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.