Quote:
Originally Posted by Langy
You treat all suspects as if they're alive and a threat until it's proven otherwise, especially ones that have just been shooting at you.
|
Actually, I rather do believe that the burden of proof cannot be placed on anyone other than the officer here.
And he shouldn't have the luxury to decide whether or not the suspect is in immediate danger or not based on whether or not he dislikes the fact that he shot at him. He should evaluate the condition of all people at the scene and then take whatever action is calculated to minimise risk to them as a whole.
In cases where the optimum approach to improving the survival odds of involved citizens,
whether or not they are suspected of a crime, conflicts with the right of the officer to self-preservation, the officer has a duty to prioritise the safety of others over his own. That is what he is paid for, after all. If he would have liked to be able to minimise risk to himself, he should probably have pursued another career.
This duty does not entail risking his life needlessly or in a way that would interfere with the pursuance of his duties. Nor does it require him to be actively suicidal.
But in cases where there is a clear conflict between a slight increase in the safety of the officer and a slight increase in the survival odds of a citizen, I have to say that society should be able to demand that the officer choose the latter.
Of course, it might also have to increase salary, benefits and support substantially if the compensation for this increased risk level is to attract rational actors. But if the general public that we are so kindly blessed with as our ultimate lawmakers could get it into their thick-skulls that government exists to protect the people from
each other, not themselves, the tasks of law enforcement personnel would rapidly shrink to a managable level and any savings could be passed to employee benefits.