Question: Should Cops Who Shoot Innocents Lose their Guns?

View · by **NMRMN** on Mon Apr 08, 2013 7:26 pm

Read more: http://www.theatlantic.com/national/arc ... ay/274692/

h/t TTAG: http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/0 ... heir-guns/

View · by **MasonK** on Tue Apr 09, 2013 4:56 am

In a word, no. There are review boards and investigations for shootings, as well as a legal system for this in civiil and criminal proceedings. If they are found negligent or criminally liable there are consequences.

View · by **911scanner** on Tue Apr 09, 2013 8:56 am

MasonK wrote:In a word, no. There are review boards and investigations for shootings, as well as a legal system for this in civiil and criminal proceedings. If they are found negligent or criminally liable there are consequences.

So, what you are saying is that there is a system in place for LEOs to get due process.

Why then, should the same type of system not apply to the public at large? After all, the LEOs you refer to work for the public at large.

Due process is a Constitutional right that applies to everyone, not just people who have jobs that put them in harm's way. We are starting to see more and more situations with a lack of due process directed towards the public at large since the Newtown event. Why should there not be a lack of due process for LEOs when they obviously harm an innocent?

View · by **tman** on Tue Apr 09, 2013 9:18 am

Lack of due process to any citizen is wrong.

LEO's work with "qualified immunity." If we perform our job within the limit of the law and department policy, we cannot be held "personally" responsible for harm caused to an innocent bystander.

Without that immunity, it's not likely that anyone would do this job.

Sent from my iPhone using that app which shall not be named.

View · by **NMRMN** on Tue Apr 09, 2013 10:10 am

tman wrote:Lack of due process to any citizen is wrong.

LEO's work with "qualified immunity." If we perform our job within the limit of the law and department policy, we cannot be held "personally" responsible for harm caused to an innocent bystander.

Without that immunity, it's not likely that anyone would do this job.

True, although the author was not suggesting civil or criminal penalty. Unfortunately I could foresee circumstances were the peace officer put themselves and others at risk due to lack of action for fear of losing their job... The bigger issue I believe is process and judgement of distinction between "qualified immunity" and negligence or outright misconduct and sanctions thereof.

View · by **damian_mb** on Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:22 am

The LAPD should lose their guns! Shooting up trucks that didn't match the description and didn't even identify their "suspects"

View · by **darkwolf45** on Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:37 am

I will just say that there are definitely LEOs who should definitely be considered via due process in terms of losing their 2A rights.

That is not to say that I do not agree the LEOs should have "qualified immunity." It is essential LEOs have this. But, it seems to me their is are enough corrupt LEOs out there that more scrutiny is warranted.

View · by **20mm** on Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:43 am

tman wrote:LEO's work with "qualified immunity." If we perform our job within the limit of the law and department policy, we cannot be held "personally" responsible for harm caused to an innocent bystander.
Without that immunity, it's not likely that anyone would do this job.

How did all those police officers do their jobs before the concept of qualified immunity existed?

View · by **tman** on Tue Apr 09, 2013 4:21 pm

20mm wrote:
How did all those police officers do their jobs before the concept of qualified immunity existed?

I imagine that no one used to sue.

View · by **Tronster** on Tue Apr 09, 2013 5:35 pm

IMO, if a LEO accidentally shoots an innocent bystander while on duty then no, they should keep their personal guns. I don't see a duty weapon and personal guns as being connected, unless a review of the shooting finds the LEO intentionally criminally negligent (ie; loses their temper and shoots a man already in custody). But I'm not sure of the process LEO go through for a shooting incident while on duty.

View · by **JK-linux** on Fri Apr 12, 2013 1:55 pm

Should a school bus driver that hits and kills someone while swerving to avoid an oncoming vehicle lose his license? Should an anesthesiologist on ER duty lose his practice if he unintentionally euthanizes a trauma victim, who turned out to be a severe benzo abuser? Should someone lose their guns if they miss an armed mugger and hit some guy in the background? I don't know. I'd hope and imagine that totality of circumstance comes in to play when deciding. None of those people intended to do anything wrong, but HAD to do SOMETHING, and as a result something bad happened to someone else because of something they did. Sometimes life doesn't go as planned, and sometimes black and white rules don't cover all possible outcomes or situations. Still, I'd rather see a good "regular" judicial proceeding than qualified immunity or some internal review board ruling - everyone gets the same judge/jury/defense mechanism.

Of course, that's not how it works, and I don't see it changing. So it's sort of moot for the most part.

View · by **NMRMN** on Fri Apr 12, 2013 2:17 pm

JK-linux wrote:Still, I'd rather see a good "regular" judicial proceeding than qualified immunity or some internal review board ruling - everyone gets the same judge/jury/defense mechanism.

I think this is the larger issue.

View · by **XDM45** on Fri Apr 12, 2013 2:41 pm

tman wrote:Lack of due process to any citizen is wrong.

LEO's work with "qualified immunity." If we perform our job within the limit of the law and department policy, we cannot be held "personally" responsible for harm caused to an innocent bystander.

Without that immunity, it's not likely that anyone would do this job.

Sent from my iPhone using that app which shall not be named.

It'd be nice if civilians/public could also get that - provided we went through the related legal training and firearm qualifications (shooting, safety, etc).

View · by **kollector03** on Fri Apr 12, 2013 2:50 pm

Interesting thread.

One step further.

If a lEo is involved in a shooting, are they required to see the dept shrink as part of the after shoot process?

If this is the case, would that psychiatric visit DQ them from firearm ownership like it would an ordinary citizen in Ny or Ct?

View · by **Xscream** on Fri Apr 12, 2013 4:08 pm

kollector03 wrote:
If a lEo is involved in a shooting, are they required to see the dept shrink as part of the after shoot process?

If this is the case, would that psychiatric visit DQ them from firearm ownership like it would an ordinary citizen in Ny or Ct?

This is the same in some departments.