hello, yes of course the police have to follow state laws both while on the clock and in their personal lives. a police officer is required in some states to carry a weapon off duty as well and intervene if they witness crime occurring. but as far as cops shooting people or using deadly force which is what your talking about, they do have to follow laws and policy and procedures governing the use of force laws etc. as far as seeing cops on the news killing people with knives etc and wondering how this can be legal etc, is a complex question. I think that every situation is very different, each case is complex and the circumstances are very unique. in other words, each case is totally different, and tyically the test that is usually met for each cop is that at that point in time did he or she feel that his or a citizens life seem to be threatened? in other words, did the officer feel that his or someone elses life seem to be in danger? this test is usually all that is needed in using deadly force etc. a lot of other factors weigh in on whether someone uses deadly force and the media will leave this out of the news etc. the officers experience, and circumstances at the time of deadly force all play into things. the officer may have prior knowledge of this person, the person may have a history of violence? he may be a mental, he may be on drugs, alcohol? he may have a history of trying to kill police officers etc. one has to remember that the cops decision to use force are based on the cops total experiences, his training, policies procedures, state laws, and these things may differ in each state... in other words, a cop may have used deadly force in a situation where the person reached in his or her pants in what was percieved as reaching for a deadly weapon. lets say the cop fires, killing the suspect, but it turns out that the deadly weapon was simply a nickel plated kids cap gun? so does that mean that the cop is totally wrong and should go to jail? does that meant that the cop should lose his job? does that mean that the suspects family will be entitled to compensation and they should sue the cops? well it all goes back to what they call the test of reasonableness. what does that mean? well, we are human, so are cops, right? and at the time of incident, the suspect disregards all verbal commands by the police officer, the officer also knows that this person has a history of carrying a weapon etc., so ya see the circumstances change the picture here. the suspect could have complied with the officers and one wonders why the suspect does not comply, and when he reaches in his pants etc, one with experience and training may feel that his life is in danger and therefore he may tell the suspect to show him his hands etc but he refused etc. so if you wait too long, he may produce a weapon and kill you or an innocent bystander. i mean imagine if you allow the dude to reach in his pants then he pulls a real weapon, and fires killing a 9yr old innocent child thats standing by etc.? imagine if her fires and the indiscriminant bullet stikes the pregnant women whose rolling down the road exercising etc... ya see, then the tables turn as people will say he man!!! why didnt that cop shoot that dude! if the cop saw him reach in his pants and he refused to listen to him then why did the guy even get the gun out in the first place etc. as you see, circumstances, the law, policies and procedures, the years of training and experience all play into whether a REASONABLE person would do the same thing under the same circumstances.. the question is what is reasonable! common sense prevails..
