Should police officers be held responsible for poor judgement when a shooting occours?

As the questions ask.

Should a police officer who makes a bad judgement call that results in the police officer shooting a suspect, face any type of legal penalties?

 

Depends. Every aspect has to be looked at. Sometimes the suspect makes the poor judgement upon which the police officer makes their poor judgement -- with the primary cause being the suspect's poor judgement.

 

It's not as cut and dried as your question suggests. There are more questions to be answered than I'm thinking of right now. Example: was he properly trained? What would a normal prudent person have done under the same circumstances? A person is not always totally responsible for a bad choice he makes in an unusual circumstance.

 

A police officer should be a highly trained individual. IMO anyways. Part of that training is dealing with the poor judgement of a suspect.

 

It's part of the training, but that don't mean the police officer is at fault for making a mistake.

 

Even if that mistake is the death of a person who is say, unarmed, or not really posing a threat?

I disagree. Police should always be held accountable for their actions.

 

In a perfect world they would all be well trained. In our world they aren't. I know it was another lifetime but when I got hired as a police officer in the suburbs of Detroit I was sent to the tailor for my uniform and 'gear'. The assistant chief issued me a revolver, bullets, hand cuffs, badges and told me to be at work for the afternoon shift on Monday. OTJ was all you got.

That was 1957. I'm sure today that city has all kinds of advanced training but that doesn't change the fact that there's still some little towns somewhere that has a chief and two officers and their training is still - none.

 

I agree.

Whats sad, is all the money we spend on police settlements could likey be used to train officers instead. But poor training on the job, at least imo, shouldnt be an excusable reason to improperly shoot or arrest someone.

And trust me. I know the area. I grew up in Flint, and spent plenty of time in the D. Still do. I have a trip planned for Memorial day weekend,.

 

I think police officers should be held accountable, but they are bound to respond. I can ignore a store robbery and walk away. Because of this their punishment should be by losing their job and criminally only in extreme circumstances. (Intentional denial of basic human rights or crime with premeditation)

 

When doing your job poorly results in the loss of human life, I’d say yes they should be held legally accountable.

 

No, they should be treated differently to other people, we do not expect anyone else to make the sort of life and death split second decisions. As long as they are honest in their beliefs and those beliefs are reasonable they should always be given the benefit of the doubt.

 

No, they're not doing their job poorly, they have to make tough judgement calls and can never have the benefit of hindsight as those who criticize them do.

 

I'm sure training is better these days. But that's irrelevant, no amount of training can ever anticipate every scenario and we are literally talking split second life and death decisions.

 

Yes, even then, as long as they believe them a threat and that belief is genuine and reasonable.

 

Everybody should be held responsible for their actions, but contexts differ and circumstances matter. Police are much more likely to get into a situation where their life is at risk, and this high-risk context is a mitigating factor for any bad decision that occurs.

If an officer says he feared for his life, and there is no reason to think he didn't, but he acts poorly, then training practices should be re-evaluated and, perhaps, the officer should not be in a position with a high risk of violence. Some people are just too nervous to be in that kind of job, but it doesn't mean they should be in prison. Prison is to stop criminals from victimizing more innocent people. A nervous cop just needs to be taken off the beat.

 

Perhaps they should. But if such were indeed the case, no one would ever sign up to become a law enforcement officer.

 

That all depends on what led to the shooting, if the suspect was acting in a manner that could be perceived as a threat to the officers life, in the officers opinion then that must be weighed heavily to the officers advantage.

In a large majority of police shootings the suspect had the ability to not be shot by following one simple rule, cooperate, and do as you have been ordered to do.

Always understand, on the streets one is considered guilty, until proven innocent, that's just the way it has to be.

 

Here's some good advice for ya.

 

By the same logic, we should have no Navy SEAL deaths. They're highly trained so of they get killed, it's there own fault. Sometimes training simply doesn't cut it.

 

You (possibly inadvertently) ask two distinct questions. Everyone should be held responsible for their poor judgement if it has consequences for other people (or had a potential to have consequences for other people). That doesn't automatically mean they would face any formal legal (or even disciplinary) action as a result. That'd be a case-by-case decision.

 

They get held to the same standard every other US citizen does. That is to say if the investigators and the local DA decide that the actions of a particular officer (or group of officers) potentially constitute a crime then they get charged and put before the courts. At which point they are no longer officers of the law, just 'Joe' Citizen' like anyone else facing a criminal charge. So if you want Police involved in shootings to be more accountable for their actions you are going to have to raise the bar for everyone else in the US as well. And good luck with that.

 

I agree with this. By the reasoning I see some people using here you would think a policeman has the right of "kirisute gomen" " to cut down and walk away" like the Edo period Samurai who could kill anyone anytime under any circumstance with complete impunity. What about the Police officer who stumbled into the wrong apartment and killed this poor guy who was just sitting down at his own couch? She was on the wrong floor and she violated protocol by going in alone. If she had called for backup and waited she would almost certainly have noticed her mistake. The policeman is expected to defend their own life and such defenses are never easy, but they shouldn't be either. A police officer is expected to cultivate good judgment like anyone who carries a gun or there should be consequences. It goes with the job.

 

Depends on LOTS of things such as was the judgement made in good faith. And who decides whether good judgement was made or the bad judgement was made in good faith.

 

Remember the SEAL team that killed USM shot dead 3 unarmed men in that house, none of whom posed any threat, when are those guys going to be put on trial for murder?

 

No, police should be held to a different standard, you do not expect the ordinary citizen to confront the situations they do so they must be given greater understanding and empathy. As long as they are honest in their beliefs and those beliefs are reasonable they must always be given the benefit of the doubt. You do not compare a surgeon who loses a patient on the table because their scalpel slips to some thug who knifes his victim on the street, you cannot compare a fireman/ambulance driver who knocks someone over on the way to an emergency call to some boy racer who mows down a pedestrian because he likes to drive fast.