|
|
|
|
|
by ethanhunt_
3297 days ago
|
|
I don't think there's a great answer here. Without special legal protection, you're asking police to take a job that would require them to make decisions in a couple of seconds and if they make the wrong decision, they face a high risk of either death (should've shot but didn't) or life in prison (shot but shouldn't have). I wouldn't take that job if it payed 500k/yr, but we're asking officers to take it for 60k/yr? I'm not asking for police to be protected if they're malicious, but if a police officer completes all his training correctly and tries his hardest to make the right decision in that pivotal moment, but makes a mistake and shoots when he shouldn't, then he's sentenced to life in prison if he is held to the same standard as a civilian. And people wonder why their police officers aren't the best and the brightest: anyone making a rational decision under these terms wouldn't take the job. |
|
But that's the problem! The civilian shouldn't be going to jail, either, should they?
That is, I don't think the standard for prosecution for killing someone should be different for civilians and police.
Some would fix the problem by giving the police special immunity; I'd fix it by changing self defence laws for everyone.
Or perhaps, to put it another way, under what situation could you imagine yourself as a juror convicting a civilian of murder, but acquitting a police officer who acted identically?