A yahoo news post said that Louisiana police who murdered 2 men and wounded others who were fleeing from the Katrina disaster would not be given the death penalty. A lawyer for one of the Ku Klux Kops said that it would be unprecedented for a policeman to be convicted or executed for a killing "in the line of Duty"
Was it the Duty of these officers to shoot unarmed refugees, their fellow Americans, while the victims were fleeing a horrible natural disaster?
2007-02-01 06:56:11 · 10 answers · asked by brotherjonah 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Law Enforcement & Police
To answer you original question: they aren't. However, they are given certain "rights" based on their training and responsibility as police offers.
A police officer is not allowed to "murder" (there is a very specific definition) any more than another citizen is. However, a police officer is allowed to kill another person consistent with proper policies and procedures.
In this case, your read of the situation is that proper procedures were not used. You feel that, given the evidence presented to you, that this was an killing inconsistent with the "use of force as appropriate" that we give police officers.
Maybe. Maybe not. I'd say that none of us has enough information to know for sure.
As to the statement that police officers are rarely convicted. This is untrue. Police officers that have been found to have used inappropriate means can be convicted and sent to prison.
The problem is that, in the line of duty, a police officer is placed in a situation where shooting another person may occur. If the police officer can make a convincing case that they believed that the force used was appropriate (even, from an objective perspective it would not be), then they aren't going to jail. It's hard for an average citizen to make the claim that it was their JOB to kill, as it is with a police officer.
I do not defend a police officer that oversteps reasonable use of force. But, not being a police officer, I'm amazed at the split-second decisions they do need to make.
In this case, were bounds overstepped? Maybe. Maybe not.
2007-02-01 07:12:52 · answer #1 · answered by Jay 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Police are definately no longer exempt from motor motorized vehicle rules. There are some issues they could do in an emergency that electorate can no longer do. police officials are held at a larger aspect even as it includes driving, thats what they do alot of the day. even as a police officer or the different emergency reaction workers turn on their lights fixtures and sirens, they're held responsible for something that they reason to take position. basically because they have the authority and opt to get someplace quickly, that does no longer mean they're exempt from legal responsibility. They lose factors on their license a useless ringer for all people else.
2016-10-17 04:35:35 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Police said the officers were responding to a report of other officers being attacked when they came under fire. Police also claimed one of the victims was reaching for a gun.
People were running from a group of teens who had opened fire on the bridge when seven men jumped out of a rental truck and started shooting too.
And they weren't exempt... the DA just isn't seeking the death penalty. An earlier police investigation cleared the officers of any wrongdoing.
2007-02-01 07:05:33 · answer #3 · answered by theearlybirdy 4 · 3⤊ 1⤋
The police are always under scrutiny when something happens.
They have a very hard job to do and are berated when they do it.
Lately it seems criminals can commit violent crimes and then have more rights than the people they victimize. Honestly, how many pieces of #$%$ get caught, charged, sent to court, then cry the cops were to rough or racist and everyone is to afraid to put the punks away. Leave the cops alone, let them do their job and stand by them when they do.
2007-02-01 07:11:59 · answer #4 · answered by STEPHEN S 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
It depends from case to case, but, why were they fleeing
from the POLICE, if they were not caught in the commission
of a crime, this is a rather sensitive issue, but I would say
looking at the question that you are asking that they may
have been committing a crime at the time, they should
not sentence a police officer for murder, when he was actually
dealing with a criminal incident and the shooting was "in
the line of duty"..............................................................................
2007-02-02 01:40:25 · answer #5 · answered by gorglin 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
They are NOT exempt from the law, regardless of what they think. These rogue cops, if found guilty, will be punished.
2007-02-01 07:10:43 · answer #6 · answered by WC 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Shut the hell up. When you can look at the facts in an unbiased light, then you can try posing a question. Right now you sound as prejudiced as you are trying to make others sound, because you are.
2007-02-01 07:02:45 · answer #7 · answered by marklemoore 6 · 5⤊ 3⤋
I do not beleive we are hearing the whole story. You can't beleive everything you read on the net.
2007-02-01 07:03:07 · answer #8 · answered by ladyinblue 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Because they all think they are above the law !!!
2007-02-01 07:05:01 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 5⤋
Biases feelings????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Oj was guilty????????
2007-02-01 07:04:10 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋