I understand what you share here. But there is something important in your words.
“I don’t believe immunity from civil liability ever enters the mind of those involved.”
I agree, But I think this is because it is a reality and they have no reason to ever think about it or worry about it. Not having immunity would be something for them to indeed think about every time they make an interaction.
It might just be that little effortless consideration to “make sure they are in the right” factor that could eliminate a LOT of the problems we are having. Far too many “just in case” interactions now happening.
And unfortunately the above event is an example of one of those events. Just that second of delay the liability factor might have created might just have been enough to hear that he was security.
They were too quick on the trigger to do it “just in case” without worrying about the consequences if they might be wrong. They know not much will happen even if they are wrong. They know they are already protected with common opinion, legal representation, and financial liability immunity.
But these unnecessary “just in case” events are happening far too often now. A slight bit of hesitance and confidence in situation assessment is now truly in order. I too have been in the tunnel vision mode five times now as a civilian protecting my business and my family. Liability is what dictated the exercise of very sure judgement in all of these and no one got hurt.
“What we need are politicians who do not use the safety services as positions to reward their cronies and more accountability by and for police executives over the people they manage.”
Absolutely, this too.
I understand your position but if I read your comments correctly, it sounds like you believe police officers are not liable for their actions.
While it may appear to some in some very high-profile cases that that is the case, nothing could be further from the truth.
There have been several cases where police officers were involved in “bad” shootings or misconduct and they were fired, prosecuted, and sued. There is a “good faith” exemption for some actions but just because someone wears a badge doesn’t mean they aren’t “liable”.
I know I’m going to take some heat on that statement so to be proactive, I’m just going to say unless we know all the facts, anecdotal evidence is sometimes not reliable.
As for my statement about liability, when a cop is trying to process all the information presented to him/her in a very short period of time, make the correct decision and then act, sometimes mistakes are made. But I don’t believe liability enters the equation because the law overrides everything.
In the case of an officer-involved shooting, it is the case of “does this event require the use of deadly force?” If it does, then there “should” be no problem. If it doesn’t, then there is no need to shoot. This is not condoning the shooting of the security guard. I don’t know all the facts. At face value, it doesn’t look good for the officer involved. But I will wait for all the facts to be presented before I render my opinion.
Again, I am not excusing anything here, but there are times when the media gets it wrong and the community is led to believe one set of facts when the reality is something totally different. Remember the adage: “If it bleeds, it leads”
It has been my experience that most LEO’s are trying to do the best job they possibly can. Are there some bad apples? Sure, we discussed it before. Unfortunately, those “bad apples” garner more press and make the job for the good guys that much more difficult.