What are your feelings on the Kim Potter sentencing?

[PDXTabs]

If a civilian shot a guy who was trying to run away from a confrontation I'd be a lot less charitable about the 'accidental' nature of the 'mistake'.

But police are civilians. They aren't military. They aren't deployed to a battlefield in a time of war. They are civilians and I, personally, would prefer them to be treated as such.

[sui generis]

If a civilian shot a guy who was trying to run away from a confrontation I'd be a lot less charitable about the 'accidental' nature of the 'mistake'.

But police are civilians. They aren't military. They aren't deployed to a battlefield in a time of war. They are civilians and I, personally, would prefer them to be treated as such.

I think there's some question about whether the term civilian encompasses police or not.  A quick google search of the term shows sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't.  When I worked with a police department, we did distinguish officers from the rest of the department personnel by denoting "civilian" vs. "sworn" personnel and would not have called sworn officers "civilians".

Notwithstanding the pedantics of that term, the meaning of his comment is pretty clear, no?  Do you really disagree that there is no difference between a trained police officer and a random guy on the street?

I think the idea of police deserving the benefit of the doubt from being in a hard job and the police being trusted with a lot of power for which they need to have a higher accountability are two fair concepts that are at odds with each other.  I'm not sure how to harmonize them in practice though I believe both are true.

[GodlessCommie]

How about something like this:

https://abc30.com/visalia-child-death-hot-car-marijuana-grow/11095725/

"A Visalia mother who left her child in a hot car while tending to a marijuana grow was sentenced Thursday for the death of her three-year-old daughter."

"The judge called the conduct by this mother "exceedingly serious", but said it didn't not appear she intentionally left the child in the sweltering heat so that she could tend to the illegal grow.
Police say Jessica Campos, 3, was left in the car as Eustajia Mojica worked on a illegal marijuana grow at her sister's home."

"Thursday, Tulare County Superior Court Judge Michael Sheltzer sentenced Mojica to one year in jail with 32 days credit for time served and four years probation."


So that is worthy of just 1 year in prison but someone who is trying to serve the community, has served the community without complaints for 25 years, completely screws up under a very stressful situation and people are wanting 8 to 15 years?

Unfortunately, this logic doesn't really work in the US. Sentences can vary greatly, with seemingly no correlation to the severity of a crime. Some examples that made headlines:

3 years in pre-trial detention for allegedly stealing a backpack: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/new-yorker-profiled-kaleif-browder-kills-3-years-awaiting-trial-rikers-island
5 years for voting while ineligible: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/texas-woman-sentenced-five-years-trying-vote-gets-new-appeal-n1262691
10 years for sending a kid to a wrong school: https://newsfeed.time.com/2011/01/26/ohio-mom-jailed-for-sending-her-kids-to-a-better-school/
20 years for not shooting to kill: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/fla-woman-marissa-alexander-gets-20-years-for-warning-shot-did-she-stand-her-ground/
Life in prison for killing a sex trafficker: https://abcnews.go.com/US/cyntoia-brown-woman-convicted-killing-alleged-sex-trafficker/story?id=64822482

Now, some are on appeal, or clemency has been granted - but the initial sentencing is indicative of a justice system widely out of wack.

I don't have a strong opinion on Kim Potter's case, but trying to judge her sentence based on just one other sentence isn't going to produce results that make sense. We could as well argue that if sending a kid to a wrong school gets you 10, then negligent shooting should get you 50 (no, I don't think Officer Potter should get a longer sentence, this is for illustration only).

[PDXTabs]

Do you really disagree that there is no difference between a trained police officer and a random guy on the street?

There are obvious differences which include but are not limited to the DA going super easy on them in 99% of arraignments which usually leads to no indictments when they fuck up.

But fundamentally in most but perhaps not all circumstances yes, I think that when if comes to the use of deadly force they should be treated the same. Eg, if I shoot a home invader that was threatening my life with deadly force and the shooting leads to the loss of life of an innocent bystander how is that fundamentally different from a police officer doing the exact same thing?

[GuitarStv]

If a civilian shot a guy who was trying to run away from a confrontation I'd be a lot less charitable about the 'accidental' nature of the 'mistake'.

But police are civilians. They aren't military. They aren't deployed to a battlefield in a time of war. They are civilians and I, personally, would prefer them to be treated as such.

My uncle is a police officer, and I've boxed/wrestled with many police officers over the years.  They all use the civilian/police distinction.  I thought it was pretty common usage?  A quick dictionary search seems to indicate that this is the case . . . but may be north american centric.

"one not on active duty in the armed services or not on a police or firefighting force" - https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/civilian

"a person who is not on active duty with a military, naval, police, or fire fighting organization." - https://www.dictionary.com/browse/civilian

"A person not in the armed services or the police force." -
https://www.lexico.com/definition/civilian


Police are legally granted different rights regarding force due to the nature of their jobs so the civilian/police distinction makes sense to me.

[PDXTabs]

Police are legally granted different rights regarding force due to the nature of their jobs so the civilian/police distinction makes sense to me.

I think that a lot of people agree with you. I do not. Perhaps because I know that when the cops throw a flash bang into a child's crib they face absolutely no civil or criminal liability because of qualified immunity. Even the right leaning CATO Institute calls this a moral failure. The founding fathers didn't write qualified immunity into the constitution. They didn't define police as non-civilians. They fucking hated the police as we know them. But here we are.

[GuitarStv]

Police are legally granted different rights regarding force due to the nature of their jobs so the civilian/police distinction makes sense to me.

I think that a lot of people agree with you. I do not. Perhaps because I know that when the cops throw a flash bang into a child's crib they face absolutely no civil or criminal liability because of qualified immunity. Even the right leaning CATO Institute calls this a moral failure. The founding fathers didn't write qualified immunity into the constitution. They didn't define police as non-civilians. They fucking hated the police as we know them. But here we are.

You're misunderstanding me.  I don't believe that a non-civilian status grants police immunity from the law at all - and would argue pretty hard the other way.  Because police are granted a special status they should often be held to higher standards.  I think that cases like the one that you have linked are disgusting abuses and should warrant more significant penalties due to the abuse of the special powers that police are given.  That police (granted public trust) were doing that is worse than a civilian doing the same.

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

If a civilian shot a guy who was trying to run away from a confrontation I'd be a lot less charitable about the 'accidental' nature of the 'mistake'.

But police are civilians. They aren't military. They aren't deployed to a battlefield in a time of war. They are civilians and I, personally, would prefer them to be treated as such.

Not arguing that police should have qualified immunity (which seems to be the big point you're making if I'm understanding it correctly), but are you saying that there are no differences between police and ordinary civilians?

If so, would you say that police have no more responsibility to protect other citizens than an ordinary citizen would have? If so, does that mean that I as an ordinary citizen have just as much responsibility to protect others as they do - meaning I should go around carrying a gun at most/all times (if you feel the police should), chase down and apprehend people who rob stores if I see it, etc.

[PDXTabs]

Not arguing that police should have qualified immunity (which seems to be the big point you're making if I'm understanding it correctly), but are you saying that there are no differences between police and ordinary civilians?

If so, would you say that police have no more responsibility to protect other citizens than an ordinary citizen would have? If so, does that mean that I as an ordinary citizen have just as much responsibility to protect others as they do - meaning I should go around carrying a gun at most/all times (if you feel the police should), chase down and apprehend people who rob stores if I see it, etc.

Lots of professionals have lots of obligations to do lots of things. We still call them civilians.

Also, there is no federal law that say that an on-duty police officer must stop an armed robbery. The level of discretion that we give to police is greater than many other professions.

[KarefulKactus15]

Lot of discretion in "serve and protect".

[seattlecyclone]

The power to use force in pursuit of state interests isn't something I want just anyone to have, so some level of difference in legal rights would seem to be necessary for on-duty officers. Qualified immunity is taking it way too far though.

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

Not arguing that police should have qualified immunity (which seems to be the big point you're making if I'm understanding it correctly), but are you saying that there are no differences between police and ordinary civilians?

If so, would you say that police have no more responsibility to protect other citizens than an ordinary citizen would have? If so, does that mean that I as an ordinary citizen have just as much responsibility to protect others as they do - meaning I should go around carrying a gun at most/all times (if you feel the police should), chase down and apprehend people who rob stores if I see it, etc.

Lots of professionals have lots of obligations to do lots of things. We still call them civilians.

Also, there is no federal law that say that an on-duty police officer must stop an armed robbery. The level of discretion that we give to police is greater than many other professions.

If you go by the dictionary definition, they are not civilians, as police are excluded (as are firefighters in certain definitions). I'm not really worried, though, about what word you choose to use or how you choose to define civilians.

I am curious as to what your thought are about differences, if any, between police and the general public, let's say. Do you see no difference at all? I am aware that federal law has been decided that on-duty police do not have a legal obligation to stop crime while, as you say, they are simultaneously granted qualified immunity. It does seem a bit like the best of both worlds from that perspective.

That being said, I'm curious if you feel they should have a responsibility beyond common citizens to protect others. If so, should that lend them any special treatment at all in your eyes such as GuitarStv's benefit of the doubt example?

[EvenSteven]

If a civilian shot a guy who was trying to run away from a confrontation I'd be a lot less charitable about the 'accidental' nature of the 'mistake'.

But police are civilians. They aren't military. They aren't deployed to a battlefield in a time of war. They are civilians and I, personally, would prefer them to be treated as such.

Not arguing that police should have qualified immunity (which seems to be the big point you're making if I'm understanding it correctly), but are you saying that there are no differences between police and ordinary civilians?

If so, would you say that police have no more responsibility to protect other citizens than an ordinary citizen would have? If so, does that mean that I as an ordinary citizen have just as much responsibility to protect others as they do - meaning I should go around carrying a gun at most/all times (if you feel the police should), chase down and apprehend people who rob stores if I see it, etc.

This is an interesting point, because the police have argued in court, and the courts have agreed with the police, that the police in fact have no duty what so ever to protect other citizens.

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

If a civilian shot a guy who was trying to run away from a confrontation I'd be a lot less charitable about the 'accidental' nature of the 'mistake'.

But police are civilians. They aren't military. They aren't deployed to a battlefield in a time of war. They are civilians and I, personally, would prefer them to be treated as such.

Not arguing that police should have qualified immunity (which seems to be the big point you're making if I'm understanding it correctly), but are you saying that there are no differences between police and ordinary civilians?

If so, would you say that police have no more responsibility to protect other citizens than an ordinary citizen would have? If so, does that mean that I as an ordinary citizen have just as much responsibility to protect others as they do - meaning I should go around carrying a gun at most/all times (if you feel the police should), chase down and apprehend people who rob stores if I see it, etc.

This is an interesting point, because the police have argued in court, and the courts have agreed with the police, that the police in fact have no duty what so ever to protect other citizens.

I only know that the court decision happened not why. If I were to guess, it would be presented at least by the police as a means to prevent our litigious society from suing police over times people felt they should have been helped but help didn't arrive in time or whatnot. Again, just a hypothesis. I would also say that most police and average people would agree that the police do have a responsibility greater than the average citizen of protecting others.

[Paul der Krake]

If a civilian shot a guy who was trying to run away from a confrontation I'd be a lot less charitable about the 'accidental' nature of the 'mistake'.

But police are civilians. They aren't military. They aren't deployed to a battlefield in a time of war. They are civilians and I, personally, would prefer them to be treated as such.

Not arguing that police should have qualified immunity (which seems to be the big point you're making if I'm understanding it correctly), but are you saying that there are no differences between police and ordinary civilians?

If so, would you say that police have no more responsibility to protect other citizens than an ordinary citizen would have? If so, does that mean that I as an ordinary citizen have just as much responsibility to protect others as they do - meaning I should go around carrying a gun at most/all times (if you feel the police should), chase down and apprehend people who rob stores if I see it, etc.

This is an interesting point, because the police have argued in court, and the courts have agreed with the police, that the police in fact have no duty what so ever to protect other citizens.

The duty is to the public at large, not any individual citizen in any given situation. In other words, it's a best effort system. Sometimes they'll get it pretty badly wrong, everyone agrees the outcome was shitty, but if you held them accountable to that one failure then you'd have to hold them to account for every other failure, and that's just not workable.

The duty to rescue is a funny beast and varies pretty widely.

My understanding is that in the US (or other common law countries), I can sit idly and watch a toddler drown in a pool and not have to lift a finger to help, or even inform anyone. But if I do that in Germany, I will be prosecuted.

As for my feelings to the Potter sentencing, anything between 3 and 10 years seems justifiable.

[PDXTabs]

Not arguing that police should have qualified immunity (which seems to be the big point you're making if I'm understanding it correctly), but are you saying that there are no differences between police and ordinary civilians?

If so, would you say that police have no more responsibility to protect other citizens than an ordinary citizen would have?

Mostly I'm pointing out that police, in most senses, have less responsibility than ordinary citizens. They are less likely, not more likely, to face prosecution if they screw up. That's not responsibility.

By way of an analogy Oregon has a "Good Samaritan" law. I am shielded from liability for rendering medical aid unless I am grossly negligent. But medical professionals are not, because they are professionals with more responsibility, not less. This is literally backwards from how the laws around police work.

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

Not arguing that police should have qualified immunity (which seems to be the big point you're making if I'm understanding it correctly), but are you saying that there are no differences between police and ordinary civilians?

If so, would you say that police have no more responsibility to protect other citizens than an ordinary citizen would have?

Mostly I'm pointing out that police, in most senses, have less responsibility than ordinary citizens. They are less likely, not more likely, to face prosecution if they screw up. That's not responsibility.

By way of an analogy Oregon has a "Good Samaritan" law. I am shielded from liability for rendering medical aid unless I am grossly negligent. But medical professionals are not, because they are professionals with more responsibility, not less. This is literally backwards from how the laws around police work.

Fair enough. I see your point.

[Psychstache]

If anyone is interested in nuanced and problem solving based discussion of the issue of trying to improving outcomes for minoritized communities and police officers, I would suggest giving the following episode of The Hidden Brain podcast a list:

https://hiddenbrain.org/podcast/changing-behavior-not-beliefs/

[MoseyingAlong]

If anyone is interested in nuanced and problem solving based discussion of the issue of trying to improving outcomes for minoritized communities and police officers, I would suggest giving the following episode of The Hidden Brain podcast a list:

https://hiddenbrain.org/podcast/changing-behavior-not-beliefs/

I listened to this episode today, it made me think of this thread. I was coming to post something similar. Then I see you beat me to it.

I thought it was really well done and it actually gave me some hope.

Would be very interested in hearing some thoughts on it from people more impacted. Maybe @Sailor Sam will share 2 cents.

[ncornilsen]

Well, she was sentenced today. She got 2 years, the last 8 months of which can be parole. I think that's 2 years too many, but a better outcome than the recommended sentencing.

I think she will win on appeal, however she may not try because she will probably be free first anyway. We shall see.

[GuitarStv]

Sentence seems about right.  Potter was very clearly negligent which caused the death, but also pretty clearly didn't intend for the death to occur. Two years holds her accountable for her actions without being overly punitive.  It's maybe slightly on the lighter side of possible sentencing, but within the realm of reasonable.

[sui generis]

Well, she was sentenced today. She got 2 years, the last 8 months of which can be parole. I think that's 2 years too many, but a better outcome than the recommended sentencing.

I think she will win on appeal, however she may not try because she will probably be free first anyway. We shall see.

If someone thought they could win on appeal, they should do it regardless of whether they would be out of jail before the appeal was heard.  Having a conviction overturned vs. having that on one's record in perpetuity is a big deal whether or not they've already served the sentence.

[ncornilsen]

Well, she was sentenced today. She got 2 years, the last 8 months of which can be parole. I think that's 2 years too many, but a better outcome than the recommended sentencing.

I think she will win on appeal, however she may not try because she will probably be free first anyway. We shall see.

If someone thought they could win on appeal, they should do it regardless of whether they would be out of jail before the appeal was heard.  Having a conviction overturned vs. having that on one's record in perpetuity is a big deal whether or not they've already served the sentence.

Good point, I wasn't thinking about the ramifications of that conviction after release.

[Cassie]

I think it was a fair sentence.