Minnesota Duluth Police Department: The DPD suggests that use of deadly force is justified in the following scenarios: to keep peace officers or others, safe from death or great bodily harm, to make an arrest of someone who is believed to have committed a felony and use or threatened deadly force, or to make an arrest of someone who is attempting to commit a felony and the officer believes the person may use deadly force if he/she is not captured. Furthermore, use of deathly force towards a moving vehicle is only reasonably used when there is no way to avoid the threat of a vehicle or deadly force coming from the vehicle with other means. Minneapolis Police Department: The MPD has the same three scenarios of when to use deadly force, which include: to keep peace officers safe, or others; safe from death or great bodily harm; to make an arrest of someone who is believed to have committed a felony and use or threatened deadly force; or to make an arrest of someone who is attempting to commit a felony and the officer believes the person may use deadly force if not captured. In their policy, MPD goes on to talk about the Tennessee vs Garner case which states that: warning shots should not be fired, the use of several objects may constitute use of deadly force, the policy does not prevent officers …show more content…
They suggest it should not be used on the following scenarios: a suspect attempting to escape who may have committed a felony but no violent act, suspect attempting to escape but from a misdemeanor, or someone who doesn’t fulfill enough suspicion to be arrested. The policy also states that deadly force, such as a firearm, should not be used as a warning shot or at a moving vehicle unless it is the only mean of defense. Reasoning in which deadly force may be used is when he/she is in sudden threat to life or great harm, as well as when a felony suspect poses a great danger to the