Certainly it is.

So are you trying to argue that a police officer is your average person, same education, despite having expert knowledge in this field in particular?

If a person desecrates the sacrifice, does it matter if they are a priest or a pauper? The law breaker is a breaker of the law.

All to one standard or there is no standard.

Wholeheartedly disagree.

The police have training and are not subject to the same laws as citizens while on duty, therefore they should be held to a higher standard.

They have a higher based level of training.

If you choose to plumb your house you must meet the exact same specifications as if you hired someone else to plumb your house. If you set up a propane tank it must have the same precautions whether you are the gas man or the home owner.

So what is reasonable to them is different to what is reasonable for your average person.

No, the obligation is the same.

If you do not know what you are doing then don't break down someone's door and shoot at people. The person who is not trained must be held to the same standard as the one that is trained. Ignorantia juris non excusat.

If you're not a figure of authority, don't bust someone's door down or you're going to prison.

Likely for life if you end up shooting and killing someone.

The "they should be held to a higher standard than me" is an excuse for poor performance and behavior on the part of those which choose to be ignorant.

What? No, it's the opposite.

No, it is exactly that.

Laxing standards is literally an excuse for poor performance.

Lowering the bar is relaxing standards.

One standard for all. If the standard is X then the standard is always X. If the desired performance in the commission of an act is X then it is always X.

I think that argument is beyond silly, and gives the police way too much power to do inappropriate things.

If the standard for carrying equipment for a soldier in the field is 80 lbs, then it is 80 lbs regardless of your sex, color, age, height, weight, training, etc. Performance must always have the same requirement no matter who or what performs the act.

Unless you were advocating for there to be no authority, I don't see how you could ever want to look at standards as being equal across the spectrum.

Stop comparing physical things to mental things.

Very different.

Because choosing unequal standards is and is always bigotry.

They are the same.

You're free to call bigoted if you'd like.

@Maw, you just advanced to level 26!

No word or deed can exist without first being thought. All words and deeds are the expression of the thing thought. They are the same.

You're preaching about random stuff that has little to do with your argument.

Should juvenile crime be treated the same as adult crime?

By your logic, yes, it should.

To be bigoted is to be partial by group association.

If this logic is consistent anyway.

Juvenile crime is not a specific that can be conveyed. Which exact crime?

Juvenile crime is a blanket statement, I don't need to have specifics.

Ceteris paribus ignorance is no excuse.

Should crime a child commits be treated the same as crime an adult commits?

I'd lay off the ad homs though.

It is against the rules, but I'm trying to be understanding.

Whithers, please take your meds. It's clearly needed.

@jcheesman123 Hey, that includes you too!

Yes, you do. One must be 12 years old to be able to comprehend point line perspective. If a 10 year old designs a faulty architectural draft of a bridge and it fails they were physically incapable of the comprehension necessary to perform the task. They cannot be held to the same standard as someone that has the capacity.

They are not Ceteris Paribus.

Aha.

Capacity.

Literally the argument I'm making to say people are held to different standards.

No you are not making the same argument.

Weird how you'd include that and only be respectful of it in one way though.

Yes, I am.

You are arguing that because some people choose to be willfully unskilled and willfully ignorant they should be allowed a lower standard of performance when they kill someone than someone that has chosen to be trained.

They are not in positions of authority with the prerequisites of these skills to be in positions of authority.

Hello to everyone

Hello @Gordis65 !

No, I'm arguing that the existing standard is lower for the average American.

Because they are literally the average American.

It is the Act of God dilemma. If a person puts icemelt on their sidewalk to try and make it safer they are liable for the person that fell and broke their hip on their human altered sidewalk. Had they not bothered to alter it, then the fall is an Act of God and they are not liable. You argue that because the police make the effort to be skilled to try and do the best they can, that they must be liable, while the persons that make no effort should be let go.

One standard for the performance of an action. No differentiation on account of persons. No respecter of persons.

I wish we could have a better look at the QR code to see what information it gives when you use a regular QR scanner

No, I make the argument that if you're in a position of power unbidden by rules regular citizens MUST follow (but you don't have to) you need to be held to account for your actions in a higher standard, because the only reason you're allowed to be where you are is because of your capacity to deal with these situations.

Which is much greater than the average person.

Period.

Having authority to act changes nothing. If the performance of the action to be just is X, then all persons must perform that action to X standard. No matter who they are.

No, it absolutely does.

@Maw just jumping in on your discussion, are you talking about the Doctrine of Strict Liability of a professional person ?

No it does not. If you stick your finger in the light socket the light socket does not zap you harder if you are an electrician.

We're talking about holding officers and people in positions of power to a higher standard than the average American.

@Whithers Doesn't zap you harder if your a child either, your point?

The law must be blind. No respecter of persons. All to one standard. All persons are equally obligated before the law.

Any other standard is a double standard.

I agree.

Well police officers get qualified immunity, isn’t that double standards?

If you can hold adults to a higher standard than children, then we can hold police to a higher standard than average Americans.

It's unreasonable to assume every American would get 6 months of police training.

Like I don't even know why this is an argument.

If you create a standard of law that says people are held to a different standard then you will always have a multi-tiered justice system. If the "lower" classes are given license to disregard the law on occasion because of their status then equally it justifies holding those in authority to different and from time to time lesser standards because they are a different caste of persons. There must be and always be the same ethical obligation before the law or justice has no blindfold.

We already have that standard.

@Maw as far as I know that is known as Strict Liability in Tort Law, where the mental element of KNOWINGLY or INTENTIONALLY is not required for criminal behaviour, because a professional person is expected to have that knowledge . . . .not sure Im being entirely clear, do you get my meaning ?

@ReclaimTheLaw, you just advanced to level 3!

But how is it equal if police already have qualified immunity ??

Then it is reasonable to presume that if you do not know how to perform an action correctly that you refrain from performing that action.

@AdamS I am arguing that there should be NO differentiation. If an act must be done in X manner to be just then all persons must perform that act in X manner to be just.

You understand we're talking about cases of self defense right?

Like, this is included.

Yes

Cops generally wouldn't be able to claim self defense because of what their job requires them to do.

If taking a life to save a life is justifiable homicide then it is justifiable homicide no matter who takes the life to save a life.

Unlike Americans, which can't just do the same stuff cops can.

Yes, Americans can do the same stuff cops can.

... no, they cannot.

Polizei means Citizen.

They cannot kick down your door, and shoot you if you have a gun pointed at them.

Period.

Cool.

Yes they can.

NO

NONONONO

They can't.

You forfeit your rights to self defense the moment you break into someone's house.

If you have a gun pointed at me I can do that, especially after you pull thetrigger while you have the gun pointed at me. Whether the jury will agree or not is a different issue.