Court decisions have told us that, as they attempt to throw, then the thrower is the threat. As long as you can articulate in court, and back it up, that you believed you or someone else was in immediate danger of death or serious bodily harm. Kinda hard to do with a rock or brick or bottle (prove it, I mean). yeah, might hurt, might cause an injury, or you can simply move (courts have said that) but good luck trying to prove in court that you were in immediate danger of death or serious bodily harm.
Once the object, bottle, brick, rock, etc HAS been thrown, then the suspect is no longer the threat and you have to focus on the object.
no, we can't. I hear the objection, the "But" already. We (LEO) are not allowed to use lethal force to defend someone else property. He wants to burn that car, he acts, then arrest him. He wants to burn that building, articulate in court that you KNEW there were people in the building and you knew that they would be in imminent danger upon impact. Not potential, not possible, but imminent.
Trying to be proactive in certain situations, winds up with us being fired, arrested, sued, sent to prison, bankrupted and career ended. so, courts taking a rather dim view of the value placed on a object vs that of a human life. f**k the car. let it burn. it's replaceable.
and that's why agencies use water cannon and fire hoses and deck nozzles and CS or CN gas or rubber bullets or mace or pepper balls or tasers, or , or all the other less than lethal or non lethal options.
if someone dies as a result, well, that was not the intent, that device is not designed to inflict deadly force, that is why it was used.
side note addition. an explosive device such as a grenade, IED, dynamite, etc, or a firearm, kicks things into a much different set of rules.
Your Privacy Choices