No, there are no Cops in Prison for misusing their firearms, they were fired just before being sent to Prison and are no longer Police Officers. Do try to be more accurate, there's a good Chap.
Of course cops are held responsible for their misuse of firearms. If they rob somebody or murder somebody, they are held to the same standards as any civilian. Where cops get a break is when they accidentally harm somebody. If they miss a suspect and harm an innocent bystander, they are usually exempt from civil suits unless it can be proved that they were completely careless or negligent in their actions. We as civilians are responsible for every bullet that leaves our guns. At least we are in Texas. I assume elsewhere, also. If I shoot at a robber and accidentally hit an innocent bystander, I can be sued for damages or tried for manslaughter.
There is no law that makes cops exempt from their actions with a gun. They can be personally sued like anyone else
It's called "qualified immunity". Civilians have the option to flee when a crime is happening. Police are supposed to respond and are granted extra immunity for the extra responsibility. There is a greater burden of proof to prove a cop to be neglectful of somebody's rights. https://leb.fbi.gov/2012/september/qualified-immunity-how-it-protects-law-enforcement-officers
So? That doesn't raise the suicide rate in general. Japan has a higher suicide rate than us and they don't have firearms for the most part. Not only that but you still didn't answer my question. How does Indiana contribute to Chicago's gun homicide rate when Indiana is lacking in that area?
Indeed there are not. In the entire united states, there has not been so much as one single police officer who has ever been imprisoned for misusing their firearm, either in a negligent or deliberate manner. There is not a single account to be found anywhere in any news outlet that what you are saying is true, therefore it is something that simply does not exist.
When the robbery comes in the form of civil asset forfeiture, police officers are not held responsible. When the police officer used a prohibited and illegal choke hold that killed Eric Garner, he was not held responsible. When police officers fired more than one hundred rounds into the motor vehicle of a woman and her daughter in the case of mistaken identity, none of the responsible police officers were held responsible. When even the harm was intentional, police officers are still not responsible. - - - Updated - - - In fact it does. The courts have been expanding the coverage of qualified immunity for decades. They were responsible for creating the concept in the first place.
Why would you lie about something so obvious? You are not stuck on the fact that after they are convicted they are no longer police officers? Are you? That is just silly http://thefreethoughtproject.com/cop-arrested-killing-officer-firearms-demonstration/
So the state of Indiana is as fault when criminals from out of state illegally acquire firearms, for the purpose of trafficking them back home for use as they see fit?
Then why doesn't Indiana have the same gun homicide rate? Shouldn't a state with more guns would have more gun homicides?
So being the victim of criminal conspiracy makes one at fault for the actions of said criminal? It is not the fault of the criminal specifically, but rather their victim, for what is done? Then perhaps rapists and other sexual predators are indeed antagonized by those they commit assault against, because they were indeed asking for it. Then pray tell how is the state of Indiana at fault for the crimes committed in the state of Chicago? Firearms in both states are subjected to the same federal laws.
How exactly is it a lie? No evidence to the contrary has even been presented, nor does it even exist. Did you even read your own article before posting it? It states that the responsible officer was arrested, not indicted. The two are vastly different from one another. Further, your own article goes on to make the case that police officers are not held responsible for the reckless misuse of their firearms. Prosecutors requested a grand jury to press multiple charges, including homicide, involuntary manslaughter and reckless endangerment. However, on January 7th, the grand jury decided to charge Schroeter with reckless endangerment, but not involuntary manslaughter or homicide which would carry a steeper sentence. Schroeter faces up to ten years in prison if convicted, but the judge will have the ability to give him a lenient sentence. Your article even includes links to stories of other police officers who engaged in reckless behavior, but did not face consequences for their actions. http://thefreethoughtproject.com/cop-shoots-kills-pregnant-wife-unborn-child-walks-free/ A police officer in Pennsylvania will not receive any charges after shooting and killing his pregnant wife. The unborn baby was also killed. There has been no mention of the officers name in any news reports, but the name of his deceased wife, Joan Miller has been released. Miller was 34 years old at the time, and the unborn child was 22 weeks old. Following a short investigation it was determined that the officer was not responsible for the death of his wife. This case highlights the widespread problem of police accountability and shows how police receive far fewer consequences for their actions than the average person does. The officer claims that this was an accident that occurred when he was cleaning his gun, and that excuse was enough to absolve him of any charges. However, if he was not a police officer he would at the very least be charged with manslaughter. As has been stated, police officers are not held responsible for the misuse of their firearms, or handling them in a reckless manner. Your citation only serves to reinforce and confirm this as being fact.
I found a cop who was convicted of manslaughter during a negligent discharge. I'm sure there are others, but our justice system is not perfect for us or police. Guilty go free every day and innocent are convicted also. What got Peter Liang was that he was not being threatened and he had a "negligent discharge" that resulted in the death of an innocent bystander. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/12/n...shooting-of-akai-gurley-in-brooklyn.html?_r=0
White police officers who have committed far more egregious shootings of the public have not faced similar punishment. This in itself has been a topic of discussion, suggesting former police officer Pete Liang was prosecuted because of racism against his asian heritage.
Do you know what arrested means? It means a full investigation was conducted. Are you claiming something different? If cops are immune to prosecution....why investigate? Oh wait.....its a nationwide conspiracy....now I have it - - - Updated - - - Is this a nationwide conspiracy or does it apply to only certain cities? Please name your evidence
Suggesting something does not make it true, or even likely to be true, you would have to know all the pertinent facts if the case, before an allegation or even concerns of improprieties as far as prosecution can be raised. Prosecution is determined by evidence raised by the investigating team of Detectives and Supervisors and a District attorney in order to determine if Prosecution is warranted. There are enough checks and balances in place to effectively eliminate any bias.
The asian community of the united states believes racism was at play in the decision to pursue prosecution. Are they incorrect in their belief? If so, how is such proven? Unless the prosecution is motivated by politics in order to stem racial tension and uprising. Is that what you honestly believe? No one is convicted of various crimes because of some degree of bias?
Countless individuals are arrested in the united states every day of the year, often before the extent of wrongdoing is fully known, and often without charges ever being filed. Arrest ultimately means nothing except one is temporarily restrained from free travel, nothing more. It is standard procedure to conduct an investigation in such situations. However determining that a police officer does not have to stand trial despite accidentally killing someone, is not standard. It is a standard that applies exclusively to police officers, whereas private citizens are subject to prosecution for involuntary manslaughter when death was not intended. The use of sarcasm, rather than actually explaining why the claim is incorrect, has been noted. Would you care for citations from your own link, demonstrating police officers getting away with reckless and criminal behavior that private citizens would be incarcerated for? Stories of police officers committing acts that would qualify as attempted murder and reckless endangerment if it were committed by a private citizen, but facing no meaningful consequences as a result? It will most certainly be done, and the number of stories showing corruption of the police will be staggering. The only question currently is whether or not you will actually believe what you see, rather than dismissing it entirely out of hand because you do not agree with the premise? If the only response to numerous citations of a lack of police accountability is the statement of "I disagree" then it is a waste of time to engage in such. Ultimately the decision is up to you.
