Police Accountability (For YIS)

ת"ש (דברים כה, יב) וקצתה את כפה ממון מאי לאו בשאינה יכולה להציל ע"י דבר אחר לא שיכולה להציל ע"י דבר אחר אבל אינה יכולה להציל ע"י דבר אחר פטורה אי הכי אדתני סיפא ושלחה ידה פרט לשליח ב"ד לפלוג ולתני בדידה בד"א בשיכולה להציל ע"י ד"א אבל אינה יכולה להציל ע"י דבר אחר פטורה ה"נ קאמר בד"א בשיכולה להציל ע"י דבר אחר אבל אינה יכולה להציל ע"י דבר אחר נעשה ידה כשליח ב"ד ופטורה

Bava Kamma 28a:17-19

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from a baraita, which relates to the case of a woman who, during a fight between her husband and another man, grabs the other man’s genitals: The verse that states: “Then you shall cut off her hand” (Deuteronomy 25:12), should not be taken literally; rather, it is referring to monetary restitution. What, is it not referring to a case where she cannot save her husband from his attacker by a means other than grabbing the attacker’s genitals, and nevertheless she is punished? This indicates that one may not take justice into his own hands. The Gemara answers: No, the verse is referring to a case where she can save him by other means. Otherwise she is exempt from paying restitution. The Gemara asks: But if she cannot save him by other means, is it possible that she is exempt? If so, instead of teaching in the latter clause of that baraita that the expression mentioned in the previous verse: “And extended her hand” (Deuteronomy 25:11), excludes an emissary of the court, who is authorized to act in this manner and is therefore exempt from paying restitution, let the baraita distinguish and teach within the case under discussion in the verse itself, as follows: In what case is this statement that the wife is liable said? It is in a case where she can save her husband by another means. But if she cannot save him by other means, she is exempt. The Gemara answers: That is also what the baraita is saying: In what case is this statement said? It is said in a case where she can save him by other means. But if she cannot save him by other means, her hand is rendered like an emissary of the court, and she is exempt.

רש"י על בבא קמא כ״ח א:י״ז:א׳-י״ח:א׳

כשיכולה להציל ע"י דבר אחר - דלא דינא עבדא:

Rashi on Bava Kamma 28a:17:1-18:1

In a case where she could have saved her husband in another way--since she is not executing justice.

R. Yisrael Issur ben Zev Wolf, Sha'ar Mishpat on Choshen Mishpat 8:2 (Text unavailable on Safaria)

"This [idea that an error in judgment means someone is not acting as a representative of the court] should certainly be the case here [in which a court officer uses unnecessary force and damages], for there is no mistake greater than here, since it was possible for him to save by other means and he damaged the property of his fellow needlessly and is thus liable to pay."

שיטה מקובצת על בבא קמא כ״ח א:ט׳

והיינו דכותה שליח בית דין דאינו יכול להציל כמו היא יכולה להציל לפי שהיא בהולה על הכאת בעלה מה שאין כן שליח בית דין. הרא"ש ז"ל.

Shita Mekubetzet on Bava Kamma 28a:9

The case of a court agent unable to save without using force is equivalent to a woman who could have saved [her husband] without using force, since she is distressed about her husband being beaten, which is not the case regarding the court agent. The Rosh, of blessed memory.

Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, Iggrot Moshe Even Ha-Ezer 4:31 (Text unavailable on Safaria)

However, if [the doctor's error] was out of anxiety it is considered to be like negligence, even if it seemed to him at the time that further investigation was not necessary. In such a case, he would be exempt from exile [the theoretical punishment for unintentional murder], because exile would not be sufficient for him [since it would be considered closer to willful murder].

פסקי הראש על בבא קמא ג׳:י״ג:א׳

ומיהו צריך לומר דאם היה יכול להציל עצמו בחבלה מועטת וחבל בו הרבה חייב.

Rosh on Bava Kamma 3:13:1

However, it must be said that if he could have saved himself with minimal force and he used much more he would be liable.

סנהדרין ע״ד א:ב׳

רבי יונתן בן שאול אומר רודף שהיה רודף אחר חבירו להורגו ויכול להצילו באחד מאבריו ולא הציל נהרג עליו

Sanhedrin 74a:2

Rabbi Yonatan ben Shaul says: If a pursuer was pursuing another to kill him, and one was able to save the pursued party without killing the pursuer, but instead by injuring him in one of his limbs, but he did not save him in this manner and rather chose to kill him, he is executed on his account as a murderer.

תוספתא גיטין ג׳:י״ג

שליח ב"ד שהכה ברשות ב"ד והזיק בשוגג פטור במזיד חייב מפני תקון העולם

Tosefta Gittin 3:13

An Agent of the court who strikes with the permission of the court and damages unintentionally is exempt but if intentionally is liable --an enactment to improve the world.

תוספתא בבא קמא ט׳:ג׳

שליח ב"ד שהכה ברשות ב"ד והזיק פטור אבל חבל יתר מן הראוי לו הרי זה חייב

Tosefta Bava Kamma 9:3

A court office who strikes with the permission of the court and damages is exempt, but if he injures more than is fitting, he is liable.

ספר התשב"ץ, חלק שלישי פ״ב

...אלא שפטרו שוגג מפני תקון העולם לרופא אומן ועוש' ברשות ב"ד שאם לא נפטרנו בשוגג אתי לאמנועי מלרפאת...

ונרא' שזה הוא פירוש שוגג ומזיד שאם עשה הראוי לו והזיק פטור דה"ל שוגג אם לא לעשות מלאכ' כראוי בשגגתו.

וזהו מפני תקון העולם דמן הדין הי' ראוי לחייבו דאדם מועד לעולם ודינו מסור לשמים ואם עשה יותר מן הראוי לו הוי מזיד וחייב. וחייב כדין חובל...

Sefer HaTashbetz, Part III 82

Rather, they [the sages] decreed unintentional damage to be exempt--to better the world--for an expert physician who acts with the court's authorization, since, without any exemption for unintentional damage, they would refrain from healing...

It seems that this is the meaning of unintentional vs. intentional [damage]: If the physician did what was appropriate for him [hara'ui lo] and he damages he is exempt, as he would be considered someone who damaged unintentionally if, unintentionally, he did not do the proper work.

This is the idea of 'because of Tikkun Olam'--since really he would be legally liable, as a person is always subject to liability for damage. Yet, his judgment is still handed over to heaven [as he is still morally obligated to pay for damages]. However, if he was more invasive than proper for the situation, he would be considered to have damaged intentionally and thus be liable as a person who injured another.