No.

Incorrect.

I am not incorrect. I am fully physically capable of those actions.

Well then you're physically capable of going to jail for a life sentence.

I am also capable of that. But what I can do, what I may do, and what ought to be done are three distinctly different actions. ALL persons must be held to the exact same standard at all times. If qualified immunity exists for an act then it must always exist for that act regardless of who performs that act. If an act is just under Y circumstances then it is always just no matter who performs it.

Whithers, what we just described was murder for a citizen, and self-defense for the police.

I hold the same position with the media. They should be held to one standard for all persons. There should not exist a special dispensation where they do not have to tell the truth because someone is famous or infamous. They should be allowed to shout fire in a crowded theater if there is a fire. They should not be allowed to shout fire in a crowded theater if there is no fire in that crowded theater. The standard should be the publication of the truth, regardless of who they are and regardless of who they are talking about. One standard.

Are you arguing that should be murder for cops too?

If the condition defines as murder then it is always murder under those specific circumstances no matter who does it. If the question is should that be murder under those circumstances it is defined as such regardless of who pulls the trigger.

That sounds like the biggest cop-out I've seen in some time.

It is not a copout at all. My minister used to say never fight if you are not prepared to kill someone. That is because you never know if some accident, someone slips and hits their head on a rock and dies, can occur even if you did not mean for it to occur when the struggle was initiated. One standard.

@Whithers, you just advanced to level 17!

Like, do you at least acknowledge officers are literally allowed to (because of their position of authority and the requirement of the job to be able to do these things) break the law to do their job, and are held to a different standard because of that?

Again, what I just described is two very different situations due to nothing but a badge.

If breaking down a door and shooting someone to stop the rape and murder of a child is a just action, then it is a just action no matter who performs it.

And two very different outcomes.

@Maw do I need to remove the picture? Mom

I mean, is it news?

Whether or not the legal system holds officers to the same standard as others is not the discussion. The discussion is normative. Should officers and not-officers be held to the same standard? Yes, always.

OK thanks

No, I am legitimately asking. lol

You're making non-statements, and just reiterating your point. With the example you have, tell me, should an officer be guilty of murder?

Don't pivot, just answer the question.

Because your principles would say yes.

Yes, I am aware of the meaning of qualified immunity. However, I refuse to accept that persons should be held to different standards for the same action. There is one standard, the human standard. What is a just action for one is always a just action regardless of who performs it.

Unless you're of course holding them to a different standard.

An officer can be guilty of murder just like all other persons. One standard. A ditch digger is not given a free pass to commit murder because they are not an officer.

Isn't qualified immunity just protection from civil action?

Pretty sure it is.

We're talking about criminal action.

Was wondering today, about voter ID laws and under the impression most adults carry identification when leaving the house. @Maw

@Whithers Stop dodging the question.

If qualified immunity grants immunity on the basis of an action that is necessary then it must apply to all equally, regardless of status.

Answer the question, if the police have a reason to kick down your door, and enter your house, and the **authority** to do so, is it murder if they protect themselves in self defense when you have a gun pointed at them?

Again if breaking down a door and killing someone is justifiable to stop the rape and murder of a child then it is justifiable no matter who performs that action.

Never brought that up.

Answer the question as presented.

@Maw perhaps the laws that cause the most search warrants to be executed should be nullified?

In order to break down the door they have to have a reason to break down the door. The reason given is a child is being raped and murdered. If the serial rapist points a gun at the person, whether they are a cop or not, they are justified in killing the serial rapist both in self defense and because their action to save the child from rape and murder is justified. If there is a reason to be their and commit the action then it is always just no matter who performs the action.

That wasn't the reason presented.

Answer the question.

I would argue that the universal standard of "lawfulness" is that which is "reasonable" in the given circumstances, which might be generally different for a police officer than for a war veteran, or a pacifist. There are 2 tests of what is reasonable, the subjective and the objective.

And what is reasonable based off of @ReclaimTheLaw ?

You are attempting to ask a question without a reason in order to render it reasonless. I have answered the question. You do not like the answer because you want a tiered justice system where people are treated differently based upon their caste.

A person ia allowed to use "reasonable force" in the prevention of a crime

I want a justice system where we hold police accountable, yes.

That is a tiered legal system that is and is always unjust.

I disagree.

You are wrong.

modern policing is suited to protect people from other people or people from harming others property not harming themselves.

You yourself said capacity is a meaningful distinction, did you not?

You widen capacity to mean willful ignorance of an act before engaging in that act. So it is acceptable in your approach for someone to rape and murder a child if they don't know it is illegal.

@Maw that is how precedent is created, an "impartial" judgement of what was reasonable in the circumstances, it is the beauty and the difficulty of a Common Law jurisdiction rather than a Napoleonic jurisdiction

@ReclaimTheLaw It's based on the average, reasonable person, yes?

Which, let's be fair, is a fairly low bar.

It is certainly a mountain sized assumption. I don't believe people are rational, only rationalizing, which changes the definition of what is reasonable.

@Maw the average reasonable person does not exist, each person is unique, which is why each case has to be judged on its own merits

Sure, but reasonableness is important to the way our system works, yes? Particularly when it comes to defense.

@ReclaimTheLaw I agree with that assessment. I also maintain that ceteris paribus the same action is justifiable or not regardless of who performs that act.

Did anyone else see this?

That was cute, yes @Sage256

Dint see that

Didn't know if troll.

I'm just curious if he got a yes. Haha

@Sage256 If the election is not valid then Nancy Pelosi becomes President on Jan. 20th.

I know a lot of people said: "don't leave them hanging" snerk

unless they hold a contingent election to be justified.

that is why there are 2 tests of what is reasonable, the subjective (what the person thought was reasonable) and the objective 9what an observer would thinkwas reasonable) . . . Iwould saythat a person who had received training in restraint would be held to a higher standard than someone who had no trainiing , , , , , the uniform standard between the two people beiinig what was "reasonable"

@ReclaimTheLaw Thank you, I'm glad we agree.

Just like I wouldn't treat a child to the same standard as an adult.

right

I wouldn't treat an average American without formal police training to the same standard as police.

Especially since police can, and have positions of authority within our society.

Where they may be immune to certain laws.

E.g: Speeding.

@ReclaimTheLaw I am arguing that that is a justification for double standards. If you justify a greater responsibility because someone is trained, then you excuse liability for someone that is not trained. Therefore it is better for a person that is not an officer to enforce the law because they will be safer legally from repercussions.

neither would I, except to hold them both to the standard of that which is reasonable, which would be different for each person 🙂

I friend of mine works in a hospital in NYC. She says they will start vaccinating them December 15..for Covid19.

_highfives._

People who are not authorities may not take actions that authorities take @Whithers That's been my entire argument.

The statement is Ceteris Paribus. Two persons commit the exact same action under the exact same conditions, then the standards of performance are the same no matter who or what they are.

They can't commit the same action.

You over estimate the value of authority.

They can commit the same action.

I at least acknowledge it exists.

The last thing I want to see is a bunch of batmen running around the streets.

I also acknowledge authority exists. It is always performed by humans. All humans fail. All humans succeed. Either the action was just or it was not.

Ending up in situations like Ahmaud Arbery.

The person performing the action is irrelevant.

@Whithers we are all subject to the standard of that which is (judged to be ) reasonable, but it is different for each person and each circumstance . . .. .in a sense there are as many tiers in the justice system as there are individual people and cicumstances ! (practically infinite!)

The standard of the law must be the same standard. You are saying that the law must be legislated in infinite variations to accommodate every potential possibility in existence. There is not enough hard drive in the universe for one law.

Yes...

Law isn't black and white.

That's exactly what we're saying.

It's literally taken on a case-by-case basis.

If premeditated murder is illegal for one person it is equally illegal for all persons regardless of who or what they are.

It is as it exists.

This idea that law has no nuance is baffling to me.

If justifiable homicide is justifiable for one person then the same action is always justifiable regardless of who or what the person is that commits the justifiable homicide.