2006-07-13 22:59:14 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law Enforcement & Police
All Police officers have what is called qualified immunity for their discretionary acts. This means, if they take an action in "good faith", they are immune from prosecution for the consequences of that act. It is this way because nobody would be an officer if it weren't. They would be afraid to do anything.
"Good faith" means they acted reasonably according to the situation as they understood it at the time, and in accordance with the law and their policies and their training.
The examples of shooting someone threatening them with a toy gun are excellent. The officer had reasonable cause to be in fear of his life, so he fired. He is immune from prosecution.
Let's further say that an armed felon is threatening either the officer or some innocent person. The officer has a clear shot, so he fires. As he fires, and innocent person gets in the way, and is shot. The officer is immune from prosecution.
If an officer just shoots someone because he is angry, he has acted against policy, against the law and his training, and he is no longer immune.
2006-07-14 02:36:03 · answer #1 · answered by tyrsson58 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
A newspaper has said, It has been proposed armed police should be immune from prosecution if they shoot an innocent person. Not the same as the real proposal.
2006-07-13 23:13:29 · answer #2 · answered by Dovetail Workshop 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I do agree to a point...
When you have a gun & the possiblilty of being killed yourself, the rational answer is to kill the person trying to kill you - In those few miliseconds of thought between deciding that someone is trying to kill you & you pulling the trigger before they do, there is very little time to make sure that the weapon they other guy is holding is loaded and/or a fake. So if you hold a gun or something resembling a weapon and do not do "Exactly" what they say - tough - bang! your dead..
Imagine what it's like to kill someone & then imagine what its like to kill someone & then findout that they are innocent.. The trauma must be immense..
They are only doing their job & if someone is stupid enough to not comply with what someone with a gun says - well - what do you expect? The police to say "Please dont shoot us?"
On the other hand....
My experiences with firearms "Trained" police has left me with a nagging worry that the term "Low IQ" is being used as a recruitment requirement. Having to explain the workings of a weapon to "EX" soldiers,now turned police has me questioning the reasons the army kicked them out. And as for marksmenship, well accuracy is about the size of the group - not where they are placed - getting 1 in the centre and 9 outside is not a cause for celebration!
But as an answer - As long as they follow procedures to the letter & the "innocent" person acts agains orders - they should be immune from prosecution.
2006-07-13 23:46:53 · answer #3 · answered by want_to_explore_life 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think it is due to times when an armed policeman fires on someone who has what looks like a weapon, but then later turns out to be a replica or just looks like a weapon.
I mean picture it, a call comes in that there is a man walking around a town centre with a gun. The armed police are called in, view that he is a threat to the public and shoot him. They then find out it was a realistic BB gun
2006-07-13 23:04:40 · answer #4 · answered by Borealis83 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Police would like to be immune from prosecution whatever they do - it's the power complex thing they have. After all, they know better don't they?
2006-07-13 23:05:12 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
If a rushing value ticket, then i ought to settle for that. Dealing in drugs, sorry, would not settle for that. there is, for my area, a very superb line with reference to actual people wishing to furnish suggestions , and those wishing to furnish suggestions to get out of against the law. i'd wish the police can make sure between both, and take action as required.
2016-11-02 01:13:03 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Its meant to be so an officer isnt afraid to fire if he thinks a person is a threat. However, im against it, ifa police officer kills an innocent person, manslaughter charges should be bought to bare
2006-07-13 23:05:03 · answer #7 · answered by thomas p 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i dont know why but it is definitey wrong. if they shoot an innocent person they should be prosecuted and fired.
2006-07-13 23:03:08 · answer #8 · answered by jame_football 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
because the government looks out for the government
and noone else
2006-07-14 03:28:58 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
wow you do love to spin the news
2006-07-13 23:02:54 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋