Hacker News Reader

Comment by ethanhunt_ | Hacker News Reader

> police aren't routinely armed

That might be because some UK police refuse to carry because the UK doesn't have laws to protect officers (those laws that the US has that are constantly protested). https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/may/15/police-chief...

Can't say I blame them. Why would someone take on the chance of being charged with murder for carrying out their job's duties? It's not an easy problem to solve, but I think the ease of access to firearms is only going to increase, and they're going to have to get the UK police sorted with carrying.

View on HN

I'm not convinced the laws should be any different for the Police, should they? A justified shoot is a justified shoot, regardless of who is pulling the trigger.

Perhaps the laws in the UK need fixing (they did in New Zealand last I checked) but it should be a level playing field.

I don't think there's a great answer here. Without special legal protection, you're asking police to take a job that would require them to make decisions in a couple of seconds and if they make the wrong decision, they face a high risk of either death (should've shot but didn't) or life in prison (shot but shouldn't have). I wouldn't take that job if it payed 500k/yr, but we're asking officers to take it for 60k/yr?

I'm not asking for police to be protected if they're malicious, but if a police officer completes all his training correctly and tries his hardest to make the right decision in that pivotal moment, but makes a mistake and shoots when he shouldn't, then he's sentenced to life in prison if he is held to the same standard as a civilian.

And people wonder why their police officers aren't the best and the brightest: anyone making a rational decision under these terms wouldn't take the job.

"but if a police officer completes all his training correctly and tries his hardest to make the right decision in that pivotal moment, but makes a mistake and shoots when he shouldn't, then he's sentenced to life in prison if he is held to the same standard as a civilian"

But that's the problem! The civilian shouldn't be going to jail, either, should they?

That is, I don't think the standard for prosecution for killing someone should be different for civilians and police.

Some would fix the problem by giving the police special immunity; I'd fix it by changing self defence laws for everyone.

Or perhaps, to put it another way, under what situation could you imagine yourself as a juror convicting a civilian of murder, but acquitting a police officer who acted identically?

> Some would fix the problem by giving the police special immunity; I'd fix it by changing self defence laws for everyone.

Thinking about that for a bit and it sounds reasonable. A cop should only be shooting someone if he believes his or someone else's life is in danger and that's the same standard as civs in most states.

Perhaps cops in the US have more protection with their unions and such. I assumed that there must be a difference between US and UK because UK officers are refusing to carry whereas US aren't, but that difference might be that US officers get fired if they refuse to carry.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com