Should Police be held accountable?

[yakguest]

Interesting topic, which I had more time to ponder and contribute.  Regardless, one interesting case happened a month or so ago involving a policeman who was off-duty but had an obnoxious, violent and offensive man (who he was trying to calm down) try to throw a chair at him.  The off-duty cop shot the guy twice and dropped him.  The heavy metal chair could've endangered the cop's life or at least permanent well-being.  That one I could argue either side quite easily.  (Try googling a few of the key words for a news story)

[SSH]

Just show the beginning of the movie "Con-Air" at the debate...

In a country like America, where every man and his dog has a gun, you would think that means the police would be in danger more often but then the chance of the other person being a legitimate gun owner defending themselves is much higher, so they need more caution.

In the UK where handguns are banned and other guns rare, if you see someone carrying a handgun, they are pretty much defined as a criminal and a threat...

However, all of these things are dependent on the exact circumstances of the situation. Obviously some accountability is required or the police can shoot who they like, but then if there is too much caution the police officer and other members of the public can be at risk. I would argue that it should be decided case by case.

[Pelican]

Psst, Pelican, don't tell anybody but criminals have rights too.

I'm not saying that criminals don't have rights. I'm just saying that some of the situations occurring are rather ridiculous. For instance a criminal attacks a police officer, and is injured while being subdued. Then tries to sue for the injuries occurred. Thats just daft. It really depends on the situation - if the criminal is a real threat (and how can you know if they're really going to use that weapon?), and how much force is necessary to subdue them with the minimum of casualties all round. Anyway I think Darth's made most of my points for me.

[Snarky]

I'm not saying that criminals don't have rights. I'm just saying that some of the situations occurring are rather ridiculous. For instance a criminal attacks a police officer, and is injured while being subdued. Then tries to sue for the injuries occurred. Thats just daft.

Attempting to sue isn't the same thing as winning a lawsuit. I could try to sue you for posting that message--I just wouldn't win.

Besides, never trust one-sentence summaries of the background for lawsuits. Remember that woman who won a $3 mill. lawsuit against MacDonald's for burning herself on their hot coffee? Well, she had a point.

[Darth Mandarb]

Remember that woman who won a $3 mill. lawsuit against MacDonald's for burning herself on their hot coffee? Well, she had a point.

If she wasn't sittin' in her car with the coffee cup between her legs trying to open it with one hand it wouldn't have happened.

What are they [McDonald's] supposed to do?Ã,  Maybe put zippers around the lid which require both hands to open.Ã,  Maybe they should put accelerometers on the cups to make sure it's not in motion while being sipped.

Of course ... this doesn't have anything to do with Police accountability ... but I couldn't resist (as usual) chiming in here

In a country like America, where every man and his dog has a gun ...

I resent that statement ... my dog doesn't have a gun.Ã,  He carries grenades instead.

[YakGuest]

Well, as far as the McDonald's coffee case goes, I still believe the lady was a bit of an idiot.  Even after judgement was passed against McDonalds, I believe the grandmother should've received enough to cover her hospital expenses, legal fees and 5-10% for time. 

Thank you for the link, though, as I now recognize that it was more a minor case of criminal negligence than improperly marked cups.  McDonald's showed coldness towards their customers but that should hurt their reputation, not their pocketbook.  On the other hand, they were serving coffee at extremely hot temperatures, not taking into account that they're a family (i.e. little children are involved) restaurant that has a drive-through.  After all, we'd surely all blame McDonald's if they were distributing razor-edged plastic knives that were causing injury.  Sure, it's the person's fault if they cut themselves but the company had turned a minor hurt or inconvenience into something permanently damaging.

Got off track..  I think this case applies to the policeman thing at least as a good reminder to read the facts rather than just basing your arguments and opinions on word-of-mouth.

[Snarky]

Remember that woman who won a $3 mill. lawsuit against MacDonald's for burning herself on their hot coffee? Well, she had a point.

If she wasn't sittin' in her car with the coffee cup between her legs trying to open it with one hand it wouldn't have happened.

What are they [McDonald's] supposed to do?Ã,  Maybe put zippers around the lid which require both hands to open.Ã,  Maybe they should put accelerometers on the cups to make sure it's not in motion while being sipped.

They could, you know, not serve the coffee scalding hot! Sure, trying to open a cup of coffee with one hand while sitting in a car may not be the smartest thing ever, but I bet most people wouldn't be aware that spilling the drink might mean third degree burns and several days in hospital. MacDonald's were aware, and they should have done something about it.

The point isn't whether the verdict was correct or not. The point is that even though it sounds like a frivolous lawsuit, it had a good deal of merit.

Actually, the website articulates everything I have to say on the issue:

"Anyone can file a lawsuit for any reason. Winning is much more difficult, and the vast majority of lawsuits get thrown out long before victory. The media thus often overemphasizes the filing of a lawsuit - especially those that are apparently frivolous - and it gives far too little attention when the lawsuit fails, gets dismissed, or simply dies out."

"Reasonable people can disagree about whether McDonald's should have been forced to pay for the severe burns that Stella Liebeck suffered in 1992, but the legal system has been unfairly damned by people based on anecdotes and assumptions about this case without understanding a bit more about what actually happened and why."

[ggss]

Hi! I found your question interesting, as I have pondered this type of thing alot.
The answer is found in what people believe in, I think. The answer might actually be somewhat mysterious, I think. What do you believe in? Do you believe in God? Do you believe in Jesus Christ(I believe they are accountable, because I believe in Christ)?
Do you believe that it is ok to defend oneself, and if so, then when? Christ esteemed others more highly than himself. So, the question is: How highly do you esteem yourself, in regards to other people? Are they more important than you, or less important than you, or are you equals? 
It is in there thinking, is where the shooting starts in the first place.
If someone crosses over the line they have in their thinking, then they will shoot them.
There are all kinds of different ways of looking at it.
In the end, the answer(I think), is in the Holy Bible, and to answer the question: Here it is:
The dead will be resurrected, and then the judgement, but what form is that judgement to take(I am not really sure).
I can honestly say that if you don't hurt anyone, then you will not have to worry about being judged on hurting other people. As John the Baptist said to some men(I think they were centurions or something like that) who asked him how they might be saved: John replied "Harm no one!"
John said not to hurt anyone.
Raises alot of questions in regards to righteousness, and I don't have the definitive answer.  The lawyers might think that a person has a "right" to defend themselves, depending on circumstances(but what circumstances?)(When?). It's a bit of a tough question to answer.
The question of "how do we cope with persecution?" comes up too.
Who's gonna persecute who?
Is it righteous to harm another person, and if so, then when?
Mysterious, I guess. Quite a contentious topic, and it might be regarded as a part of the spiritual warfare that is going on in the world.
Those guys in Iraq that hung and burned those guys on the bridge thought they were being righteous. Do the American soldiers think they are being righteous? Similar type of thing.  America felt threatened, and defended itself. Same with cops who feel threatened.
Sometimes there is perversion of this type of justice, as well, so a corrupt cop or a corrupt political leader might do harm to people who hadn't done anything to them
(And, guess what? Once those professional people have corrupted justice, they don't like to admit it, and I swear, they will fight like crazy to deny that they did anything wrong)
(pretty tough, eh, if you end up on the recieving end of perversion of justice, and
GOOD LUCK  trying to correct the injustice, with the people (the cops and the political leaders) who think they are the
righteous ones. I swear that they would rather see a man rot in a jail cell, or just die, rather than admit that they had ever corrupted justice(they might lose their jobs, eh?)
(awwwwww!)
Lots of different people have predefined thinking processes in regards to how they will respond when threatened, and if a person crosses over that line, booom, your dead.
Different people have different thinking ideas.  One person might kill another person over leaving the toothpast cap off(obviously insignifcant, right? Maybe not, because small things can become bigger things).  Another person might kill ya over trying to take their job. Many men will kill other men if they think that the other man is seeking to cause harm to them physically.
I believe that Jesus Christ exposed that it is those things that come out of the heart of man that defile the man, such as the murderous thoughts, and the false witnessing, and the adulteries, etc...(the laws of God).
I don't know the answer. complex stuff. I think a lot of the people who believe that it is ok to harm or kill in self-defence may not have thought very deeply about it.  Be at peace with all men, if at all possible.
It may be that sometimes there are situations that it is not possible, unless you esteem other people more highly than yourself(like Christ), and therefore refrain from causing them any harm at all, and if you are willing to die before you will harm another person
(this might be the perfect, and holy way to handle the situation, but I am not really sure, because there is much violence in the Holy Bible)?
It seems that no matter how I try to take a stance on this question, I could find areas of fault, and areas where people would sinfully abuse that particular stance.

[YakSpit_loggedoff]

That was an elaborate and well though-out post but it merely skims over the issue at hand.  How accountable must we make policemen for their actions? Yes, you mentioned them but only in the context of the everyday man.  Of course, (as was specifically mentioned earlier, I believe) policemen are people behind the badge.

However, remember the extra responsibility they have.  If a man is wildly waving a knife in a crowded area, the cop tells him to drop it and the man not only fails to comply but charges the cop - if the cop were feeling particularly holy that day, he might let the man kill him.  There are a few problems with this: 1) I know I'm not paying policemen to simply yell at people and hope they comply without the potential threat of deadly force 2) This wouldn't do anything for the bystanders (which was one issue in the Starbucks case I mentioned) and 3) The previously armed-with-a-knife man would now have access to handcuffs, radio (for monitoring patrol activity) and a gun, perhaps a policecar.  Imagine how much damage and/or subversion could've been prevented if the cop had ended the man's life. 

Keep in mind that in non-combat (no shoot-to-kill order) situations both military and police personnel are expected to attempt a disabling but non-lethal shot whenever possible.  Using the weapon does not automatically equal death.  (By the way, I think it's a bit off to paint Jesus as a Zen-Bhuddist, he became violent on occasion (e.g. the moneychangers in the temple) demonstrating that sometimes righteousness demands action).