exists to believe that a public offense that involves immediate danger to persons or property has just occurred or is being committed.
In all of these instances, the provisions of Section 847 shall apply. These investigators and law enforcement officers, prior to the exercise of these arrest powers, shall have been certified by their agency heads as having satisfied the training requirements of Section 832, or the equivalent thereof.
This subdivision does not apply to federal officers of the Bureau of Land Management or the United States Forest Service. These officers have no authority to enforce California statutes without the written consent of the sheriff or the chief of police in whose jurisdiction they are assigned.
(b) Duly authorized federal employees who comply with the training requirements set forth in Section 832 are peace officers when they are engaged in enforcing applicable state or local laws on property owned or possessed by the United States government, or on any street, sidewalk, or property adjacent thereto, and with the written consent of the sheriff or the chief of police, respectively, in whose jurisdiction the property is situated.
© National park rangers are not California peace officers but may exercise the powers of arrest of a peace officer as specified in Section 836 and the powers of a peace officer specified in Section 5150 of the Welfare and Institutions Code for violations of state or local laws provided these rangers are exercising the arrest powers incidental to the performance of their federal duties or providing or attempting to provide law enforcement services in response to a request initiated by California state park rangers to assist in preserving the peace and protecting state parks and other property for which California state park rangers are responsible. National park rangers, prior to the exercise of these arrest powers, shall have been certified by their agency heads as having satisfactorily completed the training requirements of Section 832.3, or the equivalent thereof.
(d) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, during a state of war emergency or a state of emergency, as defined in Section 8558 of the Government Code, federal criminal investigators and law enforcement officers who are assisting California law enforcement officers in carrying out emergency operations are not deemed California peace officers, but may exercise the powers of arrest of a peace officer as specified in Section 836 and the powers of a peace officer specified in Section 5150 of the Welfare and Institutions Code for violations of state or local laws. In these instances, the provisions of Section 847 of this code and of Section 8655 of the Government Code shall apply.
In NY, it is mostly defined in the CPL. Separate definitions are provided for who is a police officer, and who is a peace officer, as there are differences in arrest powers, and some special categories of peace officer have firearms limitations and narrowing of scope on their authority. Those that are defined as railroad police under Section 88 of NYS Railroad Law are police officers. For some reason the LIRR Police are listed separately, they no longer exist as they are part of MTA-PD so they are defined as officers of an authorized PD of an authority.
BCL
Engineer
Venturing off topic, but I was serious about the law enforcement authority of federal officers in California being complicated. There was a case where the Sheriff of El Dorado County was receiving reports of Forest Service officers going ho citing people for everything, as well as harassing people lawfully carrying firearms. Open carry is mostly legal in California outside of incorporated cities.
I guess it can get complicated when an officer's duties are in different law enforcement jurisdictions. Golden Gate National Recreation Area is in three different counties, and San Francisco is a city and county with both a police chief and sheriff. However, (LE) park rangers don't need authorization, but they also have the US Park Police which often has similar duties.
Railroad police probably have statewide powers because they need to cover a lot of territory.
I guess it can get complicated when an officer's duties are in different law enforcement jurisdictions. Golden Gate National Recreation Area is in three different counties, and San Francisco is a city and county with both a police chief and sheriff. However, (LE) park rangers don't need authorization, but they also have the US Park Police which often has similar duties.
Railroad police probably have statewide powers because they need to cover a lot of territory.
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2010
- Messages
- 4,888
Huh? How about protecting the lives of other citizens? Based on your theory, someone killing or threatening to kill or harm others but not in any manner threatening the police or without any knowledge that the police are even nearby could not be legally shot by an officer. A person holding a knife to the neck of a victim is not a threat to a police officer 50 feet away. Your statement doesn't hold water.
Cho Cho Charlie
Engineer
I see it more like the cab company regularly telling all of their customers, to please wait inside the drug store, for their cab to arrive. Why would you think the drug store has the responsibility to "eat" the costs incurred to it, by those all those cab customers?
As I said, that's really shady of MegaBus. It STILL doesn't make them responsible for someone's criminal actions. The two are not related.
If you're going to argue that MegaBus is responsible for dumping a bunch of thieving thieves and druggy drug druggers near Amtrak's property and that criminals doing criminal things near/in Union Station are all MegaBus' fault, then you'd also have to go after taxis, Uber, Lyft, the CTA, Metra, and any individual driver who drops someone off on/around/near Union Station.
Come on, now...
Last edited by a moderator:
neroden
Engineer
I think it's time to disarm the police, like they did in England. (They still have "armed response teams" for specific incidents where they know they will encounter people with guns.) There are too many of these killings by police. Take away the temptation to kill by taking away the guns from most of them.
Totally impractical, at least until you first disarm the criminals. If you can figure out how to do that, I'll happily endorse the plan.
The police and other law enforcement are most definitely not the problem. It would really help immensely if more people would simply approach law enforcement with greater respect, as opposed to the confrontational approach that just serves to exacerbate the situation. Too many persons - probably including the man in this case - are in large part responsible for bringing these problems on themselves (even if police are in the wrong).
Last edited by a moderator:
Ryan
Court Jester
That's nothing more than a BS pile of victim blaming. Nobody deserves to be shot in the back. Nobody deserves to die in the back of a police van while being "taken for a ride" because he dared to not want to speak with police.
There isn't just "the problem", there are many, and while yes, criminals are a problem, so are overzealous cops that deem themselves to be judge, jury, and executioner in too many situations where it isn't warranted.
There isn't just "the problem", there are many, and while yes, criminals are a problem, so are overzealous cops that deem themselves to be judge, jury, and executioner in too many situations where it isn't warranted.
True what Ryan said!
Old saying: "Two wrongs don't make a right!"
Old saying: "Two wrongs don't make a right!"
I agree, you are absolutely correct. Not trying to blame the victim, either; I would, however, argue that too many people make things worse for themselves in their interactions with law enforcement. You should not be shot in the back for just running away (unarmed), but you shouldn't run in the first place.
Last edited by a moderator:
If the cop is harassing you then you should walk or run away."It is not illegal to run from a cop who has not detained you in any way, or has not issued an order to you. The U.S. Supreme Court (Troxel v. Granville, No. 99-138) has made clear that people not suspected of criminal activity can ignore a police officer who approaches them" This police state that we are living in has just been accepted. Unfortunately now LEA are not always working in the publics best interest.
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2003
- Messages
- 8,507
That case has nothing to do with police. TROXEL V. GRANVILLE (99-138) 530 U.S. 57 (2000) involves the right of parents to set visitation rights for their children, specifically grandparents right to visit.
Last edited by a moderator:
BCL
Engineer
I think that was pulled from an incorrect quote in a stackexchange post. Apparently the relevant case is Illinois v. Wardlow. It's more that flight itself without a lawful order to stop isn't subject to punishment, but that flight presents reasonable suspicion to detain and search someone.
http://supreme.findlaw.com/supreme_court/briefs/98-1036/98-1036-mer-ami.html
The simple thing to do is walk away and if asked, don't consent to a search.
crescent-zephyr
Engineer
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2015
- Messages
- 4,631
When I asked Chicago Amtrak police if I had the right to refuse a luggage search the officer immediately said I was behaving strange and that it was concerning to him... I was sitting calmly in my Roomette and speaking very calmly to him.
Oh yeah... And the reason for my search and questioning? I had booked a one way ticket from Chicago to Salt Lake City... So suspicious!
Just do what they ask and smile... If you try to use your rights, they will punish you. Shame this man lost his life.
Oh yeah... And the reason for my search and questioning? I had booked a one way ticket from Chicago to Salt Lake City... So suspicious!
Just do what they ask and smile... If you try to use your rights, they will punish you. Shame this man lost his life.
Ryan
Court Jester
Nope. Our rights exist for a reason, and I didn't spend 7 years in uniform defending those rights to sit on my butt and watch people give them away.
