Fugitive who stabbed officer fatally shot after manhunt in Texas

[stevenleser]

86. I think I detect the problem with your opinion on this shooting

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what due process means in the case of a violent suspect. Due process does not mean police have to let you put their lives in danger.

The Supreme Court has ruled on this in the Garner case. If the suspect is a violent and dangerous suspect, they have the right to shoot him after some warning is given and the suspect does not comply. That IS due process in this situation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_v._Garner

Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)[1], was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that under the Fourth Amendment, when a law enforcement officer is pursuing a fleeing suspect, he or she may use deadly force only to prevent escape if the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.

-------------
Here is some more text from Garner:
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/471/1/case.html

A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead. The Tennessee statute is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes the use of deadly force against such fleeing suspects.

It is not, however, unconstitutional on its face. Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force. Thus, if the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape, and if, where

Page 471 U. S. 12

feasible, some warning has been given. As applied in such circumstances, the Tennessee statute would pass constitutional muster.


-------------

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_process

'Due process' is the legal requirement that the state must respect all of the legal rights that are owed to a person. Due process balances the power of law of the land and protects the individual person from it. When a government harms a person without following the exact course of the law, this constitutes a due-process violation, which offends against the rule of law.

Due process has also been frequently interpreted as limiting laws and legal proceedings (see substantive due process), so that judges - instead of legislators - may define and guarantee fundamental fairness, justice, and liberty. This interpretation has proven controversial, and is analogous to the concepts of natural justice, and procedural justice used in various other jurisdictions. This interpretation of due process is sometimes expressed as a command that the government must not be unfair to the people or abuse them physically.

United StatesMain article: Due Process Clause
The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution each contain a Due Process Clause. The Supreme Court of the United States interprets the Clauses as providing four protections: procedural due process (in civil and criminal proceedings), substantive due process, a prohibition against vague laws, and as the vehicle for the incorporation of the Bill of Rights