Do police have special protection in shootings, related to Breonna Taylor
<p>I know this is a hot button issue. I was reading about self defense with a firearm and found the general rule that a person that instigates a fight cannot use a self defense argument when using deadly force. The castle doctrine includes the requirement for violent entry to allow the use of deadly force.</p>
<p>The police used a violent entry to enter the Taylor apartment. The DA said the officers were justified in shooting in self defense. The DA decided not to go to trial because the officers were defending themselves. But could officers really use a self defense argument at a trial? Would it be more nuanced that they were protecting the public?</p>
<p>I get the community concerns that police can break down a door and shoot when someone claims they are just defending themselves. Of course, if the police cannot shoot at a criminal shooting a gun then police are put in an untenable position. I’m pro-law enforcement. And I’ve learned how fast confrontations can go sour.</p>
<p>Do police have special permission to use deadly force? Is the violent entry that police may use when serving a warrant different than violent entry that a criminal uses when breaking in?</p>
<p>I understand the issue is sensitive.</p>

<h2>Yes, police have special permission to use force</h2>
<p>For example, from <a href="http://classic.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/leara2002451/s230.html?stem=0&amp;synonyms=0&amp;query=Force" rel="nofollow noreferrer">s230</a> of the <a href="/questions/tagged/new-south-wales" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;new-south-wales&#39;" rel="tag">new-south-wales</a> LAW ENFORCEMENT (POWERS AND RESPONSIBILITIES) ACT 2002:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>It is lawful for a police officer exercising a function under this Act or any other Act or law in relation to an individual or a thing, and anyone helping the police officer, to use such ￼ force ￼ as is reasonably necessary to exercise the function.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>So, police can use force (even deadly force if reasonably necessary) when performing their duties.</p>

<p>Since there is already an answer regarding the use of deadly force, I'll only address the other part of the question.</p>
<p>Namely,</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Is the violent entry that police may use when serving a warrant different than violent entry that a criminal uses when breaking in?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Given that the police were executing a warrant, they were within their legal right to break down any barrier to entering the premises.  A criminal entering by breaking a door would not be within his legal rights.</p>
<p>Self-defense legal defense may not be available to someone initiating an illegal aggressive act.  But, since the police did not initiate such an <em>illegal</em> act, they did not lose their legal right to defend themselves.</p>

<p>There are multiple factors that justify killing by cops in the united states.</p>
<p>The most prevelant is arguably the Law enforcement bill of rights (LEBOR) <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2020/jun/08/john-oliver-us-policing-is-a-structure-built-on-systemic-racism" rel="nofollow noreferrer">John Oliver</a> covered the topic quite well.</p>
<p>The other most common, ambiguous factor includes whether or not the officer was &quot;afraid for their life&quot;, which effectively provides cowards with a badge a blanket statement to used as a license to kill.</p>
<p>The biggest problem is that officers in many states do not have laws requiring them to exhaust non-lethal or less-than-lethal options before deadly force can be issued. Many laws that have been proposed on this are heavily lobbied against by the law enforcement unions which have substantial legal influence.</p>

police self-defense use-of-force grand-jury