Quote:
Originally Posted by TomkinsSP
At the risk of appearing biased (23 years in LE), there is a rational basis for the fact that Police Officers recieve legal protections in situations where they accidentally or mistakenly use deadly force.
They did not appoint themselves to be guardians of others. The State or a subdivision therof did. Presumably with oversight responsibilities, training standards and fitness for duty standards...
|
That's exactly why the courts extend a great deal of latitude to officers in terms of criminal liability when a mistake of fact shooting occurs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TomkinsSP
If the municipality determined Officer Schmossifer was psychologically fit, properly trained, and ORDERED said officer to respond to an armed robbery at Garcia Grocery. AND the dispatch officer stated the robber had a gun and was wearing a red shirt, AND Officer Schmossifer mistakenly shot Mr Garcia who was holding his own gun and wearing a burgundy apron, that officer made a tragic mistake, but the municipality contributed to the tragic chain of events.
If Officer Schmossifer misses the perpetrator and tragically hits a bystander, one could question the officers situational response and marksmanship, training for both of which were determined by the municipality.
|
That's why the department is going to be stuck with the civil liability when a innocent bystander is shot, or a mistake of fact shooting occurs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TomkinsSP
When Mr Jonh Q Public buys himself a 'George Zimmerman signature edition KelTek' and appoints himself guardian angel, his mistakes, his lack of training, his psychology, his four rejected applications are solely HIS responsibility.
I believe in the right of law abiding citizens to CCW and to use deadly force to defend themselves or innocent others any place they have the legal right to be. This is a great power, as Uncle Ben said, with it comes great responsibility.
|
I'm not in full agreement with this bit. Police officers are paid to respond to situations where they ae required to go looking for bad guys.
In contrast, even in states with a castle doctrine or stand your ground type laws that do not place a duty to retreat on an armed citizen, there is still a question of whether what you are doing is prudent and responsible. That's because all our rights come with a commensurate requirement to wield those rights responsibly. A responsible armed citizen will use good judgement and situational awareness to minimize the possibility that he or she will ever have to utilize deadly force to defend him or herself. That's the difference between some one who carries a gun fro self defense and someone who goes looking for trouble.
We are probably more in agreement than not, as while Zimmerman ultimately was determined to have a legal right to be where he was at, and to have still had the right to use deadly force to defend himself, pretty much anyone with a functioning brain agrees that he acted irresponsibly and demonstrated incredibly poor judgement.