See, there's them, and then there's us.

They get lower standards, special privileges and the benefit of the doubt.

You? You're fucked.

Hit & Run > A (Mild) Defense of the Cop in the BART Shooting - Reason Magazine:

[On the BART cop who shot an unarmed, handcuffed man in the back] "I'd pose this question to the Mehserle defenders I've seen on police forums and bulletin boards: I'm sympathetic to the argument that in the heat of the moment, Mehserle inadvertently reached for the wrong weapon. But Mehserle had training. He had other cops there backing him up. If we're going to be sympathetic to him, where's the sympathy for people like Cory Maye or Ryan Frederick?

Why should we assume good intentions when a cop with training, wide awake and conscious, with other cops all around him makes a mistake that ends with a fatality, but assume the worst when a civilian is awoken by the sound of police breaking into his home, and in the heat of the moment, fires a gun after mistaking them for criminal intruders?

Seems to me you can't simultaneously argue that trained police officers should be forgiven for nervous mistakes made in the heat of the moment, but ordinary people should be expected to show impeccable judgment and restraint, even under unimaginably volatile and confrontational circumstances."

Even the Supreme Court agrees, go screw yourself if you're not on the side of the prosecution.

WHEN COPS 'FORGET' - New York Post:

"Being a 'public servant,' apparently, means being free to make the kind of mistakes that the rest of us aren't allowed.

...Bennie Dean Herring, a man with prior felony convictions, went to retrieve an impounded truck. Looking for a reason to arrest him, a police officer asked if there were any warrants outstanding. The computer showed a warrant from a neighboring county.

Herring was arrested and found to be in possession of a pistol (illegal, as he had a prior felony) and methamphetamine. Moments later, the clerk called to say that the warrant had been withdrawn, but by then the search and the arrest had been made.

According to Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, "When police mistakes leading to an unlawful search are the result of isolated negligence attenuated from the search, rather than systemic error or reckless disregard of constitutional requirements, the exclusionary rule does not apply."

...Except that the rest of us enjoy no such immunity. If you're a citizen who, say, accidentally carries a gun into a designated "gun-free" zone, the Supreme Court will not say that you can escape punishment because your action was "the result of isolated negligence." For citizens, there's no "I forgot" defense.

Likewise, police are given a pass, under the doctrine of "good faith immunity," from having to understand the intricacies of suspects' constitutional rights: A right must be clearly established before an officer is liable for violating it, apparently on the theory that constitutional law is just too confusing for police.

But ordinary citizens are expected to comply with the tens of thousands of pages of federal criminal laws and regulations (and more at the state level) and are told that "ignorance of the law is no excuse" - and this is true even in cases where the prosecution's theory of criminality is a novel one.

Cynics might be forgiven for thinking that, instead of a government of, by and for the people, we've got a two-tiered system in which "public servants" instead enjoy the privileges of "public masters."

The Supreme Court might want to think again before doing more to encourage such cynicism."