Quote:
Originally Posted by Neal Stevens
(Post 2236241)
This is what you should be outraged by. Anyone hear of this man, Hoang Nguyen? Have you seen any blacks protesting his senseless killing by an unarmed black teen? Did Obama send aides to his funeral. Where were the race baiters Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson?
I understand the concern over cops exceeding their authority, but when the inmates are running the country, when crime is this bad, when the USA is degenerating into a third world country; I think gangs, drugs, & thugs warrants more attention.
|
It is a sad day when people think of this last line. We have police and other means to guard against gangs and thugs. But who's going to guard us from the police?
BTW, Neal, is it just an accident you chose a murder by a suspect black? Statistically speaking, America does not go one day without a murder. Surely there are some suitable *white* cases you can cite.
As for the point where cops are not in the same position as citizens ... let's not be remiss in pointing out that though cops are required to confront baddies (so we can certainly judge them according to stand your ground rather than run away doctrines), they also have the advantage of training and protection that a regular citizen won't have. That means where you may be forced to shoot the baddie, he isn't. Or at least if he has been working out.
I'm not unaware of the studies to reaction time against knive attack but don't see how police should be given special rights in this regard.
To take some more "policey" examples, let's take a look at Japan's (not exactly human rights central, at least by Western standards) equivalent law for using weapons by police:
Quote:
Originally Posted by As Translated by DCAF
ARTICLE 7 A police officer may
1. use his weapon in case there is reasonable ground to deem it necessary for the apprehension of a criminal or the prevention of his or her escape, selfprotection or protection of others or suppression of resistance against the execution of his official duty within the limits judged reasonably necessary in the situation. However, he shall not inflict any injury upon any person except the case falling under the category of the provisions of Article 36 (Legal Defence) of the Criminal Law (Law No. 45, 1907) or of Article 37 (Emergency Refuge) of the same law, or the case falling under any of the following categories;
- In case a person, who is actually in the act of committing, or has sufficient ground to be suspected of having committed, a violent and dangerous crime which deserves a death penalty, perpetual penal servitude or imprisonment, or penal servitude or imprisonment for a maximum period of not less than three years, resists the police officer against the execution of his duty to the subject person or attempts to escape or a third person resists the police officer with the object of letting the subject person escape; provided there is reasonable ground on the part of the police officer to believe that there exists no other means but to do so either for the prevention of such resistance or escape or for the apprehension of such persons.
- In case of apprehending a person under a warrant of arrest, or serving a warrant of production or detention, if the subject person resists the police officer against the execution of his duty to the subject person or attempts to escape, or a third person resists the police officer with the object of letting the subject person escape; provided there is reasonable ground on the part of the police officer to believe that there exists no other means but to do so either for the prevention of such resistance or escape or for the apprehension of the subject person.
|
Note the most important part of the law. With a suspect in the "following categories" (in essence, serious felons and people with arrest warrants on them), a police's right to use force is independently determined using this law only. Which provides great potential for judges to take the convenient path and side with the police (in Japan, there is little doubt they do so for the laws controlling length of detention).
When a suspect is not under these conditions, the right to use injurious force is not fully independent but linked to the self defence provisions common to all citizens. Which means should a judge rule a police use-of-force as valid under self-defence, he is forced to move the
common line. Should a commoner get into a similar scrape the next day, he can (in principle) cite the judge's ruling as a precedent and the judge is forced to pay some heed, since it is not a "Cop-only" thing.
If a judge or jury wants to say a cop should be permitted to shoot people because they can't react in time to knives. Fine. Let the commoner with a concealed permit that same judgment. If you are not willing to do that, then maybe you shouldn't letting the cop go either.
And I don't see how that is such a high bar.
