Should police officers be held responsible for poor judgement when a shooting occours?

No one is giving anyone a licence to kill but the police must be given the benefit of the doubt due to the unique circumstances of their profession, they are only human yet so many expect the impossible from them.

In the case you refer to the shooter being a police officer is irrelevant, it could have happened to anyone with a concealed carry permit. It was tragic but it was clearly manslaughter as the court rightly decided, she'll do a few years and be out in plenty of time to start a new career and rebuild her life.

 

Which is a damned good reason not to give people concealed carry permits. The officer violated known protocols which were almost certainly set up at least partially to prevent just this kind of thing and then killed an innocent man in cold blood as a consequence. She should be doing life without parole.

 

Totally incorrect, doing so just makes the life of criminals easier and the life of the law abiding more dangerous.

 

The last post just told me that anyone with a concealed carry permit can just burst into my home and kill me at any time. How does that make me safer?

 

How would restricting concealed carry permits serve to prevent individuals with firearms from doing the exact same thing? What would serve to prevent individuals from carrying and concealing firearms in an illegal manner, knowing that they would be unlikely to ever have an encounter with law enforcement that would result in the firearm being discovered? How would restricting concealed carry permits serve to prevent the criminal misuse of firearms by those who cannot legally possess them, but ultimately still do so regardless? Explain such.

Unlike law enforcement officers, private citizens with concealed carry permits are not employed by the state for the purpose of upholding or otherwise enforcing the law. They are not obligated to put their lives on the line for the purpose of protecting others from harm. They cannot be held to the same level of expectation as those whose career involves carrying out the orders of government.

 

Various efforts have been attempted to demonstrate just how dangerous individuals with concealed carry permits are, and the amount of danger they pose to the public. But even when all incidents and accounts are tallied, they statistically break down to less than two incidents per state, per year, for each year of data presented.

 

No she shouldn't, this was a genuine mistake on her part, she got the wrong flat and thought he was about to attack her, it was a tragic accident, nothing more, she had no intention of killing this poor guy who was just incredibly unlucky.

 

It all depends on the situation, being that all incidents involving law enforcement differ, one from the other. In my opinion, maybe you should have included "maybe" or "depends on the situation; situational" as an option.

 

HUH? Those who possess "conceal/carry" or CC permits pose no danger to the public. I think that you are confusing criminals with law abiding citizens.
What is confusing in your response is the following statement: "Various efforts have been attempted to demonstrate just how dangerous individuals with concealed carry permits are, and the amount of danger they pose to the public"

 

~ Police officers are indeed responsible for unnecessary use of force. Some feel this happens too often. ( lawyers ) Others are surprised it does not happen more.
I believe one good idea is to raise the age to enter law enforcement to 30 y/o. Life experience is important before you get involved in the police environment. Education in psychology should also be required during training and probation.

 

I did not vote, i lean towards yes BUT, it really depends on the situation, i dont think yes or no really gets a good answer, some situations happen so fast a reflex decision is all that happens . A police officer has as much right to defend himself as anyone else.

I'd say yes hold them accountable but only when there has been real negligence.

 

Because it never has happened, and more than likely never will, your fears are totally unfounded and not backed by any facts, the truth is licensed concealed carry holders are as a segment of society the most law abiding people you will ever come across and they as a part of society commit way less firearm crimes then those perpetrated by law enforcement officers.

Sadly your reality is badly distorted by your hatred of legally owned firearms.

 

Very true, law enforcement officers, unlike any other armed law abiding citizen are dispatched into incidents that many times put their life in danger, between running the call be it Code 2 or Code 3 that alone pumps up the adrenaline and there is the interaction with a person who many times will be both hostile and uncooperative.

A large majority of LEO shootings could be prevented by people following a very simple order "keep your hands where I can see them," sadly too many of them do not follow that order and either try to pull a gun or worse for them a cell phone and then they get shot.

The officer only has a few milliseconds to make a decision, "do I get shot, or do I fire first," and the correct decision is fire first, do not get shot.

 

Voted yes, with one big caveat- they should not be held liable for responding in accordance with their training. Many LEDs train their responders to react to any percieved threat with immediate lethality, under the guiding principle 'survive to respond another day.' Officers cannot be held liable for reacting how they are trained to react.

We should be training our LE differently, as a primary tactic to reduce unecessary shootings.

 

Incorrect, the public needs to be trained that if you will to follow a LEO's orders and not become a threat, nothing bad will happen, then if one feels they are having their rights stomped on, the take the department and the LEO to court, trying to prosecute a trial on the street is both dumb and dangerous.

 

Bullshit. They should be held to the exact same standard as the 18 year old buck private who breaks ROE and kills a civilian.

 

Totally incorrect, LEO's are not in combat but are forced by dispatch to enter into what could be considered such, they are going in to fight a known enemy, but sometimes who end up interacting with becomes one.

One is war, the other is law enforcement two totally different worlds.

 

No...

 

Dumb as a stump.

 

Much better than shorn as a sheep...

 

Please don't edit my comments for content. If you need to rebut to a specific point, emboldenning, italicizing and underlining are great ways to do that without decontextualizing my comment in your response.

As to the subject at hand- whats your opinion on the 'Shoot First' curriculum pushed by DHS into LE agencies nationwide for the last few decades, where officers are taught to defend themselves first, then determine later whether the perceived threat was a real threat? The easiest and most common example is the mistake of a benign object such as a phone or a wallet as a firearm, leading to suspects being injured or killed while trying to follow LE commands.

 

Bullshit. I'm an owner of a farm and I absolutely forbid hunting on it. Until just a few years ago I would be threatened by legal owners of firearms who were trespassing on my land, frightening my children and occasionally killing valuable pets and livestock "accidentally" at least twice a year, maybe more. The only reason it doesn't happen anymore is that I now have a policy of calling the police and pressing charges in court if someone is caught. I still have to call the police several times annually.

 

Look, there's a clear distinction between a failure to follow Departmental guidelines in dealing with a use of force issues and criminal charges. By the time you get to the point where criminal charges are being considered all available evidence regarding the matter in dispute should/would have been examined and a considerable amount of public resources has been expended on the investigation. And if charges are laid against an officer then there has to have been some very egregious conduct involved. There are hundreds of Police shootings every year in the US - only a minute number of those result in criminal charges.

So if the case goes ahead then its up to the defense to argue the actions of their client were reasonable and proportionate given what the accused knew at the time. But this is exactly the same for civilians as well.

True Police are more likely to encounter situations where lethal force may be required (more risk) but then they also get more training and resources deployed to support them than the average citizen can hope for (more support).

 

Whilst I partly agree with maturity being important in the role you have to factor in the physical demands of the job. You also have to think that this will be a 20-30 year career?

 

I would actually say police shoot fewer people today than ever, partly because US society is simply less violent, partly because they have Taser, CS etc so they have non-lethal options. How exactly would you change their training?