4 ms·

I would assume that off-duty cops (rightly) have more authority when it comes to these types of situations. And yet, when they make a mistake, they aren't held

I would assume that off-duty cops (rightly) have more authority when it comes to these types of situations. And yet, when they make a mistake, they aren't held to a higher standard, despite we, as citizens, granting that authority to them.

weberc2 9y ago
No. Police are necessarily involved in more risky encounters than laypeople. They have manyfold the opportunities to make a mistake than laypeople. Training offsets some of that risk, but not all of it.
- zzalpha 9y ago
  No. Police are necessarily involved in more risky encounters than laypeople. They have manyfold the opportunities to make a mistake than laypeople. That's illogical. There are myriad professions where trust is delegated to the person in that profession, and consequences to go with it. A doctor doesn't get a free pass if they kill someone due to incompetence when performing a surgery just because they do it more often. Heck, engineers are held liable if their work results in injury or death. Yet, with law enforcement, the opposite is often true, even when the facts clearly demonstrate fault on the part of the police. You couple that with the "thin blue line" culture that results in police circling the wagons whenever one of their own screws up, and it's no wonder that trust in the police has eroded. The perception is that there's simply no consequences to police misconduct. And in many cases, that perception unfortunately matches reality.
  - weberc2 9y ago
    No, the error is yours, I think. We trust experts like police and surgeons to do certain dangerous tasks because their expertise offsets much of the risk; however, they're still more likely to make a mistake since they have to roll the dice more frequently. If the probability of a layperson wrongly killing someone is 20% per police-like-encounter, and the probability of a trained police officer killing someone is 1%, who has the greater odds of killing someone? The layperson who rolls the dice one time or the police officer who roles the dice a couple times a year (or a couple times a week in some places)? > A doctor doesn't get a free pass if they kill someone due to incompetence when performing a surgery just because they do it more often. So you have data that police are being acquitted of shootings (when a jury finds that the shooting occurred due to incompetence) at a higher rate than surgeons? Or are you using different standards for "incompetence" (for surgeons, presumably the result of an investigation, but for police it's the opinion of the first pundit you heard?). Mind you, none of this has any bearing on comparing police shootings with civilian shootings, which was the topic of your original point...
    - zzalpha 9y ago
      We trust experts like police and surgeons to do certain dangerous tasks because their expertise offsets much of the risk; however, they're still more likely to make a mistake since they have to roll the dice more frequently. And therefore the consequences should be significantly lessened for them relative to an untrained civilian? The approach you advocate will result in the perverse incentive that a cop is better off always pulling a gun in any situation, as the lack of consequences means the incentive is to always minimize personal risk in an encounter in the short term, as there's no risk as a result of a mistake in the long term. It's perverse. In effect you place the power of life in death in the hands of a trusted individual, and then create a situation where they're incentivized to use it, especially in situations where even a whiff of short-term personal risk is perceived (like, say, in an encounter with a person in a minority where racial biases may come into play).
      - weberc2 9y ago
        You're confusing a reasonable standard of proof with complete impunity.
        zzalpha 9y ago
        And you're assuming a reasonable standard of proof is applied. I'm not willing to make that assumption. This case is yet another example of why.
        weberc2 9y ago
        I'm not assuming a reasonable standard of proof is applied, only that the standard for proof in police shootings should account for the fact that they're far more likely than civilians to be involved in escalated situations.
  - loco5niner 9y ago
    > A doctor doesn't get a free pass if they kill someone due to incompetence when performing a surgery just because they do it more often. I very much doubt this is true. There is a risk factor built into going into surgery and an understanding that "complications happen" and people are are negatively affected. If we put surgeons in jail for making mistakes due to incompetence, we would have zero surgeons. I'm very curious what your definition of competence is in both these scenarios...

weberc2 9y ago

No. Police are necessarily involved in more risky encounters than laypeople. They have manyfold the opportunities to make a mistake than laypeople. Training offsets some of that risk, but not all of it.

zzalpha 9y ago
No. Police are necessarily involved in more risky encounters than laypeople. They have manyfold the opportunities to make a mistake than laypeople. That's illogical. There are myriad professions where trust is delegated to the person in that profession, and consequences to go with it. A doctor doesn't get a free pass if they kill someone due to incompetence when performing a surgery just because they do it more often. Heck, engineers are held liable if their work results in injury or death. Yet, with law enforcement, the opposite is often true, even when the facts clearly demonstrate fault on the part of the police. You couple that with the "thin blue line" culture that results in police circling the wagons whenever one of their own screws up, and it's no wonder that trust in the police has eroded. The perception is that there's simply no consequences to police misconduct. And in many cases, that perception unfortunately matches reality.
- weberc2 9y ago
  No, the error is yours, I think. We trust experts like police and surgeons to do certain dangerous tasks because their expertise offsets much of the risk; however, they're still more likely to make a mistake since they have to roll the dice more frequently. If the probability of a layperson wrongly killing someone is 20% per police-like-encounter, and the probability of a trained police officer killing someone is 1%, who has the greater odds of killing someone? The layperson who rolls the dice one time or the police officer who roles the dice a couple times a year (or a couple times a week in some places)? > A doctor doesn't get a free pass if they kill someone due to incompetence when performing a surgery just because they do it more often. So you have data that police are being acquitted of shootings (when a jury finds that the shooting occurred due to incompetence) at a higher rate than surgeons? Or are you using different standards for "incompetence" (for surgeons, presumably the result of an investigation, but for police it's the opinion of the first pundit you heard?). Mind you, none of this has any bearing on comparing police shootings with civilian shootings, which was the topic of your original point...
  - zzalpha 9y ago
    We trust experts like police and surgeons to do certain dangerous tasks because their expertise offsets much of the risk; however, they're still more likely to make a mistake since they have to roll the dice more frequently. And therefore the consequences should be significantly lessened for them relative to an untrained civilian? The approach you advocate will result in the perverse incentive that a cop is better off always pulling a gun in any situation, as the lack of consequences means the incentive is to always minimize personal risk in an encounter in the short term, as there's no risk as a result of a mistake in the long term. It's perverse. In effect you place the power of life in death in the hands of a trusted individual, and then create a situation where they're incentivized to use it, especially in situations where even a whiff of short-term personal risk is perceived (like, say, in an encounter with a person in a minority where racial biases may come into play).
    - weberc2 9y ago
      You're confusing a reasonable standard of proof with complete impunity.
      - zzalpha 9y ago
        And you're assuming a reasonable standard of proof is applied. I'm not willing to make that assumption. This case is yet another example of why.
        weberc2 9y ago
        I'm not assuming a reasonable standard of proof is applied, only that the standard for proof in police shootings should account for the fact that they're far more likely than civilians to be involved in escalated situations.
- loco5niner 9y ago
  > A doctor doesn't get a free pass if they kill someone due to incompetence when performing a surgery just because they do it more often. I very much doubt this is true. There is a risk factor built into going into surgery and an understanding that "complications happen" and people are are negatively affected. If we put surgeons in jail for making mistakes due to incompetence, we would have zero surgeons. I'm very curious what your definition of competence is in both these scenarios...