Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug M.
...
I understand the existence of emotional responses to uses of force. Force is ugly. Effective force is really ugly. That does not make it wrong.
|
Great discussion and an impressive description, but isn't what you described subject to changes in public opinion?
Aren't those use the force statutes set by civilian legislatures, then interpreted through case law? They're not set by the prosecutors or the police, right? Over time, don't those laws tend to reflect the make up of the communities that elect people to legislatures?
The reason I ask is there seems to be a rapidly growing group of people with both the financial and political clout trying to tighten up UOF statutes because they are becoming frustrated with what they believe are some (not all) LEO agencies abusing UOF statutes as a cover up for poor training and sloppy performance. The two specific cases that come to mind are the death of guy in the Mesa, AZ hotel hallway (Daniel Shaver) and the death of the guy in the Wichita SWAT'ing case (Andrew Finch). Aren't some of those legislative changes even going on in Washington State right now?
I also see on gun forums a lot of LEO's hang their hat on Garner vs Connor, but you only need to look at this year's SCOTUS decisions to see reversals of previously "cast in concrete" laws.
To me, these things don't seem as firmly cast in granite as you seem to be portraying them. They might change slowly, but they can change.