7 ms·

The real issue here is whether or not this same logic will apply to the average citizen. And we know it won't. Nor should it. At the end of the day, we are r

The real issue here is whether or not this same logic will apply to the average citizen. And we know it won't. Nor should it. At the end of the day, we are responsible for our actions with only very, very few exceptions that are already laid out in the law (i.e. temporary insanity, severe mental illness, etc.). It sounds like what is being argued for my Miller is that we expand the exception list in a big way. One that society likely will find unacceptable. Also, I'd be really curious to see if Miller wants to apply this same standard to everyone across the board. Because right now, if I shoot someone - even if in self defense - there's a good chance that I will be charged and have to defend myself in court to prove it was in self defense and a lawful act because the bar for me being apply to apply deadly force is very high. The rules are already very different for cops in the current state of affairs. They already have every advantage and already face extremely low odds of being charged. As the article mentions, only 96 officers have been charged since 2005, which is ridiculous. We've seen a lot of absurd cases that were major news where officers weren't even charged. Sure, I would bet that the overwhelming majority are totally legitimate. But I also think there are way too many that go un-charged. And I'd bet my life (no pun intended) that this same logic will definitely not apply to the average citizen if they shoot another citizen. And I'd bet my child's life that this logic would never, ever, ever be used in defense of a citizen if they had the gall to shoot (gasp) a police officer. We the people bear some responsibility for this situation of officer shootings. Juries routinely either fail to indict in the grand jury or acquit if it actually goes to trial far too often. And these jurors themselves do not apply the same standards that would apply to the rest of us. Accounting for population difference, on a per capita basis US police officers shoot citizens at a rate 37 times more frequently than the UK. Now, you can either choose to believe that the US has 37 times more serious violent crime that would justify that level of violence by cops. Or you can choose to believe there is a problem with US the way US police go about their business.

adrianratnapala 8y ago
> Accounting for population difference, on a per capita basis US police officers shoot citizens at a rate 37 times more frequently than the UK. The UK is not a good example, since it is one of the few countries where most cops don't have guns.
- maxxxxx 8y ago
  Then take Germany. They have guns but in 2011 (only number I could find) 85 shots were fired during the whole year by all cops.
  - detaro 8y ago
    Note: That's presumably "shots fired at persons", not "shots fired" overall. And even for that subset, different sources have different numbers, but they all fall in that rough area.
  - pjc50 8y ago
    https://www.dw.com/en/police-in-germany-kill-more-than-you-think/a-38822484 https://www.dw.com/en/police-in-germany-kill-more-than-you-t... : German press is concerned that the police kill about 10 people per year, mostly during mental health episodes.
- turc1656 8y ago
  I get your point, but I have to disagree. The fact that the UK can have its officers not carry by default and armed officers only show up for the most extreme situations is a testament to how they are conducting their operations. They had only five deaths in 2017 due to officer shootings. Four of those were terrorist attacks. So their response time is good enough to stop terrorists with lethal force while also not resulting in extra civilian deaths and still keep their beat cops gun-free.
  - dfsegoat 8y ago
    You can't extrapolate that model to the USA, where there are more firearms than citizens [1]. This means that the average risk / threat an officer may encounter in otherwise routine situations are quite different than the UK, which has very strict firearms policies, since they decided to ban almost all firearms in 1988 / 1997. 1 - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/06/19/there-are-more-guns-than-people-in-the-united-states-according-to-a-new-study-of-global-firearm-ownership/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/06/19/there...
RcouF1uZ4gsC 8y ago
>The real issue here is whether or not this same logic will apply to the average citizen. The big difference is that the average citizen has the ability/expectation to flee dangerous situations. For example, if I saw a crazy guy with a knife, I call the police but otherwise make sure I stay far away. In situations where the average citizen doesn’t have that expectation (for example in their own home) US law also generally gives them the benefit of the doubt regarding deadly force against a home invader. Now as a society , if we had police who avoided dangerous situations at all cost, it would not be very helpful. We as a society need people who are willing to intervene in dangerous situations, and so as a society we have in the past given them the benefit of the doubt regarding how they deal with what they perceive as immediate dangers to their lives.
- MrMember 8y ago
  The police in the US have no legal duty to protect people, and several Supreme Court cases have affirmed this.
  - RcouF1uZ4gsC 8y ago
    There may not be a legal duty, but there is definitely societal expectation. For example take Scot Peterson the Parkland officer who has been blasted, called a coward, and forced to retire for not confronting the Parkland shooter. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/parkland-officer-scot-peterson-s-message-families-i-m-sorry-n879716 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/parkland-officer-scot-p... If a police officer or department develops a reputation of running from danger, there are going to be at least societal consequences for them.
    - HarryHirsch 8y ago
      Were there any real consequences? Did someone go to jail or lose their government pension? People frowning at the police and police inaction means nothing, they just get fewer calls and less reports of crime, that improves the statistics.

adrianratnapala 8y ago

> Accounting for population difference, on a per capita basis US police officers shoot citizens at a rate 37 times more frequently than the UK. The UK is not a good example, since it is one of the few countries where most cops don't have guns.

maxxxxx 8y ago
Then take Germany. They have guns but in 2011 (only number I could find) 85 shots were fired during the whole year by all cops.
- detaro 8y ago
  Note: That's presumably "shots fired at persons", not "shots fired" overall. And even for that subset, different sources have different numbers, but they all fall in that rough area.
- pjc50 8y ago
  https://www.dw.com/en/police-in-germany-kill-more-than-you-think/a-38822484 https://www.dw.com/en/police-in-germany-kill-more-than-you-t... : German press is concerned that the police kill about 10 people per year, mostly during mental health episodes.
turc1656 8y ago
I get your point, but I have to disagree. The fact that the UK can have its officers not carry by default and armed officers only show up for the most extreme situations is a testament to how they are conducting their operations. They had only five deaths in 2017 due to officer shootings. Four of those were terrorist attacks. So their response time is good enough to stop terrorists with lethal force while also not resulting in extra civilian deaths and still keep their beat cops gun-free.
- dfsegoat 8y ago
  You can't extrapolate that model to the USA, where there are more firearms than citizens [1]. This means that the average risk / threat an officer may encounter in otherwise routine situations are quite different than the UK, which has very strict firearms policies, since they decided to ban almost all firearms in 1988 / 1997. 1 - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/06/19/there-are-more-guns-than-people-in-the-united-states-according-to-a-new-study-of-global-firearm-ownership/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/06/19/there...

RcouF1uZ4gsC 8y ago

>The real issue here is whether or not this same logic will apply to the average citizen. The big difference is that the average citizen has the ability/expectation to flee dangerous situations. For example, if I saw a crazy guy with a knife, I call the police but otherwise make sure I stay far away. In situations where the average citizen doesn’t have that expectation (for example in their own home) US law also generally gives them the benefit of the doubt regarding deadly force against a home invader. Now as a society , if we had police who avoided dangerous situations at all cost, it would not be very helpful. We as a society need people who are willing to intervene in dangerous situations, and so as a society we have in the past given them the benefit of the doubt regarding how they deal with what they perceive as immediate dangers to their lives.

MrMember 8y ago
The police in the US have no legal duty to protect people, and several Supreme Court cases have affirmed this.
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 8y ago
  There may not be a legal duty, but there is definitely societal expectation. For example take Scot Peterson the Parkland officer who has been blasted, called a coward, and forced to retire for not confronting the Parkland shooter. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/parkland-officer-scot-peterson-s-message-families-i-m-sorry-n879716 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/parkland-officer-scot-p... If a police officer or department develops a reputation of running from danger, there are going to be at least societal consequences for them.
  - HarryHirsch 8y ago
    Were there any real consequences? Did someone go to jail or lose their government pension? People frowning at the police and police inaction means nothing, they just get fewer calls and less reports of crime, that improves the statistics.