Olde School
Member
That said, I don't agree with the vitriol towards police in this thread, and do not feel that they are out to get us.
+1 Thank you for stating that.
+1 Thank you for stating that.
Police Responsibility
- Thread starter Pigoutultra
- Start date
- Status
Where to start...
In no particular order:
No, the police do not play by "the same rules." Similar ones, but not the same.
Yes, there are different dynamics (socially, politically, and legally) in play.
The concept of the "totality of the circumstances" enters into play. Facts known whether true or not, time of day, weather, perceptions, training, fitness levels, knowledge, abilities, policy, law, etc. The scope of what may be considered is quite broad. But it cannot include hind-sight. All of it enters into the equation.
Intentionally shooting the "wrong" person? Given the totality of the circumstances, what triggered the shooting? (Pardon the pun.) A test of reasonableness is applied. Where deemed reasonable prior to charges, none come. After the charges? Charges dropped. During trial? Acquittal.
Unintentionally shooting the "wrong" person? Same as above.
Intentionally shooting the "right" person? Same as above.
Unintentionally shooting the "right" person? Same as above.
Note: Conclusions such as, "it was an accident" are not the answer to the equation, but part of the totality of the circumstances; part of the equation. Accidents happen, even fatal ones. From there, a question of reasonableness must be answered. If the answer to the questions of reasonableness are affirmative, then there is usually no liability, whether criminally or civilly.
Best - E
In no particular order:
No, the police do not play by "the same rules." Similar ones, but not the same.
Yes, there are different dynamics (socially, politically, and legally) in play.
The concept of the "totality of the circumstances" enters into play. Facts known whether true or not, time of day, weather, perceptions, training, fitness levels, knowledge, abilities, policy, law, etc. The scope of what may be considered is quite broad. But it cannot include hind-sight. All of it enters into the equation.
Intentionally shooting the "wrong" person? Given the totality of the circumstances, what triggered the shooting? (Pardon the pun.) A test of reasonableness is applied. Where deemed reasonable prior to charges, none come. After the charges? Charges dropped. During trial? Acquittal.
Unintentionally shooting the "wrong" person? Same as above.
Intentionally shooting the "right" person? Same as above.
Unintentionally shooting the "right" person? Same as above.
Note: Conclusions such as, "it was an accident" are not the answer to the equation, but part of the totality of the circumstances; part of the equation. Accidents happen, even fatal ones. From there, a question of reasonableness must be answered. If the answer to the questions of reasonableness are affirmative, then there is usually no liability, whether criminally or civilly.
Best - E
Speaking as a police officer, I can say that, in most circumstances and situations, police are held to a very high standard. Every thing we do is up for grabs when it comes to lawsuits. I have to fill out a piece of paperwork every time my firearm is fired, the only exception being for range time. If I have to put down an injured deer, and it takes one bullet, it is documented. If I had a ND or AD down in the armory, I guarantee you I would have some serious explaining to do. I cant imagine the repercussions of (God forbid-literally) injuring an innocent bystander, and I pray that law enforcement personnel never have the nightmare of being guilty of something like that.
All that being said, anytime you fire a weapon, even in a very controlled setting like a firing line, there is ALWAYS a chance of a FREAK accident happening. Now imagine making split decisions when lives are on the line and bullets are flying towards you.
Obviously anyone can find some limited examples where police should have been held accountable and they weren't. You could also easily find examples where criminals should have been held accountable and they weren't. Both of these two facts are a result of the fact that we live in a fallen, imperfect world, filled with imperfect humans. I agree that we should cherish justice, and NO law enforcement personnel should be "above the law." However a certain maturity and objectiveness is required when looking at the TYPEs of situations and dangers that police are put into every day. Police are in high risk situations much more than the average citizen.
No matter your feelings on this matter, I can say with 100% confidence, the law enforcement personnel I have come across have a deep desire to PROTECT the innocent, and the LAST thing they would ever want is to take even a CHANCE of harming anyone. They are decent hardworking people like everyone else, but also, and secondarily, their jobs, their livelihoods, and their families are dependent upon the great responsibility that has been placed on them.
As a final note, I dont know of ANY officers that would take lightly the shooting of a dog. It has been said that the general public will raise a bigger outcry about a dog killing than most any other offense.
All that being said, anytime you fire a weapon, even in a very controlled setting like a firing line, there is ALWAYS a chance of a FREAK accident happening. Now imagine making split decisions when lives are on the line and bullets are flying towards you.
Obviously anyone can find some limited examples where police should have been held accountable and they weren't. You could also easily find examples where criminals should have been held accountable and they weren't. Both of these two facts are a result of the fact that we live in a fallen, imperfect world, filled with imperfect humans. I agree that we should cherish justice, and NO law enforcement personnel should be "above the law." However a certain maturity and objectiveness is required when looking at the TYPEs of situations and dangers that police are put into every day. Police are in high risk situations much more than the average citizen.
No matter your feelings on this matter, I can say with 100% confidence, the law enforcement personnel I have come across have a deep desire to PROTECT the innocent, and the LAST thing they would ever want is to take even a CHANCE of harming anyone. They are decent hardworking people like everyone else, but also, and secondarily, their jobs, their livelihoods, and their families are dependent upon the great responsibility that has been placed on them.
As a final note, I dont know of ANY officers that would take lightly the shooting of a dog. It has been said that the general public will raise a bigger outcry about a dog killing than most any other offense.
There are different rules, there has to be for officers to do the job that we ask of them.
Officers have much different rules that govern how a shooting investigation is handled. The officers have much more in-depth investigations (yes that is meant to imply plural) and they do not have an absolute right to Fifth Amendment protections...they can be terminated for seeking that protection. Would you be willing to give up your 5th Adm rights during a shooting investigation?
Officers are mandated to investigate violent crimes and enter potentially violent environments...to offset this inherent danger, they are allowed to brandish their weapons whereas a non-LE citizen could be charged with a crime for doing so. Would you be willing to give up your right to retreat or not engage a dangerous situation?
Yes, they do work under a different set of rules of engagement...because their job description mandates engagements any reasonable person would avoid
Officers have much different rules that govern how a shooting investigation is handled. The officers have much more in-depth investigations (yes that is meant to imply plural) and they do not have an absolute right to Fifth Amendment protections...they can be terminated for seeking that protection. Would you be willing to give up your 5th Adm rights during a shooting investigation?
Officers are mandated to investigate violent crimes and enter potentially violent environments...to offset this inherent danger, they are allowed to brandish their weapons whereas a non-LE citizen could be charged with a crime for doing so. Would you be willing to give up your right to retreat or not engage a dangerous situation?
Yes, they do work under a different set of rules of engagement...because their job description mandates engagements any reasonable person would avoid
Yes, and they are.
Any time an officer shoots someone, the incident is investigated. Any time a civilian shoots someone, the incident is investigated. In either case, if the shooting was truly accidental, the shooting does not constitute a criminal act; if the shooter displayed gross negligence, charges may be filed.
There is also the issue of civil liability; the civilian is on his own, while the police officer is indemnified by the community that he or she serves.
Pigout, you need to understand the difference between the duties of a sworn officer and the rights of a civilian.
The latter may use deadly force only if it is necessary as a last resort for defense against imminent danger; he or she is expected to avoid such danger if it is at all possible.
The sworn officer, on the other hand, has the duty to apprehend and arrest suspects under dangerous circumstances, putting themselves in harms way; when a SWAT team is called in, it is because it is believed that he arrest may well involve serious danger. In a county that adjoins mine, there was, on average, a meth lab "bust " every thirty seven hours last year, and the occupants have almost always been armed and have kept dogs for protection. It would not be reasonable for an arresting officer to take the risk that the dog just might not constitute a danger in the heat of the situation.
Last week, two deputy United Stated Marshals and a city police officer were shot when they served a warrant for the arrest of a man suspected of narcotics crimes. One of the marshals and the suspect died.
"Above the law"? No. A civilian would have had no business going into that residence with a weapon in the first place; the officers had the duty to do so.
Pigoutultra
Member
I would like to add that the majority of incidents where a police officer kills a innocent are during SWAT team raids. The military mind-set of the SWAT team makes it difficult to discern between an innocent move from a malicious move. Again due to the mind-set that they are in a war. This is most prevalent in drug raids. This is where the SWAT team is used the most. I would have thought that the SWAT team would be called for busting a warehouse full of drugs or for ending a hostage situation, but they are constantly used for the execution of search warrants on houses where not a single person inside has shown any evidence of being "armed & dangerous". And the worst of all, No-Knock Raids. This is where they don't even announce that they are about to execute a search warrant, but just burst in and tell everyone to get down on the ground. I don't blame people for reacting as they would if they were getting robbed. You can't expect there to be a good outcome to a situation where everyone is on high alert and has an itchy trigger finger, if they see anything in someone's hand they are trained to assume it is a weapon and shoot to kill. These actions are done within seconds after entry and are done without first taking in the situation in order to have an appropriate response.
This article lists several incidents that should not have happened the way they happened, yet nothing was done about it.
http://www.seattleweekly.com/1999-11-03/news/license-to-kill/
This article lists several incidents that should not have happened the way they happened, yet nothing was done about it.
http://www.seattleweekly.com/1999-11-03/news/license-to-kill/
Last edited:
swagner89
member
These SWAT raids are getting out of control. 4.5 per day, according to reason.com:
http://reason.com/archives/2010/03/01/45-swat-raids-per-day
these raids are done with poor intelligence, flimsy evidence, and little planning or restraint. the results are far too often that innocent people and pets get killed over inconsequential reasons.
we dont need this over-reaching police state trend. gotta shed light on it before it gets farther out of control.
http://reason.com/archives/2010/03/01/45-swat-raids-per-day
these raids are done with poor intelligence, flimsy evidence, and little planning or restraint. the results are far too often that innocent people and pets get killed over inconsequential reasons.
we dont need this over-reaching police state trend. gotta shed light on it before it gets farther out of control.
ATBackPackin
Member
Police are human. To err is to be human. I get it! I truly do.
My problem is when I read these articles where it was a case of bad information or mistaken address (which does happen) and they go in like a Seal team. Then they shoot someone because the homeowner thought it was intruders and had a weapon, or where a member of the team shoots someone because they thought a t-shirt was a gun.
Or they have the right address and the right person, but after a flash bang the suspect is left dazed and confused they get shot because they didn't instantly comply with the officer. Their excuse is always, "I thought they were going for a weapon" when there was none.
It's tragic. It was a grave mistake. It was a tragic mistake. So what does the city do? Do they apologize? Sometimes. Do they pay for the damages? Not unless you pay 10 times the amount to fix your home in lawyers fees. Do they compensate you for your loss of a loved one? Not if they can help it. And if you have pets and the police come in like that, you can guarantee that they are dead. Why? Because they were in their home where they belong.
That's what bothers me. Society tells me if I make a mistake, be a man and step up. Admit it and take your punishment like a good person does. However if they make a mistake, it seems like they want to sweep it under the rug like it never happened.
I'm not bashing police here, please don't take it that way. I always give respect to LE unless they have proven they don't deserve it. I agree that nearly all LE are extremely hard working individuals trying to make a difference. Nearly every police officer I have ever met was extremely reasonable, fair, and well tempered. It just irks me when mistakes like this are made and the city doesn't do anything because they don't want to give out compensation or the bad publicity.
Shawn
My problem is when I read these articles where it was a case of bad information or mistaken address (which does happen) and they go in like a Seal team. Then they shoot someone because the homeowner thought it was intruders and had a weapon, or where a member of the team shoots someone because they thought a t-shirt was a gun.
Or they have the right address and the right person, but after a flash bang the suspect is left dazed and confused they get shot because they didn't instantly comply with the officer. Their excuse is always, "I thought they were going for a weapon" when there was none.
It's tragic. It was a grave mistake. It was a tragic mistake. So what does the city do? Do they apologize? Sometimes. Do they pay for the damages? Not unless you pay 10 times the amount to fix your home in lawyers fees. Do they compensate you for your loss of a loved one? Not if they can help it. And if you have pets and the police come in like that, you can guarantee that they are dead. Why? Because they were in their home where they belong.
That's what bothers me. Society tells me if I make a mistake, be a man and step up. Admit it and take your punishment like a good person does. However if they make a mistake, it seems like they want to sweep it under the rug like it never happened.
I'm not bashing police here, please don't take it that way. I always give respect to LE unless they have proven they don't deserve it. I agree that nearly all LE are extremely hard working individuals trying to make a difference. Nearly every police officer I have ever met was extremely reasonable, fair, and well tempered. It just irks me when mistakes like this are made and the city doesn't do anything because they don't want to give out compensation or the bad publicity.
Shawn
Justin
Moderator Emeritus
This really has more to do with the realm of politics than the realm of discussing firearms and shooting.
- Status
Similar threads
