Yes. That’s exactly what is happening in today’s world where we have these laws.:rolleyes:
running out a thought to show how ridiculous it looks is a way of showing the path the logic takes. Police are, in fact, accountable to their own actions. You be wooshed.
It’s exaggeration for effect. Many people use it in this forum and it is to be expected.
The main argument against stretching this rule out so far is personal responsibility: The police officer was responsible for the knowledge of how to safely operate a motor vehicle in adverse conditions, even at high speeds a civilian would be prosecuted for attempting, because he has received specialized training in such matters as part of the conditions of his employment as a police officer. If the police officer is not liable for his inability to drive, then his increased privilege with regard to driving must be in error. As that leads to absurdity, the premise must be wrong, so the burglar cannot be liable for the wreck.
One of the fundamental differences between this scenario and the scenario that obtains when an armed robber causes a clerk to die of a heart attack is that cardiac fitness is not part of a clerk’s conditions for employment. This is similar to the argument that being proof against gunfire is not, to my knowledge, a condition of anyone’s employment, so it is never permissible to deliberately or negligently subject anyone to gunfire. The negation of that conclusion would be so absurd it would cause my tongue to melt and my eyes to explode out of my skull. (That was exaggeration for effect.)