LogFAQs > #960276329

t5yvxc posted...

Gobs logic says they shouldn't have to care as long as a criminal gives them a reason to shoot.

I've never said they "shouldn't have to care"

I've said that the criminal should be held liable if somebody dies or gets hurt as a consequence of their criminal behavior.

Nowhere in this topic have I said that police are never responsible for reckless endangerment. This shouldn't be the third time I've had to repeat myself, but I guess it's to be expected around here:

asdf8562 posted...

Just because a criminal is in the room, the cop isn't all of a sudden free to handle the situation however the cops wants with no regard for the innocent individuals in the area.

Gobstoppers12 posted...

This is correct. Keep in mind, though, that there was a whole investigation and deposition involved. Facts were stated and analyzed. It was determined by the court that the criminal was responsible for the death and not the officer.

There's a system in place to take these things on a case by case basis. That's, like, the whole point of having a legal system with courts and investigators and such to begin with.

You understand that, right?

If the police are found to have done something wrong or reckless, I think that the officer responsible and the criminal who created the situation should both be charged with something relating to the death or injury, since both would be at fault.

---

I write Naruto Fanfiction.
But I am definitely not a furry.