Is this good? Personally speaking, it can be but it can also backfire as well.
The law holds both law enforcement and ordinary citizens to a high standard. That seems good and reasonable to me. Given the large number of citizens who are neither good nor reasonable on a regular basis, I can understand why the police are worried. I don’t think the solution is less accountability.
It makes sense. If someone enters your house illegally then you have a duty to defend yourself, family, and home. It matters not if it is a random guy or the government agent.
The courts are not going to unviolate your rights.
If a person attempts to commit a forcible felony, you should be able to defend yourself against them.
I think there are a lot of trigger happy people in America who would just love to have the opportunity to shoot someone legally, be they an ordinary criminal or a criminal-cop. I also think most Americans perceive police officers as far scarier and more violence-prone than other varieties of criminals, but it would be incredibly naive for anyone to defend themselves or their loved ones from a rogue police officer and then expect anything other than summary execution or life in prison for their actions. Cops have a way of winning.
I have to give it to you bro, your thinking inspires further thought. For example as a child did you encounter a lot of happy people who wanted to kill something? Myself I really didn’t encounter this. I think we don’t realize how scared the officers are also. And I think for example its goes a long way for the officer to explain their concern immediately in relation to protect and serve. I don’t know anyone who believes the police are more dangerous than criminals in general, though for example there may indeed be some more dangerous. And for sure there have been a few cases of rouge officers, but today I see more of a team effort in quickly overpowering civilians without a charitable approach. But I also see consistent horrible behavior in the manner many civilians in these repetitive case’s display. Even if we agree in general to the police winning, Its not conspiracy. its breakdown in relation to above.
In my mind I’m just thinking. Even if you did kill a cop trespassing on your property. What would you do afterward? I mean now you have an empty police car wondering why Officer Buck hasn’t reported in to Dispatch.
This is not as outrageous as the police in Indiana would have you believe. There is a Common Law right to resist arrest including using deadly force. Like many true rights it has been taken away in many states. But it has also been used as a successful defense.
Unfortunately there are people who enjoy killing. Some go into the military and law enforcment as those are acceptable outlets. The police are more dangerous than criminals because they enjoy the protection of the law. If a police officer gets into a shoutout and kills innocent people there is very little chance he will in any way be held responsible for his actions. Accountability is essential to restrain man. So from that point of view police are more dangerous.
I don’t know I have had my alarm at my home go off when not home. The police came and contacted the company, me and so forth, they never went in. I just find it odd they would be entering a home and so forth without careful analysis and all doors and windows locked and intact etc.
I never heard of this, resisting arrest is a charge itself. You mean self defense?
But we don’t how big this group is in comparison to those who do-not. This is based on practical experience?
Yes this has been suggested but without merit that I can see at this point.
This may be true but it doesn’t make them “more” dangerous. It just means there is potential for a dangerous situation. Criminals are convicted of crime, or they are not a criminal. So these criminals who are convicted of violence are factually more dangerous.
Unless there’s a statistical breakdown of this its an assertion which may or may not be true.
Sorry, I should have said resisting an unlawful arrest. There are lawful and unlawful arrests. Somewhat ironically related, in my state many people have been charged solely with the crime of resisting arrest. Meaning there was no real crime, but the police decided to arrest the poor soul and when they rightly objected the police had their crime.
I don’t have statistics for how many people in the military or law enforcement enjoy killing. I doubt you’d ever get a real understanding of that as it is unlikely you would get an honest answer. If you voice this desire you might get booted. I base my judgement on knowing human nature, and second hand experience.
I wouldn’t consider criminal conviction to be the best guide. State agents are spared from ever even being charged with crimes. It is impossible to get a conviction without a charge. The legal system has changed a lot over the years. At one time citizens could bring charges to grand juries. Now for all practical purposes grand juries are rubber stamps for the government. The legal system has evolved in such a way as the state has a complete monopoly and privilege. It was not always so, thus it need not be and other systems might have great advantage.
I strongly disagree about the judgement of police being dangerous. Let’s take a simple example. This was an article in my local paper. A man was driving down the highway. He got into a wreck with a police car. The wreck was completely the fault of the officer and this was not disputed. Who paid for the wreck? Did the state? No. The state enjoys immunity. A police cruiser represents a roving vacuum of liability. A police officer is the same. I consider them an extra danger simply because they are not held responsible even when they are at fault.
Whether any particular man will commit a crime is one matter. We could say anyone is a potential criminal. It is true that some have exhibited criminal behavior already, and thus are a greater risk. But the police represent an extra danger simply because they are above the law.