Different RoE for Normal Joes / Cops Appropriate?
This is not an anti-cop thread. If nothing else, our host is a cop and doesn't like it, and I'd rather talk than just see another thread locked.
So, in an earlier thread, it was mentioned that a cop shot a one armed, one legged guy due to pulling a pen. It was most certainly justified - for a police officer - to shoot under those circumstances.
What if you or I had done that, though? I may be wrong, but I am pretty sure if I tried to stop this guy harassing someone, and he pulled a pen and I shot him and defended it with "I didn't know what was in his hand," the prosecutor would immediately turn around and say "So you didn't KNOW your life was in danger and you STILL shot?" and I would be sent immediately to jail.
As a normal joe who has never soldiered or policed, I was taught that you only pull your piece when you want to fire, and you only fire when someone has manifested obvious and confirmed lethal intent to you or someone else nearby, with the ability to carry out that hostile intent.
So, a pulled (confirmed) gun, knife, etc., or just someone trying to beat the shit out of me.
If I did not hold to this standard, I would be held to be an irresponsible yahoo, put in jail and ridiculed for panicking when a guy pulled a pen on me, minus some really extenuating circumstances (night, someone breaks in, advances on me with a pen threatening my life, etc.)
Cops are held to a different standard. Do you think this is appropriate? Why or why not?
My view is that it is inappropriate. You can concoct various scenarios in which someone is shot and killed, or stabbed and killed or whatever, but these scenarios apply equally to regular joes and cops. You can say that cops face these sorts of situations more often, but they also volunteer for it and should be of the level headed mentality that can handle that, arguably.
Our justice system operates on the same principle, or tries to; we have very strict standards for conduct of the prosecutor/detectives, a very high standard to convict, a very harsh penalty when the rules are broken (usually the guy skips out "on a technicality.") This is to protect the innocent from being railroaded or simply put in jail due to inflamed passions or a zealous DA. I think our police should be held to similar standards in terms of when they shoot (and sometimes kill) people. At least to the same standards anyone else is - or at least anyone else who lives in a state that recognizes that a man has a right to defend life, property and dignity wherever he has the right to be.
What do you guys think?
