“Someone who killed thousands versus someone who hadn’t harmed ANYONE.”
Then I have to assume your problem is not with the killing, it is with the reason it was done. Both Bin Laden and this guy were killed inside their home, unarmed, and not trying to resist. The only difference is that the guy in Mesa did not do what he was told and made a move the police considered threatening. Bin Laden did his as an act of war. This country has done that too. Don’t like it, get laws changed. It’s your representation. Vote different and/or get others to vote with you.
“When will cops be held accountable for grossly bad judgment?”
Problem here is that according to a jury, it wasn’t. And the reason is not that it was based upon judgement, but upon expectations and the training to make that a reality. Change the training and the expectation, and you create a different expectation. But until then, the team did as they were trained and expected to do. But you can’t blame the people for doing what they are told to do. Blame the people that made the laws that created that expectation. Change the laws because you can’t put them in jail. And if the team does not conform to the training and expectation, then put them in jail. Prior to that, it’s legal and the people living in the area determined that with their vote and not saying it was wrong with the jury that called the case.
But I might warn you, if you take the capability of the police to protect themselves in so many times they need it, you won’t have anyone but thugs in the police force. And then any expectation is cancelled.
rwood
“Problem here is that according to a jury, it wasn’t.”
Wrong. THAT is the point. Juries are given instructions that differ for cops. The government chooses to hold cops to a LOWER legal standard.
I dislike David French’s TDS, but this article was spot on:
“Unlike any prior cases that could clearly establish the law for this case, at the time Vickers fired at the dog, SDC was not the intended target of an arrest or investigatory stop. Nor was he the intended target of Vickers’s shot; rather, he was accidentally hit when Vickers fired at the dog. The Supreme Court’s decision in Brower indicates that a Fourth Amendment violation depends upon intentional action on the part of the officer....
...The brief dissent was spot-on. After noting that not even qualified immunity protects the “plainly incompetent,” the dissenting judge said, “Because no competent officer would fire his weapon in the direction of a nonthreatening pet while that pet was surrounded by children, qualified immunity should not protect Officer Vickers.” This seems plainly true.
But I’d go farther. As I’ve argued before, it’s time to rethink qualified immunity entirely....”
If I shot a dog - even a threatening one, which this one was not - that was 18 inches from a kid and I hit the kid instead, would I be liable? Darn tootin! Is a cop? Nope. Because he didn’t make a considered decision to deliberate shoot and injure a child.
I carry concealed. If I ever shoot an unarmed man crawling on his knees, I’ll go to jail. No doubt. Deservedly so. I don’t have “qualified immunity”. I am required to use good judgment. Cops are not. That is the legal standard the juries are given.
“The Eleventh Circuit’s decision in Corbitt v. Vickers, handed down last week, constitutes one of the most grotesque and indefensible applications of the qualified immunity I’ve ever seen. The case involves a claim of excessive force against Michael Vickers, a deputy sheriff in Coffee County, Georgia, who shot a ten-year-old child lying on the ground, while repeatedly attempting to shoot a pet dog that wasn’t posing any threat.”
Also here: https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/officer-cleared-after-accidental-shooting/
I’m tired of cops being free to do darn near anything under protection from the government.