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.

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.