Posted on 01/28/2003 3:05:41 AM PST by Dane
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:34:57 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
And, if you wouldn't have, I guess one can only be happy that you aren't the partner that I would have to depend upon in a similar situation.
Understood, but using the standards you would set here, those who might act similarly, but for far less honorable, less mistaken, and/or less assumptive reasons could very easily get away with it... and that simple idea actually increases the likelihood of it happening.
We can go through all the machinations of the situation, but it boils down to this, the cops were the ones trying to do the good(stopping a car robber who was a danger to the public) and the perp doing the bad,(stealing the car, driving wildly, running away when being caught). You will probably say this is overly simplistic, but it is the truth.
Not at all. It is a simplified version, but it is a bit inaccurate, in my view. While the cops were doing good, they made a series of mistakes that led to the death of a (criminal, stupid) perp who would not have faced the death penalty under any other circumstances. The cops were trying to do good, and the perp had done bad. A potentially-deadly -- the kids fault due to his intentional actions-- incident into a deadly one -- the cops fault due to their mistaken actions and forgotten (ignored?) training. Since they "raised the stakes", even inadvertently, they should see sanctions for it.
Try this out: I'm out in public, see a man being held at gunpoint, draw my CCW to protect the victim, hear a shot behind me (increasing my pucker-factor by ten), then fire and kill the gun-wielding person. It turns out the gunshot was some other crime down the street, and the man I shot was a cop making an arrest. My bad judgement and false assumptions led to his death. Do you not think that I'll at least see manslaughter charges (and some VERY unfriendly cops) in my near future? I was trying to do good, and I had honorable and understandable reasons for my actions. Give cops the benefit of the doubt, but sanction the ones who do "screw-the-pooch"... otherwise, it will happen more often, as FR headlines seem to prove on a semi-weekly basis.
Where did I say that? Did I have a typo? Sorry, if I did.
But this wasn't a trial situation, and you know that!
True. My point is that a well-trained policeman should never be able to mete out harsher punishment than a judge and jury... even under duress. They need to be able to walk that tightrope. That's why we give them our respect, our admiration, and our support. (Just like our soldiers... we give them our love and support, but when they kill non-combatants or friendlies, even accidentally, they should see a UCMJ court.) It's also why we should make sure the cops here see sanctions for failing to do fulfill our demand for near-perfection... otherwise we make similar incidents more likely to happen more often.
Heck no. Fire and forget. Now, what if the their is a stupid kid, or desperate elderly woman? Do you think an honorable soldier will pull the trigger? (Of course, this analogoy is less relevant now than it would've been in the past thanks to the Muslims who have decided that it's a great idea to use kids and the elderly as human bombs, but you get my point.)
Like it or not cops have to deal with war zones... Not about the facts that cops have to work in war zones every day.
Ah. Have we discovered your root position, that police and civilians are opposing forces in open warfare? LOL, now you're starting to sound like the WOD'ers that you opose so often. They would probably agree with you on that standpoint!
Personally, I would prefer my police to hold fast to the "to protect and serve" notion, and I would prefer to continue to honor those cops who are able to aviod using deadly force when it is not warranted. Transferring the armed forces' rules of engagement to the police would be a horrific mistake... and a violation of the wisdom of our founders. IIRC, that was the entire point of the Posse Comitatus Act. (Correct me gently if I'm wrong
This is all about envy to you isn't.
I'm not sure where this comes from. I'm for high standards of behavior for cops AND for similar codes for other public servants (including teachers). I love and admire my police detective father, and occasionally feel some ego-bruising because I know I could never do it as well as him... but how do you get that out of my posts?
Agree. reminds me of most anti-gun stories.
I would bet all I have that one of the most unhappy, depressed and miserable people on earth right now is the cop who pulled the trigger.
Agree again.
But none of the arguments change the facts.
FIRMLY agree. Even though the cop was doing a tough job, even though the shooting was based on a few small mistakes, even though the cop had the best intentions, and even though the cops probably feels like crud right now, he STILL should not be allowed to walk away without some form of punishment. To do otherwise is to encourage those cops who are not as honorable, and discourage those who hold police in high regard (similar to the way that affirmative action's standard-lowering practices make everyone look at minorities as if they are less-qualified, even if they are the best you'll ever meet).
I was using that as an example of our enlightened Texas policy down here of self-defense. Heck, under most circumstances, I can shoot somebody (and get "no-billed") for them just being in my yard after dark, much less climbing through the window of my house.
Texas: Heavily armed and loving it.
(as is my Aussie wife)
Just doing my job. By the way, the feds just passed a law making ownership of guns illegal and the Supreme Court has agreed that only "state approved militias" can bear arms.
The confiscation of guns begins tomorrow, and the police have been warned that anyone who refuses to give up his weapon or allow his home for search is a potential terrorist. The police have received permission to employ all tactics necessary to subdue resisters.
And it's good to know you're completely on the side of law and order....
Excellent point, and by far the biggest opposition to my argument. Rereading the story, though, you must admit that the family's attorney seems rather inept, combative, and desperate to play the race card. A more rational lawyer would have at least given the jury a few reasons to deliberate for more than 55 minutes.
Also, the OJ jury found him innocent, but that doesn't mean the he didn't do it. ;^) While it is a stretch, as his actions certainly don't inspire confidence, the family's lawyer just might be right about the jury being prejudiced (in the legal sense, not the perjorative).
Incorrect. The OJ Jury found him "Not Guilty", which is not the same as an acquital, it merely says that the prosecution did not provide evidence that proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he commited the crimes. But tainted evidence and overzealous (and inept) DA's will force a jury down that path every time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.