Emily Compagno addressed the legal standards surrounding investigative detentions, the felony murder rule, and the use of force during a recent discussion, explaining how rapidly evolving situations can change the legal character of an encounter between law enforcement and a suspect.

Compagno said that criminal acts can escalate quickly and that the law accounts for those changes through long-established legal doctrines.

She pointed specifically to the felony murder rule as an example of how intent at the outset of an incident does not control its ultimate legal outcome.

Trump's Sovereign Wealth Fund: What Could It Mean For Your Money?

“Harris, can I emphasize something? And Donna keep me honest here about this, but things can morph into something very different very quickly, and we know this,” Compagno said.

“This is why, in part, we have the felony murder rule, right? Something? No, we’re just trying to rob a bank. When then someone gets murdered, well, that becomes a homicide.”

Compagno said her comments were directed at clarifying the legal framework governing encounters where law enforcement officers order an individual to stop or exit a vehicle.

She explained that such commands establish a temporary investigative detention, which carries specific legal implications.

This Could Be the Most Important Video Gun Owners Watch All Year

“My point in bringing this up is we heard the officers order that person to get out of car, stop, get out of the car,” Compagno said.

“That meant it was a temporary investigative detention. That meant she was not free to leave.”

Compagno said she believed some public commentary had incorrectly characterized the individual involved as a protester, rather than acknowledging the legal status of the encounter at that moment.

“So when people are sort of couching this and continue to keep it rest as a protester, it was anything,” she said.

She emphasized that while fleeing from an investigative detention is not, by itself, a legal justification for the use of deadly force, the surrounding circumstances must be evaluated, particularly when the actions of the fleeing individual create immediate danger.

“But in that moment, now again, that doesn’t you know there are then more things that occurred, and fleeing is not legally justified in, or is not that a sole legal justification for killing,” Compagno said.

“But again, all of the imminent threat stuff that we’ve been talking about is.”

Compagno explained that the legal analysis hinges on how the situation changed during the encounter, rather than on the individual’s prior intentions or background.

“But my point is that all of a sudden, it graduated into a very different scenario,” she said.

She said that once officers issued commands and established a detention, the legal context shifted, regardless of what had occurred earlier.

“So regardless of this person’s background or history or intention, even 30 seconds prior in that instant, it was a subject that was not free to leave,” Compagno said.

Compagno stated that the individual’s actions during the attempted escape created a risk to others, which is central to evaluating the use of force under the law.

“She was temporarily being temporarily detained, and in her attempts to flee, put a lot of people in imminent harm, and that’s the bottom line,” she said.

WATCH:

The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of DrewBerquist.com. Contact us for guidelines on submitting your own commentary.