on Tasers- by the Journal of Emergency Medical Services (JEMS)

SCCop said:
As a citizen you have the option of walking away and calling us. We have a duty and obligation to act and we can't call anyone but our brothers and sisters.
Click to expand...
When a private citizen makes the decision to intervene, though, the ethical calculus is the same. Whether acting as a cop or as a private citizen, you either have an ethical green-light to tase the subject or you do not.

A citizen who walks away should face as much criticism from his community as the cop who walks away faces legal sanctions. Sadly, this is not so, but in a healthy society it should be. Regardless of whatever sanctions you may face, you don't really have to do anything. You can quit your job and find another. Why should your duty to intervene change the maximum ethical level of force in a given situation? You think you have the right to take relatively extreme measures to make it home safely, while a citizen who has the guts to intervene has to adhere to lower use of force standards because he's not part of a PD which will legally shield him if he uses certain compliance tactics?
 
TBO-
Let's not hyperbolize, shall we?

Does not the "duty" you speak of allow you hold and call for backup if you consider the situation unmanageable? The career you've chosen deserves as much respect as many others. But it would be extraordinary propaganda for one to indicate that you are somehow bound to rush into a burning building or an armed robbery....any more than that is incumbent on any of the rest of us.

That is essentially what "the Courts ruled", yes? And in determining "malfeasance" do those Courts not look at what a "reasonable man", with your training and tools would do? They do not expect SuperStud behavior from LEO's. To suggest otherwise would be, well, hyperbole.
Rich
 
351.14 Definitions.

Subdivision 1. Applicability. The definitions in
this section apply to sections 351.14 to 351.23.

Subd. 2. Malfeasance. "Malfeasance" means the
willful commission of an unlawful or wrongful act in the
performance of a public official's duties which is outside the
scope of the authority of the public official and which
infringes on the rights of any person or entity.

Subd. 3. Nonfeasance. "Nonfeasance" means the
willful failure to perform a specific act which is a required
part of the duties of the public official.

Subd. 4. Misfeasance. "Misfeasance" means the
negligent performance of the duties of a public official or the
negligent failure to perform a specific act which is a required
part of the duties of the public official.
 
Rich

there is a BIG difference. As a citizen you have the option of walking away and calling us. We have a duty and obligation to act and we can't call anyone but our brothers and sisters.
Click to expand...
To which you reply:
You know as well as I do that the Highest Court in the Land has ruled that you have no "duty" to do any such thing.

you don't get to quote "what the courts have ruled", when defending enforcement of BS laws, while conveniently **forgetting** what they have ruled when trying to place yourself above us mere "civilians".
Click to expand...
and then say to my post:
Let's not hyperbolize, shall we?
Click to expand...
Take a gander at the last series of posts/replies. Tell me where the hyperbole lies.

TBO
 
there is a BIG difference. As a citizen you have the option of walking away and calling us. We have a duty and obligation to act and we can't call anyone but our brothers and sisters.
Click to expand...
# Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
 
TBO-
Your cited definitions only go to my point, not yours. You're the one that has insisted that you're "different" from the rest of us. Support the position and answer the two simple questions I asked:
Does not the "duty" you speak of allow you hold and call for backup if you consider the situation unmanageable?...That is essentially what "the Courts ruled", yes?
Click to expand...
And in determining "malfeasance" do those Courts not look at what a "reasonable man", with your training and tools would do?
Click to expand...
Rich
 
Does not the "duty" you speak of allow you hold and call for backup if you consider the situation unmanageable?...That is essentially what "the Courts ruled", yes?
Click to expand...
No (it goes by what a reasonable person with training/knowledge would do in a given situation.)
And in determining "malfeasance" do those Courts not look at what a "reasonable man", with your training and tools would do?
Click to expand...
Yes (and again, that is not cart blanche to do as one sees fit)
 
Thank you, TBO.
I think we can all agree that you have no "duty" to jump, single handed, into the middle of a violent riot, a gunfight, a robbery in progress at your local 7-11, a terrorist attack or anything of that nature. The courts do not expect "reasonable" men to act like super-heros.

What you have, essentially, is only a "duty" to report and observe such actions; and then only if it would not jeopardize your own safety. To pretend that you are somehow, under force of law, required to intervene in every violent situation is disingenuous. The only difference between you and I, in such situations, is your legal duty to report....and that only because you chose to be PAID to do so.

Many of my heros wear a badge. But the badge, itself, confers neither hero status nor any other type of superiority over those who choose other careers.
Rich
 
Thank you, TBO.
I think we can all agree that you have no "duty" to jump, single handed, into the middle of a violent riot, a gunfight, a robbery in progress at your local 7-11, a terrorist attack or anything of that nature. The courts do not expect "reasonable" men to act like super-heros.

What you have, essentially, is only a "duty" to report and observe such actions; and then only if it would not jeopardize your own safety. To pretend that you are somehow, under force of law, required to intervene in every violent situation is disingenuous. The only difference between you and I, in such situations, is your legal duty to report....and that only because you chose to be PAID to do so.

Many of my heros wear a badge. But the badge, itself, confers neither hero status nor any other type of superiority over those who choose other careers.
Rich
Click to expand...
What is required of a LEO is to intervene in potentially dangerous/deadly (or unknown) situations. That is the difference.
 
What is required of a LEO is to intervene in potentially dangerous/deadly (or unknown) situations. That is the difference.
Click to expand...
Pretty non-specific, if you ask me, TBO.

I don't question that your job has danger associated with it. I question your portrayal that you are LEGALLY MANDATED, in absence of your "brothers and sisters", to insert yourself into some very hair raising situations. Could you provide us a couple or three examples of such, where the decision to hold for backup, would likely result in your prosecution?

You've already backpedaled to "potentially dangerous" and "unknown" situations. Seems to be a far cry from the previous statement, "If an Officer is sent to a call or witnesses a crime/situation, he has to take action.".

Are you or are you not LEGALLY MANDATED to risk your life in direct action to thwart a crime in progress?

Rich
 
You can throw in terms and labels all you like, but the fact remains that Officers have a legal responsibility to take action. That action will be based on a complex multitude of things.

You want to break it down to a "simple answer". (how "American" ;) ).
Perhaps you are simply unable to comprehend that there is no "simple" answer (yes/no).
It is akin to asking "What is the meaning of life" and demanding a two or three word reply.
I suspect that if I haven't made it clear (and concise) enough with what I have posted, you are unable or unwilling to grasp what I've communicated.

All the best

TBO
 
You slay me, TBO. :D

You come into this thread all imperious about how LEO's have a Legal Duty to "act" while the proletariat can just "run away". You get a couple of simple questions about what "acting" entails and you back off. You get questioned further and answer that it's akin to explaining....what was it? Oh, that's right: it's akin to explaining "The Meaning of Life".

Do you not know your JOB, man? Do you not know your "Legal Duties"? If not, how could you possibly know your "Legal Limits"? Or, are they also akin to understanding "The Meaning of Life"?

You need to lighten up about your role in society, TBO. Honestly.
ROTFLMAO
I really am.
Rich
 
Rich, it's apparent that you have "an conclusion in search of an argument".
Step back a moment and look at the posts again through fresh eyes.
You've already backpedaled to "potentially dangerous" and "unknown" situations. Seems to be a far cry from the previous statement, "If an Officer is sent to a call or witnesses a crime/situation, he has to take action.".
Click to expand...
Note how you bend my statement to your purpose (and the accusation of "backpedaling"). My statement/stance has not changed one bit, but somehow you'd like to project that:

1- it has
2- and that I'm "backpedaling"
Are you or are you not LEGALLY MANDATED to risk your life in direct action to thwart a crime in progress?
Click to expand...
Again, it's not as simple as that. (No law or directive is worded "You must risk your life.....").
An Officer can be in trouble for:

Misfeasance
Malfeasance
Nonfeasance -(doing nothing when something is required).

If an Officer witnesses a crime or potential crime he HAS to do something. (is that clear enough? or are you going to come back an say, "Yes, but does he have to risk his life").
You can try to wittle and slice, but it still comes out the same. An LEO HAS A DUTY TO TAKE ACTION (and of course you are free to disagree with the course of action, as many do in threads here/elsewhere).
 
OK, fresh eyes:
The postman has a "duty" to deliver the mail; and the president of a public corporation has a "duty" to disclose that business' financial records. And guess what? both may also be accused of the terrible crimes of:
Misfeasance
Malfeasance
Nonfeasance

It's kinda called "not doing your job", where I come from. It's hardly some "higher standard" that grants you special birthright privileges under the law.

You have used the threat of these High Crimes in an attempt to demonstrate that the Police Officer must have access to a lowered bar for use of force than the "common people" do. But your response continues to go in circles:
"Well I have a duty to act".
"Act how?"
"Oh, that's really too complicated to explain. Just trust me on this, OK?"

Provide me just ONE example where a lowered bar on the use of force is necessary in order to save you from the scourge of Misfeasance, Malfeasance or Nonfeasance. Just ONE. Barring that, your point becomes quite hollow.

Rich
 
Do you not know your JOB, man? Do you not know your "Legal Duties"?
Click to expand...
The crux of the problem can be found in two:

1) You think you know my job

2) You don't

It all stems from that. That was my point.You are always trying to debate in terms of absolutes and ultimatums. This is not the way things work. Doing so is only an attempt to stack the deck in your favor by making any position untenable.
(and I'm not being sarcastic, no "talking down to you" nor saying "I'm special").

If you read your posts close, you're the one constantly saying those things. This is an emotional issue for you, and it's showing (hitting much closer to home than you think). You constantly respond with things such as:
It's hardly some "higher standard" that grants you special birthright privileges under the law.


than the "common people"


when trying to place yourself above us mere "civilians".


The only difference between you and I...
Click to expand...
Take a close look. It is you who is posting as "US vs THEM", not I good sir. The last quote speaks volumes (about yourself). You are a good man, but I suspect a bit of introspective is called for. I think you might be surprised at what you discover.
 
TBO-
Well done. You're at least looking beyond your position to mine and that's progress. Honestly. I'm really not trying to "best" you here; I'm trying to find some common ground. When I see movement, I say so. When I move, you should say so.

But now that we've totally hijacked this thread, let's really understand my posts. I don't react to guys like Capt Charlie with statements about us "common people" though I disagree with him as often as you. But then guys like Capt Charlie, Long Path, Johnny Guest, LawDog and Denny Hansen, even though they may disagree, don't respond to questions about the use of force leniency for LEO's vs Non-LEO's with lame statements like
If an Officer is sent to a call or witnesses a crime/situation, he has to take action.
[snip]
Here's a hint, look up "Misfeasance, Malfeasance, and Nonfeasance"
Click to expand...

I don't claim to "know your job", as you state. But I do, damned well, expect that YOU know it...and I expect you to articulate it when you make the kind of Pronouncements you have. When you respond to that challenge by waxing metaphysical, I question your understanding of what it is you do. This is only natural. (I don't know my doctor's, waitress's, tailor's or plumber's job either....but I can pretty much tell if they're doing 'em.)

You're the one that brought up the qualitative "differences" in our citizenship, not me. I merely responded....repeatedly. ;) If you wish to continue, then I also will continue to respond. Personally, I think the corner you chose to paint yourself into has gotta be pretty uncomfortable. But, should you wish, Carry On.
Rich
 
Here it is (again) as simple as I can put it.

A Police Officer has a duty to take action when witnessing a crime.
A Non Police Officer does not.

(go ahead and pick, skewer, slice, prod, move, bend, etc)

The difference is that simple.

You'd like to skip over everything else from A-Y and go right to Z (does a LEO have a duty to knowingly die).

Well, there's a whoooooooole lot of ground in between.

Does a LEO have a duty to walk singlehandedly into 100 blazing guns? No

Does a LEO have a duty to act upon one person beating another with murderous intent (instead of walking away, or "waiting for the posse")? Yes.

Can there be factors that change the above? Yes

Are you asking me for "black and white" answers in a gray world? Yes

Am I trying to be difficult or antagonize you? No

Do I think my position has changed one bit during this thread? No

Do you? Yes

Does that make it so? No

Could we go on forever? No, but we could have fun trying ;)
 
Does a LEO have a duty to act upon one person beating another with murderous intent (instead of walking away, or "waiting for the posse")? Yes.
Click to expand...
There we go now, and I won't even quote your qualification in the sentence that followed. It matters not.

So, let me understand this: An on-duty LEO, who witnesses a BEATING, can be charged with "malfeasance, ill-feasance or pseudo-feasance" for not drawing his WEAPON to stop it? I would pretty much hope so.

Question 1: Is this not one of the bonuses of the job? To protect the weak when you have the luxury of overwhelming force? It's one of my bonuses as a Free Citizen with Second Amendment Rights, also. Welcome to the club.

Question 2: Is that scenario the reason that you require a different standard for use of force than your fellow citizens? That WAS your original point, was it not? (Please don't make me repeat it, or tyme's statement which elicited it.)

Question 3: Where is the "difference" between you and the non-badged, proletariat again? Don't answer; rhetorical question. You CHOSE to be paid to take on that obligation. Steel workers have tough, dangerous jobs, too, TBO; so do firemen, doctors, nurses, postmen, flight crews and taxi drivers....each can be sued for negligence and worse. We just don't hear them trying to convince people how "different" and "special" their jobs are.

Wanna try another example? This one doesn't play too well.

Rich
 
not drawing his WEAPON to stop it?
Click to expand...
Who said anything about drawing a weapon?
confused.gif
(if your only tool is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a nail...)
We just don't hear them trying to convince people how "different" and "special" their jobs are.
Click to expand...
I hate to say it, but its starting to sound like an inferiority complex.
 
Who said anything about drawing a weapon?
Click to expand...
Oops, silly me. I simply assumed drawing a weapon to prevent "one person beating another with murderous intent" was the ultimate tool in the life you lead....after all, as you point out, it's "different" in your world. I apologize if I skipped over psychology, cajoling, bribing, harsh rebuke, physical threat, arm-lock, neck-lock, OC Spray, Baton, Taser and appeals to Jesus. Point for your side TBO. I should have mentioned those. :rolleyes:

I hate to say it, but its starting to sound like an inferiority complex.
Click to expand...
That's twice in a row you've attacked the person, not the argument. Wonder why? But it's OK; I'll relax the forum rules for this. But, to the point, I carry a gun just like you. I've intervened when I could just like you. I've no reason to feel "inferior" when it comes to the dastardly vision of neighbors being actually "beaten" by criminals. Stuff happens. We do what's right when we can...right?

So tell me again: Why is it so important that the rules of force in that situation be different for you than the rest of us. I keep missing that point. After all, that WAS your original point.
Rich
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top