Do not patronize me. Reasonable and respectful discourse is accomplished by addressing the point made by a poster you respond to.
I responded to your points of making an issue over Tneedham's choice of words not being strong or emotional enough for you.
I was not patronizing, but being civil while attempting to give you the benefit of the doubt. It seems that benefit was my mistake as you are intent on taking offense and trying to make anyone who doesn't fully agree with you in this instance, an offender for their word choice.
"Reasonable and respectful discourse is accomplished by addressing the point made by a poster you respond to" NOT by getting overly hung up on the exact phraseology used to express those points.
The unjustified loss of a human life must not be reduced down to "That sucks, sure...but it is the cost of doing business" where LE is concerned.
As I noted in my response and you've chosen not address, such verbiage is commonly used across many areas of life including accidental deaths involving cars and guns, known violent criminals being released into society rather than violating their rights, and so on. If Thneedham had written, "The wrongful loss of human life when cops make mistakes is a horrific crime and tragedy of unspeakable proportions but I see no way to completely eliminate that loss..." would your response be materially different?
You are focusing on the words used, rather than on the message. You completely ignored my examples of where we often use imperfect shorthand to express our feelings about loss of innocent life. By your own standard, you are not engaging in "reasonable and respectful discourse" at this point.
Qualified immunityenables these "best way you know how" incidents because the likelihood that a cop will be held to account for violating the law is low.
I completely acknowledged that some of you believe elimination of QI would dramatically improve the situation. I have not disagreed with you. I'm just not fully convinced that eliminating QI is the magic bullet or even that the benefits would outweigh the costs. I'm not prepared at this point to debate that issue with you. I'm just not fully prepared to agree with you. Does that preclude your ability to engage in reasonable and respectful discourse with me? Is there nothing to discuss except QI?
Follow the letter of the law that we all must follow, not a department policy that is shaped by court cases, Terry v. Ohio, Heien, Strieff.
Laws are shaped by court cases for better or worse. We cannot sing the praises of Heller or McDonald in forcing improvements (however minor or slow in coming) to DC, Chicago, and other areas while asserting that Terry is entirely illegitimate. If the court has no power to shape laws, we have lots of laws to repeal. If the court has proper power to shape laws, then we need to recognize that the Constitution is not going to guarantee us everything we want. Some things have to be won politically rather than judicially.
Moreover, I recognize that police officers are tasked to work that I am not. I get to run away from gun fire. They run towards it. It is their job to investigate crimes. Said crimes are often committed by persons who don't care to be found out and will go to violent lengths to avoid being taken into custody. I rarely have any legal standing to stop another person or vehicle and investigate crimes. Police often have legal standing to do exactly that. I react to crime in a purely defensive manner with my only goal to be escaping with my life and limb intact. Officers often have to take proactive actions as they investigate crimes. Even in a reactive situation, they retain a legal obligation to make an arrest without inflicting injury whenever possible.
I'm not going to give up my right to use deadly force in cases where a cop my have some obligation to avoid deadly force in exchange for officer's being constrained by exactly the same limits that are imposed on me. I don't make traffic stops. I don't serve warrants. I don't keep the peace or enforce the laws. They do. They also enjoy taxpayer funded training, have some number of colleagues to assist them just a radio call away, and are physical fit free from illness, injury, or disability that places them at any special risk in a physical altercation. So joe public's reaction in a dark alley gets to escalate to deadly force a lot sooner than does cops, all else being equal.
I believe police officers are necessary. I recognize they have special responsibilities compared to joe public. I cannot judge every interaction exactly as I would a somewhat similar interaction involving a private citizen because private citizens simply do not do the work police officers do.
If a mistake is made then let black letter law be the guide, not a court case. Let a jury decide if a cop acted reasonably under the law.
And if a jury decides the cops did act reasonably, as in the Rodney King case, do we accept that? Or do we demand a second trial for "violation of civil rights"? Do we tacitly or overtly justify those who riot or assassinate cops when decisions don't go the way they have decided they must? Or perhaps when decisions are slower coming that some think they must?
If this cop was incompetent and killed a man needlessly, I want to see him punished.
If this cop acted negligently, I want to see him punished.
If he acted with any kind of malice, I want to see him legally hung out to dry spending many years in a deep, dark hole.
If, despite what has come to light so far, he acted entirely appropriately against a real threat, what I want won't matter a bit. Odds are his career will be over, his life threatened, and his family subjected to horrible stresses, simply because far too many people are way too much like an old KKK lynch mob than they would be willing to admit.
I'd like to see the facts come to light and determinations made based on the particulars of this individual case, rather than with prejudices about cops. Things like presupposing because he enjoys QI he is less careful than he should be, or that because department policies adhere to court cases rather than your or my particular view of the constitution that anyone one who follows said policies is a crook or idiot or worse make it that much more difficult to actually look at the facts objectively.
Charles
