[44 AMP]

Mentally incompetent and minors have been determined by the judiciary AND law makers as incapable of understanding the consequences of their actions. Felons have been determined by the judiciary AND law makers to have surrendered some of their rights by their actions that have previously been brought before the judiciary system.

The way this is worded leads me to think you have the order reversed. Its the legislature (law makers) acting first, and then the judiciary operating under those laws.

Minors and convicted felons were NOT barred from possessing or buying firearms until the law was passed prohibiting that in 1968. (and that law also included those determined by a court (NOT a doctor) to be mentally incompetent to be prohibited persons as well.

After that law was passed, THEN the judiciary acts on it, barring purchases and bringing charges (hopefully) for those who violate the law.

But, somehow, agents of the government have been determined by the judiciary, NOT law makers, mind you, ONLY the judiciary, to be exempt from the consequences of their actions.

I'm not a lawyer and can't provide specific references (perhaps some of our legal minds here can) but I believe there is a principle in law about not being able to sue elected officials and other agents of the government, personally, for harm that results from the performance of their official duties.

If a law causes harm to someone, they don't get to sue the legislators who voted for it, or the executive (President / Governor) who signed it into law, as individuals. They sue the government about the law, and if its found the law is harmful, (usually be being unconstitutional) the law gets struck down or changed.

I THINK this is the base principle when it comes to suing individual police officers. When their actions are approved by their superiors in govt, the govt, not the individual bears the responsibility. When those actions are NOT approved by the govt THEN it is the individual officers who face the legal consequences.

Is this justice? doesn't feel like it, it it IS THE LAW.

I am most emphatically opposed to a legal system that affords an 'out' for a criminal wearing a badge. They are fully capable of understanding the consequences of their actions, and did them with disregard for the consequences.

I am against such a system as well. However, that is not the subject under discussion. The point under discussion has been the perceived need for tort reform and the issue used to illustrate that is the difference in legal treatment between a police officer and a private citizen when both unintentionally shoot the wrong person. Adding in "disregard for the consequences" implies a willful and deliberate act. Are you suggesting that police officers deliberately shoot innocent people because they believe they can "get away with it"??

Defending this by saying 'well their career advancement is impacted' is hardly anything approaching justice.

I never said it was justice. Only that there was some consequences, not "no consequences" or that the consequences were appropriate to the severity of the act.

Justice would be them facing the exact same consequences that anyone else would face.

I do not dispute your opinion, but currently our legal system does not agree with you.

I see the arguments that affording protection from liability for someone defending themselves would somehow provide license for people to 'pray and spray' and ask myself: How is that argument any different from the argument that allowing people to go about their daily life while exercising their 2nd amendment right an invitation to shootouts over every single disagreement?

I see a difference, the former is a plausible situation, the latter is not, simply because there ARE consequences for every shot fired by those defending themselves. Remove those consequences (the first argument) and you remove the NEED for restraint in defensive shooting situations. I do believe that if there are no significant consequences for misses striking the innocent then many people will not restrict themselves to only trying to shoot the people who need shooting and spray and pray becomes a valid tactic with no legal repercussions.

THe other argument is simply the old gun control argument that people should not be allowed (forget your rights) to go armed because they will act irresponsibly with the implication that everyone will be irresponsible, every time, because they ARE armed.

That's crap from the git go, in my opinion, and quite a different matter from the first argument.