What is the name of the law that allows police officers not to be held accountable for misuse of firearms? Why are some former cops in jail for misuse of firearms?
It is not a law but rather a legal standard created by the courts, best known as qualified immunity. Being a police officer makes one qualified for immunity against criminal or civil liability for their actions in all but the most extreme and egregious of situations, where one can prove the responsible officer knew what they were doing was wrong, but did so regardless because they could, and in a malicious manner. There are not, because you have not presented any citations to back up your claim. Your only account posted tells of a police officer being arrested, but not actually convicted. The two standards are wholly different from one another. George Zimmerman, for example, was arrested but ultimately not convicted. Meanwhile examples have been presented showing police officers facing absolutely no consequences for the reckless and even criminal misuse of their firearms.
So if I show evidence of a former police officer in jail you will agree you were wrong? Not likely because you know that would be easy
A single example of something ultimately proves nothing. You would need to post numerous accounts of police officers being held responsible for their actions, demonstrating conclusively that they are not above the law, despite ample evidence suggesting that they are. Police officers in the united states do not face repercussions for egregious actions that would result in a prison sentence if the perpetrator was instead a private citizen. Accidentally killing your pregnant wife is not something a private individual does not face consequences for, merely because it was an accident.
Really? 50% of cops that fire their weapons in the line of duty have to be convicted? How did you arrive at this number?
How many examples do you need to prove conclusively that police officers are not held responsible for their actions?
If I'm not mistaken Indiana's population is bigger than Chicago so my point still stands. Not only that but the rest of your points favor my argument. It's not the guns but the culture, gangs, and economics.
Excuse me people... people.... we are about to build a wall... All those not in favor PLEASE STAND ON THE OTHER SIDE DURING CONSTRUCTION. Thank you..
Still, by your logic Indiana would have a higher gun homicide rate due to more guns and a larger population.
Wait... population density has an effect on violent crime? That is, when larger numbers of guns are paired with a low population density, you get less violence than that large number of guns paired with high population density? Clearly, then, the number of guns isn't the problem. Of course, everyone already knows this. Everyone.
Not discharging their firearms in the line of duty, but rather in a negligent and incompetent manner that would supposedly result in them being convicted of a crime, based on your claims.
Which goes on to prove or otherwise suggest what? That negative societal influences such as gang presence, gang membership, illicit substance use and abuse, are alone not enough to explain high rates of crime, but must be paired with significant population density in a specific area of a certain size?
Pray tell what is had? That criminal activity alone does not explain high rates of crime occurring, unless said activity occurs in a location with a high population density?
