Should a Police Officer Have the Right to Kill a Person Based Only on the Fear the Officer Experiences??

[AthenaAwakened]

Not talking about shootouts, armed suspects, hostage situations, or anything like that

Talking about routine encounters with the public where the public is unarmed and maybe or maybe not rude.

If a physical struggle should ensue because the officer instigated a confrontation and that act leads to the killing of an civilian, should the resulting death be the fault of the officer who initiated the disturbance?

 

[laughing dog]

At the least, the officer should lose his/her position as a police officer.

However, since the civilian could always mesmerize the officer and then take his/her gun and kill him, I suppose anyone who has survived an encounter with a police officer should be grateful to be alive.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Not talking about shootouts, armed suspects, hostage situations, or anything like that

Talking about routine encounters with the public where the public is unarmed and maybe or maybe not rude.

If a physical struggle should ensue because the officer instigated a confrontation and that act leads to the killing of an civilian, should the resulting death be the fault of the officer who initiated the disturbance?

I believe that in the USA like the UK the court would need to establish the circumstances and sequence of events.
Included in this the subjective test whether a reasonable person either knew of a real danger or in the heat of the moment he/she honestly and instintively believed there was a danger.
Each case should be investigated and tried according to their own sets of circumstances.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Not talking about shootouts, armed suspects, hostage situations, or anything like that

Talking about routine encounters with the public where the public is unarmed and maybe or maybe not rude.

If a physical struggle should ensue because the officer instigated a confrontation and that act leads to the killing of an civilian, should the resulting death be the fault of the officer who initiated the disturbance?

I believe that in the USA like the UK the court would need to establish the circumstances and sequence of events.
Included in this the subjective test whether a reasonable person either knew of a real danger or in the heat of the moment he/she honestly and instintively believed there was a danger.
Each case should be investigated and tried according to their own sets of circumstances.

Which does not answer the question.

Should a Police Officer Have the Right to Kill a Person Based Only on the Fear the Officer Experiences?

 

[arkirk]

I believe that in the USA like the UK the court would need to establish the circumstances and sequence of events.
Included in this the subjective test whether a reasonable person either knew of a real danger or in the heat of the moment he/she honestly and instintively believed there was a danger.
Each case should be investigated and tried according to their own sets of circumstances.

Which does not answer the question.

Should a Police Officer Have the Right to Kill a Person Based Only on the Fear the Officer Experiences?

NO! Absolutely no! That answer goes to "should." If we would focus on decreasing desperation and poverty and racial bigotry in our society there would be a lot less fear and a lot less killing of innocent people. But "should" is not a reality we can expect.

 

[Axulus]

If the fear is of grave bodily injury or death, and the fear is reasonable given the situation, then yes. Otherwise, no. Whether the officer initiated the encounter or not is irrelevant so long as that officer was not engaging in an illegal act of harassment or assault for no reason.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Which does not answer the question.

Should a Police Officer Have the Right to Kill a Person Based Only on the Fear the Officer Experiences?

NO! Absolutely no! That answer goes to "should." If we would focus on decreasing desperation and poverty and racial bigotry in our society there would be a lot less fear and a lot less killing of innocent people. But "should" is not a reality we can expect.

TAKE NOTE

This is how you answer a yes or no question. You answer the question first, like arkirk has here, and THEN make all the explanation, extrapolation, and exploration you feel you need.

 

[TSwizzle]

If a physical struggle should ensue because the officer instigated a confrontation and that act leads to the killing of an civilian, should the resulting death be the fault of the officer who initiated the disturbance?

Not necessarily, no.

 

[ksen]

If the fear is of grave bodily injury or death, and the fear is reasonable given the situation, then yes. Otherwise, no.

What if the fear is that a teenager is calling in armed support from a patriot militia group?

Reasonable?

Not reasonable?

 

[Sarpedon]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Nothing good can come from turning cowardice into a super-power. No special rights for cravens!

 

[Axulus]

If the fear is of grave bodily injury or death, and the fear is reasonable given the situation, then yes. Otherwise, no.

What if the fear is that a teenager is calling in armed support from a patriot militia group?

Reasonable?

Not reasonable?

I can't imagine how that could be considered reasonable.

 

[ksen]

What if the fear is that a teenager is calling in armed support from a patriot militia group?

Reasonable?

Not reasonable?

I can't imagine how that could be considered reasonable.

Neither can I my friend, neither can I. :fistbump:

 

[AthenaAwakened]

If a physical struggle should ensue because the officer instigated a confrontation and that act leads to the killing of an civilian, should the resulting death be the fault of the officer who initiated the disturbance?

Not necessarily, no.

And why not?

 

[AthenaAwakened]

If the fear is of grave bodily injury or death, and the fear is reasonable given the situation, then yes.

Not the question asked.

Otherwise, no.

Is this an answer to the question asked?

Whether the officer initiated the encounter or not is irrelevant

Why?

so long as that officer was not engaging in an illegal act of harassment or assault for no reason.

And legal acts of harassment? They are ok? And as for assault, can assault be reasonable?

 

[TSwizzle]

Not necessarily, no.

And why not?

Because the terms "confrontation" and "disturbance" are ambiguous.

But if the officer is attacked, it's game on.

 

[Trausti]

Not necessarily, no.

And why not?

Because your hypothetical is too broad. "instigated a confrontation" What does that mean? If you instead wrote that the officer hit a civilian without cause, leading to a tussle, then that may be what you're going for.

In any case, it's not the "right" to kill but a legally excusable killing. All of us can be legally excused of a killing, not just cops. Got to look at the totality of the circumstances rather paint a broad brush of "instigated a confrontation."

 

[Bacillus anthracis]

I believe that in the USA like the UK the court would need to establish the circumstances and sequence of events.
Included in this the subjective test whether a reasonable person either knew of a real danger or in the heat of the moment he/she honestly and instintively believed there was a danger.
Each case should be investigated and tried according to their own sets of circumstances.

Which does not answer the question.

Should a Police Officer Have the Right to Kill a Person Based Only on the Fear the Officer Experiences?

It's an inappropriate question because you're not allowing for degree. The general legal question is this:


The elemental parts of the general question are many:

Would a reasonable police officer in the same position feel the need to use lethal force?

Further, was it an intuitional killing, or an accident? What was the size of the officer vs. that of the suspect? Where did this occur? Did the officer know the suspect from prior incidences? If so, what was the reputation of the suspect? Were there eyewitnesses? What did they say to whom, at what point did they say it, and what was the tone of voice they used to express their narration in? Were the suspects sober? If not, how intoxicated were they? Was it nighttime or day? How far were they standing from the incident when it took place? And there are more but I have to go.

Otherwise, the question you've set up may as well ask if a super mean bully should be able to murder a pony that's minding its own business.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

If a physical struggle should ensue because the officer instigated a confrontation and that act leads to the killing of an civilian, should the resulting death be the fault of the officer who initiated the disturbance?

Not necessarily, no.

And why not?

Because your hypothetical is too broad.

I don't think so. And TSwizzle felt it sufficiently limited that it could answered.

"instigated a confrontation" What does that mean?

Well let's see

Instigate -- incite someone to do something, especially something bad.

confrontation -- a hostile or argumentative meeting or situation between opposing parties.

Do you need a definition of "a" as well?

If you instead wrote that the officer hit a civilian without cause, leading to a tussle, then that may be what you're going for.

No, that would be what you are going for. I know what I wanted to say, and I said it. If you don't like it, feel free to step away from it.

In any case, it's not the "right" to kill but a legally excusable killing.

You did read the question, right?

All of us can be legally excused of a killing, not just cops. Got to look at the totality of the circumstances rather paint a broad brush of "instigated a confrontation."

I didn't ask about what was legal or illegal. The question is

Should a Police Officer Have the Right to Kill a Person Based Only on the Fear the Officer Experiences?

If you don't like the question, you need not feel compelled to respond to or engage with it in any shape, form or fashion. I may be hurt by such a decision, but I will "endeavor to persevere".

- - - Updated - - -

Which does not answer the question.

Should a Police Officer Have the Right to Kill a Person Based Only on the Fear the Officer Experiences?

It's an inappropriate question because you're not allowing for degree. The general legal question is this:


The elemental parts of the general question are many:

Would a reasonable police officer in the same position feel the need to use lethal force?

Further, was it an intuitional killing, or an accident? What was the size of the officer vs. that of the suspect? Where did this occur? Did the officer know the suspect from prior incidences? If so, what was the reputation of the suspect? Were there eyewitnesses? What did they say to whom, at what point did they say it, and what was the tone of voice they used to express their narration in? Were the suspects sober? If not, how intoxicated were they? Was it nighttime or day? How far were they standing from the incident when it took place? And there are more but I have to go.

Otherwise, the question you've set up may as well ask if a super mean bully should be able to murder a pony that's minding its own business.

See above post.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

And why not?

Because the terms "confrontation" and "disturbance" are ambiguous.

actually, they are not.

But if the officer is attacked, it's game on.

Attack is not part of the question.

 

[TSwizzle]

Because the terms "confrontation" and "disturbance" are ambiguous.

actually, they are not.

They are for me and some others.

But if the officer is attacked, it's game on.

Attack is not part of the question.

Why not ? After all it's an ambiguous "disturbance" anyway. I have no idea what the disturbance or confrontation consists of.


It's impossible to play the game when one doesn't know the rules ahead of time and the rules can be arbitrarily changed. So silly.