As long as the correct reaction doesn’t include blaming the officer, then there really isn’t any change, and this law doesn’t achieve anything.
This isn’t true. Every police shooting is investigated, and, where the shooting wasn’t reasonable, the cop is fired or prosecuted, or both. What we are talking about is sanctioning police for shootings that are deemed unnecessary after the fact.
Regards,
Shodan
IMO, a better approach is simply to hold cops to the same standards citizens would be in the same circumstances. Cops are not special with rights we don’t have. They have exactly the same rights to defend themselves and others as we do in deadly force situations.
Can I shoot someone for no other reason than they scared me?
Can I stop a guy driving, make him give me an ID, and when he starts reaching into his pocket, I can shoot him because “I was afraid for my life”?
No. And from what I can tell, neither can cops, except in the context of someone committing a crime or suspected of committing a crime. You can’t shoot random people who worry you, but you can shoot someone who is actively committing a crime against your person or property and does something to make you have a reasonable fear of physical harm. Once a crime is in progress, deadly force can become an option.
Take these two examples: purse snatcher grabs your purse and runs away. You do not have the right to shoot that person, because there is no reasonable fear for your life. But let’s say he attempts to grab your purse and you hold on. He punches you. You still hold on. He isn’t giving up and you fear the next escalation will be even more violent. You shoot his ass, or someone else does. Chances are, the shooter is going free.
Probably not, and that’ why I think the standard should be the same for cops and concerned citizens.
N/M. should have previewed.
Aye, there’s the rub. I can’t, but apparently cops can.
Possibly, which is why the standard should change, but changing it to “necessary” I believe actually makes cops LESS privileged than civilians. I prefer a more equal legal footing. A person in fear for their life is a person in fear for their life. If his or her fear is reasonable and the other person has acted maliciously to cause the situation in question, deadly force is justified. You know how we often say “don’t be an asshole” when it comes to social media posting and the trouble you can get into? Well, in the physical world, “Don’t rob or assault people” is a pretty good way to avoid getting killed.
The thing is, my child (if I had one) would be much more likely to be the one holding the cell phone who gets shot by the nervous cop. So this argument is not so persuasive.
If I had a child who regularly went around armed I would try to instill in him values that when faced with a potentially deadly threat would also take into account the seriousness of taking someone else’s life before giving in to fear.
The thing is that if you are really in a balls to the wall kill or be killed situation, then, regardless of the law, you take the shot. If you were wrong you face legal issues but at least your alive.
But if in deciding whether or not to use lethal force, you hesitate due to the possibility you might face legal issues, then you probably should have hesitated over the much more important thought that you might needlessly end somebodies life.
The change that I would like to see would be that a cop when confronted with a suspect reaching into his pocket doesn’t think
“he’s reaching for something, it could be a gun, better shoot him just to be safe”
but instead thinks
“he’s reaching for something, it might not be a gun, better not shoot him just to be safe”.
Agree and disagree. While you or I might call 911 and find cover when bad stuff happens, the cops have a duty to pursue and arrest the bad guys. In a sense, in most cases, they are the initial aggressors because they are clothed with arrest powers (duties!) in these instances.
But, yes, I agree that this bill is absurd as it requires more for a cop to act in self-defense than it does a private citizen. We have a workable standard that has been in place for nearly 1,000 years…the “reasonable person” standard.
I was waiting for someone to call me out on how ill considered my idea was.
But I did want to express it as something to think about how we treat police and civilians differently. While there could be some exceptions, in general, civilians and police should receive similar deference in life and death situations. But police almost always get off no matter the situation and civilians are far more likely to be convicted despite acting reasonably.
Too often, the investigations into police shootings don’t look enough at what led up to the incident. Take Tamir Rice, for instance. The police saw him, and pulled up right next to him, thus increasing the danger both to him and them. When he started reaching for his gun, he presented an apparent threat, but that threat was greatly magnified by proximity. Suppose, instead, that the cops had stopped a hundred yards away, took cover behind their car door, and shouted at him to drop everything he was holding. There’d be much less risk to both, both in the case where he really was armed and where he wasn’t, and they’d probably have been able to apprehend him peacefully. Why didn’t they do that? And should they be responsible for the fact that not doing that escalated the situation unnecessarily?
I think they should, but that they should be fired and face civil suits rather than criminal responsibility. I don’t think government workers should be prosecuted for doing their jobs badly. They should be fired.
Except for Tamir Rice. And Philando Castile. And the guy who reached for his ID. What was their crime?
I was referring to situations between citizens, not between citizens and police. I’ve acknowledged that police get away with a lot more than civilians in similar situations would.
In a lot of cases there’s a trade-off: minimizing the risk to the suspect (and police) often leaves other members of the citizenry at increased risk. Do you recall how outraged people were at Scot Peterson, the Broward County Sheriff’s Deputy who was caught on camera “setting a perimeter” outside of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School while the shooter was still inside killing people?
Try to imagine how you might feel if someone close to you were killed by a gunman while the police sat back 100 yards and shouted at the gunman to drop the thing in his hands, because they weren’t certain it was a gun in the suspect’s hand.
Rice had a realistic toy gun, and had been reported for "pulling it out and pointing it at people. When called out the kid reached into his waistband and pulled out the gun in a threatening manner.
The officer was fired and the family collected in a lawsuit.
Philando Castile told the officer he had a gun and even said he was reaching for it. The officer overreacted and was charged and acquitted, however the officer was fired.