The police responsibility is to the general public. They have no obligation to protect individual persons absent a
special relationship. As an example, if a women calls to report that her ex-husband has violated a restraining order and she is fearful he will return, if the police take a report, tell the women they will try to locate her ex-husband, and to call if he returns, they have not established a special relationship. On the other hand, if the same facts exist and the police tell the woman that they will have a patrol unit sit down the block to watch for her ex-husband to return, they have established a special relationship.
So no, there was no duty to protect in this case.
IMO, the two cases under which the officers actions fall under the purview of are Tennessee v. Garner and Graham v. Connor.
In Garner, the Supreme Court held that the use of lethal force to apprehend a fleeing suspect (prevent escape) is a seizure under the 4th Amendment, and that as a result, the officer has to have probable cause to believe:
1) the person has committed a felony involving the infliction or threatened infliction of death or great bodily harm;
2) that the person will be a continued threat if they are allowed to escape;
3) there are no other reasonable means to make the arrest;
or
4) the subject is using a deadly weapon to make their escape.
So, if the officer claims to have used deadly force to prevent the escape of this guy '
protect the public' those elements would have to have been met.
Read Garner, it is interesting:
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/fed...pinion-1956044 (click 'case' for detailed analysis of the court)
It is likely the officer fired to protect himself. IMO, under that circumstance the guiding case would be Graham. Graham is notable for making several notable distinctions as to how officers are judged:
* The "reasonableness" of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.
* And its calculus must embody an allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second decisions about the amount of force necessary in a particular situation.
* The test of reasonableness is not capable of precise definition or mechanical application. Its proper application requires careful attention to the facts and circumstances of each particular case, including: (this is known as the
Three-pronged Test)
1) The severity of the crime at issue;
2) Whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others; and
3) Whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.
So, the crux of the matter is 'would a reasonable officer. having the same information, have perceived the necessity of using lethal force to protect himself/herself.'
This is where dueling expert witnesses often come into the picture.
Read Graham, the case from which this decision arose may surprise you:
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/490/386/ (again, click 'case' to get the insight)