[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by cartman

Police Officers are civilians. They are not military personnel. That is why misdeeds by police officers are handled by grand juries and civil/criminal courts, not the UCMJ.

The context here is that police officers are still agents of the state. They don't have a separate justice system the way the military does, but to my mind, a civilian in this context is one who acts without state sanction.

Military and police are both authorized by the state to use deadly force under particular circumstances. A civilian, OTOH, will almost never be permitted to use deadly force against a police officer or member of the military acting within the putative scope of their duties.

About the only thing I can think of would be if a civilian witnessed an assault by a police officer on another civilian, and even then I think it would probably depend on the type of assault. Protecting a civilian from rape at the hands of a police officer might be exculpatory. At least, no DA in their right mind would take that case to court even if it were technically in violation of statute.

Originally Posted by molson

Saying "I was afraid" does not alone absolve anyone of a shooting. The claim of fear is relevant, as it would be for any other person in a self-defense/use of force scenario. But it's rare you can ever prove or disprove someone's subjective feelings.

Which is why I don't believe that should absolve them, but it's the first thing an accused police officer will turn to - possibly even before charges are formally filed - for that exact reason: it's the easiest thing in the world to claim and the hardest thing in the world to prove or disprove.

But the bottom line is, police (and military) have training on how to handle these situations, and in pursuing that line of work that have explicitly volunteered their lives in the service of the public good.

Which means, to me, "afraid for my life" means *less.* Because your job is to protect the public first, and yourself second. Killing somebody on the basis of your fears is a violation of the public's right to due process. If the weapon is being brandished or shots are being fired at you? Open season as far as I'm concerned. You don't point a weapon at someone unless you're willing to pull the trigger or you wanna get shot (and someone with less training than a police officer waving a gun around is a threat to the public, not just to the officer).

But shooting someone because "I saw a gun," as Officer Yanez's lawyer is alleging happened here? I think the quote was "if the gun hadn't been present, there would not have been shots fired."

I'm sorry - the Second Amendment doesn't say "right to keep and bear arms unless a cop sees it." Pulling the trigger because you see a gun is not just an abrogation of due process, it's an abrogation of the Second Amendment.

Except they're more specialized and better-funded than public defender's offices.

Sounds to me like police should be required to take comparable representation to those they arrest. I mean, equal protection under the law shouldn't mean that police officers get better representation than civilians when they're alleged to have committed a crime because the Thin Blue Line has their back (yes, I'm mainly snarking here, but the caliber of representation one can afford directly impacts conviction rates, and this is probably one of several factors that make it so difficult for police misconduct to result in actual consequences).

Don't get me wrong, molson. You have a better handle on the law than I do, and I respect that, but I think we're arguing different things. You're arguing whether the state is able to get convictions in these cases because of how the law is framed, while I'm arguing that how the law is framed means that accountability is absurdly low, and that until accountability is introduced and has teeth, it's going to be nigh impossible to repair the breach of trust between police departments and minority communities.

Originally Posted by nol

It is much less relevant as officers have more training for scary gun situations than your average Joe who got a concealed carry permit by forking over some cash and filling in 70 percent of the answers correctly on a test at the end of a three-hour class. A doctor is held to a higher standard of medical care than a random bystander trying to help out in an emergency.

Bingo. Certain jobs we reserve to certain classes, to particular types of training. Police officers, as doctors, ought to be held to a higher standard than your average concealed carry permit holder, because of the value we ostensibly place on what they offer to society.

If you pick up that badge and swear to protect and to serve, we should be holding you to a *higher* standard as regards lethal force, not lesser.