@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?