quote:

Originally posted by 12131:

quote:

Originally posted by MikeinNC:

quote:

I mean, a murderer should face the harshest of punishments, no matter whether the person they killed is law enforcement or not... right?

No, the punishment should be that same regardless of who was killed (I’m a retired cop)....

You're in agreement with him. Not sure why you say no.

I think he meant that he voted "No", and then explained why. It just isn't quite clear on the first read as I had the same question initially...

quote:

Originally posted by sigmonkey:
^^^
And why I argue that "additional" charges can/should be levied.

This sets the "baseline" that all people are equal as "victims" and equal charges should be levied.

But, additional charges for "1st responders, Fire Department, LEO, Doctors, lawyers, Indian Chiefs, teachers, etc." should be added as applicable.

So, no one is considered "worth more, or less", for a crime committed, only that "more charges" added considering the offense to office or position is also egregious, and needs additional consideration as it pertains to the person that commits the offence and the need to punish such behaviors.

I'd have a hard time reconciling a man who killed a cop gets a harsher sentence than a man who killed a teacher. Guess I don't see the difference.

More charges for certain professions sounds like semantics to me. Means you value one life more than another. Exchange "life" for "profession", it doesn't change the practice.

In theory? Maybe.

In practice? No.

I don't trust the government to not abuse that power. Do not give the government power you are not comfortable with your enemy having, you're one election away from having it used on you, and rarely does the government give authority back without a fight.

There is a reason why Lady Justice wears a blindfold…

Murdering a cop should result in the same penalty as murdering someone else: Death. If you're a cold enough person to intentionally take the life of another human being with forethought, society isn't benefitting from keeping you around. A cop's life isn't worth more than anybody elses'.

If we're talking battery on law enforcement (short of murder), I'm good with that being elevated to a higher level, or used as an aggravating factor at sentencing. If you commit a crime, the cops show up, and you decide to attack them, you're showing a blatant contempt for the rule of law and the justice system. IMO that justifies a harsher sentence under or current system than the guy who respects the process and takes his day in court. The same goes for anyone who attacks or threatens a prosecutor, judge, or juror.

Only if public beheadings are a deterrent.

quote:

Originally posted by PowerSurge:
Anyone who is guilty of murder should be put to death. Anything less is not justice.

This is my opinion. The victim's status doesn't enter into it. I may be fooling myself but I didn't think we lived under a caste system.

quote:

Originally posted by PowerSurge:
Anyone who is guilty of murder should be put to death. Anything less is not justice.

In total agreement

quote:

Originally posted by 92fstech:
...If we're talking battery on law enforcement (short of murder), I'm good with that being elevated to a higher level, or used as an aggravating factor at sentencing. If you commit a crime, the cops show up, and you decide to attack them, you're showing a blatant contempt for the rule of law and the justice system. IMO that justifies a harsher sentence under or current system than the guy who respects the process and takes his day in court. The same goes for anyone who attacks or threatens a prosecutor, judge, or juror.

I also agree with this distinction.

No.

Their lives are no more or no less valuable than mine or anyone elses. It's the same reason why hate crime deaths don't warrant enhanced sentencing.

Murder is murder. The occupation of the deceased shouldn't matter.

I voted no.

A scenario my imagination conjured was some sort of committed criminal shootout. We'll say something like the bank robbery getaway in HEAT, to paint the picture.

If crook 1 killed ten responding police officers, and crook 2 killed five responding officers and five bystanders, would crook 2 deserve a lighter sentence? Would crook 1 deserve a heavier one?

Crook 2 could have been a poor shot, he could have been less disciplined in the heat of the moment, or he even could have been a sick dude, taking out the occasional innocent for fun. It doesn't matter.

Five officers, one electrician, a homeless fella, a full-time mother and her toddler, and a barista. That makes ten. Does he get a less severe outcome, because they weren't all police officers?

I think there's also potentially an aspect of "they knew the risks" in play. Is it a greater tragedy when a volunteer soldier dies in battle, than Joe Blo being stabbed to death in a mugging on his way home?

**My opinion is yes.** As has been stated earlier, the officer represents civilized society. The attack is against society at large not just one person.

**Caveat** When I went through the police academy in VA, the layer giving us our legal instruction made very clear to err on the side of caution when making any arrest. If an unlawful arrest is attempted, the subject can legally resist all the way to the killing the officer and be justified in doing so. So, we had all better be sure we have all the elements of a crime before we attempt an arrest and that the the subject was the offender. If in doubt, take names and go to the magistrate to secure a warrant.

quote:

Originally posted by a1abdj:
No. Murder is murder. One's occupation shouldn't elevate them above anybody else.

Hate crime laws shouldn't exist for the same reason. We're either all equal under the law, or we aren't.

This is my thought as well. We don't need separate rules based on someones standing in society be it a job, wealth, politician, average joe.

quote:

Originally posted by bronicabill:
I think he meant that he voted "No", and then explained why. It just isn't quite clear on the first read as I had the same question initially...

Yeah, it was confusing, since he gave the "No" answer to what he quoted, "I mean, a murderer should face the harshest of punishments, no matter whether the person they killed is law enforcement or not... right?".

No 1000 times. Murder is murder and the guilty should be put to death to eliminate any man or woman that evil. After a fair trial and an appropriate appeals naturally.

We also need to do away with all artificial special classes of men and women. Cops, politicians and bankers are not "special" and should be treated the same as everyone else at all times.

quote:

Should Cop Killers Face Harsher Punishment?

Harsher than what? They'd already get, at a minimum, life imprisonment. From there it is only incremental.

quote:

Originally posted by egregore:

quote:

Should Cop Killers Face Harsher Punishment?

Harsher than what? They'd already get, at a minimum, life imprisonment. From there it is only incremental.

Harsher than if they'd killed someone who was not a cop... (sorry, I thought that was obvious)

quote:

Originally posted by leavemebe:
No 1000 times. Murder is murder and the guilty should be put to death to eliminate any man or woman that evil. After a fair trial and an appropriate appeals naturally.

We also need to do away with all artificial special classes of men and women. Cops, politicians and bankers are not "special" and should be treated the same as everyone else at all times.

Well, for the sake of argument, we shouldn’t hold them to a higher standard then. No more “the cops should have went in there” or “they should have known better” or “why didn’t they do something earlier”, etc….

quote:

Well, for the sake of argument, we shouldn’t hold them to a higher standard then. No more “the cops should have went in there” or “they should have known better” or “why didn’t they do something earlier”, etc….

Well for the sake of argument, we're talking about a matter of law. Making a punishment, under law, different for one group than another.

Can you tell us which laws punish the police, at a greater extent (higher standard) than the general public for "should have went in there", "should have known better" or "why they didn't do something earlier"?

What other laws hold police to a higher standard, where an LEO is punished to a greater extent in relation to any other non-LEO who commits the same crime?

Murder => Death penalty

Solves all the arguments that have been going on. "Harsher", harsh-less, "harshest" all go out the window. What say y'all?