Can a cop shoot someone in the back? Not automatically illegally, but rarely lawfully. A back wound tells investigators the person was turned away from the officer, which cuts against the usual justification for deadly force: an immediate threat. Under Supreme Court rules, an officer can only fire when a reasonable officer would believe the person poses a serious threat of death or injury, and cannot shoot a fleeing person just to stop an escape unless that person is genuinely dangerous to others.
The Rule Officers Are Judged By
Two Supreme Court decisions set the boundaries for every police shooting in the United States.
The first is Graham v. Connor (1989), which established the “objective reasonableness” standard. The question is not what the officer intended or felt. It’s whether a reasonable officer, standing in the same spot with the same information, would have made the same call. Courts weigh three things: how serious the suspected crime was, whether the person posed an immediate threat, and whether they were actively resisting or fleeing.1Justia Supreme Court. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989)
The second is Tennessee v. Garner (1985), which dealt directly with shooting people in the back. The case involved an officer who shot a 15-year-old unarmed burglary suspect in the back of the head as the teen climbed a fence to get away. The Court ruled that deadly force cannot be used to stop a fleeing person unless the officer has probable cause to believe the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to others.2Justia Supreme Court. Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)
Before Garner, many states let officers shoot any fleeing felony suspect. The Court struck that down as an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment. Running is not, by itself, a reason to shoot. And when it’s feasible, the officer has to warn the suspect that deadly force is about to be used.2Justia Supreme Court. Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)
Why the Direction of the Bullet Matters So Much
A wound in the back isn’t a legal verdict, but it is a devastating piece of evidence. It shows the person was turned away when the shot was fired. Someone facing away is generally moving away. They’re usually not lunging, reaching for a weapon, or doing anything that looks like an attack.
That physical fact undercuts the officer’s most common justification for deadly force. It becomes much harder to argue that a reasonable person would have feared for their life at that moment. In practice, the burden shifts to the officer to explain what made the situation dangerous despite the person’s body position.
The Michael Slager case shows how heavily this evidence weighs. In 2015, Slager shot Walter Scott five times in the back as Scott ran from a traffic stop in North Charleston, South Carolina. Bystander video captured the shooting. Slager eventually pleaded guilty to a federal civil rights violation, the court found his conduct amounted to second-degree murder for sentencing purposes, and he received 20 years in federal prison.3United States Department of Justice. Former North Charleston, South Carolina, Police Officer Michael Slager Sentenced to 20 Years in Federal Prison
When a Back Shot Can Still Be Lawful
A wound in the back doesn’t automatically make a shooting illegal. The Garner rule permits deadly force against a fleeing suspect in narrow circumstances: when the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon, or when there is probable cause to believe the suspect committed a crime involving serious physical harm, deadly force is necessary to prevent escape, and a warning has been given if possible.
Picture a suspect who just fired a gun at bystanders and is sprinting toward a crowded area. A shot to the back in that scenario can fit within Garner, because the person poses an ongoing threat to others. Officers are also trained to fire at center mass, and a person can turn during the fraction of a second between the decision to fire and the trigger pull. Courts look at the totality of the circumstances, not the wound location in isolation.
When Shooting a Fleeing Person Is Clearly Unlawful
Other scenarios are not close calls. Shooting an unarmed person fleeing from a nonviolent crime is unlawful under Garner. Someone running away after shoplifting, vandalism, or writing a bad check does not pose a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to anyone. Deadly force in that situation is an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment.2Justia Supreme Court. Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)
Deadly force is also unjustified against someone who has already been subdued, is complying with commands, or is clearly incapacitated. The threat has to exist at the moment the trigger is pulled. A suspect who was dangerous five minutes ago but has since dropped a weapon and surrendered cannot lawfully be shot based on the earlier threat. The Department of Justice’s own use-of-force policy requires an officer to have a reasonable belief the person poses an “imminent danger of death or serious physical injury” before using deadly force.4United States Department of Justice. 1-16.000 – Department of Justice Policy on Use of Force
Threat assessment is dynamic. An armed robbery suspect who drops the weapon and raises their hands is no longer an imminent threat, even if they were seconds before. Officers are expected to keep reassessing. This is where many questionable shootings collapse legally: the initial encounter may have justified force, but by the time the shot was fired, the picture had changed.
Some states have gone further than the federal floor. Several have replaced the “reasonable” force standard with a “necessary” force standard, asking not whether the decision was defensible but whether the officer had any other option. Laws in this category typically also require de-escalation and less-lethal alternatives when feasible. Others have narrowed the use of deadly force against fleeing suspects beyond what Garner requires. An officer’s exposure for the same shooting can differ depending on the state.
Criminal Charges an Officer Can Face
An officer who uses unjustified deadly force can be criminally charged. Charges generally fall into three categories:
- Murder, reserved for cases where the evidence suggests the officer intentionally killed without legal justification. Convictions are extremely rare and carry the longest sentences.
- Manslaughter, more common than murder charges, applied when the killing resulted from recklessness or criminal negligence rather than premeditation.
- Federal civil rights violations, brought when an officer willfully uses unreasonable force while acting in an official capacity, depriving the person of their constitutional rights. Slager’s federal conviction is a prominent example.
Prosecutions of officers for on-duty shootings are uncommon and convictions are rarer. Since 2005, roughly 200 non-federal officers have been arrested for murder or manslaughter for on-duty shootings. About a third have been convicted; nearly half were acquitted or had their charges dismissed. Murder convictions specifically are in the single digits, though those officers received sentences ranging from roughly seven years to life.
One structural reason for low conviction rates is the grand jury process. In many jurisdictions, felony charges require a grand jury indictment, and prosecutors who work closely with police on a daily basis handle the presentation. Critics argue these cases are not always pushed with the same vigor as other homicides.
h2>Suing for a Wrongful Shooting
Beyond criminal charges, the person who was shot or their family can sue the officer for money damages under federal civil rights law. The statute is 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which allows anyone whose constitutional rights were violated by a government actor to bring a civil lawsuit.5Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 42 U.S. Code 1983 – Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights
The biggest obstacle is qualified immunity. Under that doctrine, an officer cannot be held personally liable unless the plaintiff shows the officer violated a “clearly established” constitutional right, meaning there is existing court precedent making it obvious the specific conduct was unlawful. If no prior case with closely matching facts exists, the officer may be shielded even if the conduct was objectively unreasonable.
Qualified immunity does not protect an officer from criminal charges, and it does not apply to lawsuits against the city or department itself. Municipalities frequently settle wrongful death claims from police shootings for substantial amounts, sometimes in the millions, even when the individual officer is immune. There is no federal statute of limitations for § 1983 claims. Courts borrow the state’s personal injury deadline, which ranges from one to six years depending on where the shooting happened.
What to Do After a Police Shooting
For the person who was shot or their family, the practical steps matter early. Preserve everything: names and contact information for witnesses, badge numbers, any available video (including bystander phone footage and nearby surveillance), and complete medical records.
Talk to a civil rights attorney quickly. The statute of limitations can be as short as one year in some states, and evidence like security footage is often overwritten within days or weeks. An attorney can send preservation letters to the department and nearby businesses before that happens, and can start the process of obtaining body camera footage under the applicable public records rules.