How we value life???

[Metalject]

Are certain lives more valuable than others? The initial response by most would be no, that each life is just as valuable as another. If that's the case, why does everything in our society say differently? Here are some examples:

1. If I walk into a room and kill the first person I see, I will be arrested and sentenced harshly. If I walk into the same room, kill the first person I see and that person is a police officer, I will receive a much harsher sentence.

2. If a leader, be it political or in business dies, a large portion of society mourns his loss. This man could have been, let's just say "subpar" when it comes to his family and personal relationships, but he did contribute to society as a whole in some way. And that same day another man dies, a regular man who made little to no impact on society in terms of what we all see. He was loved by his family and friends, a good man, but other than his immediate family no one really mourns his loss.

3. Ten people die tragically, let's say due to some type of terrorist or criminal act. Ten lives are cut tragically short. That same day in the same city, ten people die of cancer, ten lives are cut tragically short. Regardless of what kind of people these twenty people were, people will mourn the ten that lost their life to tragic violence far more than the other ten; in fact, in comparison it will be immeasurable.

Personally, I think we have a warped view of the value of life, and I think all three of the examples above show this warped view. In any of the deaths above, I cannot see how one is more meaningful in terms of who that person was. Am I wrong? Do we have a warped sense of the value of life or do we see and view things properly?

[kelkel]

1a. Absolutely.
1b. Absolutely. Without some form of law and order it would be anarchy. Stiffer penalties are deterrents to help achieve order. To quote Charles Barkley it would be "the wild wild west" without police.
Without harsher penalties for police, emergency workers, teachers, etc., it would be open season on them and this country would fall apart.
2. Sure, people who impact society in a meaningful way will be. They're simply known by more people via their accomplishments. Think Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, medical pioneers, etc.
3. Agree

imho.

[< <Samson> >]

It's reality that I have learned & have not been taught. Some people's lives mean a whole lot less than others - it's life & that's just how it is


LE and politics is a whole separate pile of crap


But, look at it like this: A Taco Bell employee gets shot in the face - damn, what a tragedy. Someone famous in any way has the same fat - you'll see that shit on TV for the next decade.


It's life - tough shit


But, it the truth - We are the disposables

[lovbyts]

Because the news talks about them doesn't really make them any more important. No one will remember them a week later but someone close to us dies it effects us the most and is a lot more important than someone we don't know.

[< <Samson> >]

Because the news talks about them doesn't really make them any more important. No one will remember them a week later but someone close to us dies it effects us the most and is a lot more important than someone we don't know.

Good point

I guess it depends on how we're defining importance

[davidtheman100]

It's not that the famous person is more important. It is just that more people know that famous person so the news stations etc. want to get that news out so the media people cover it more to get a paycheck. It's really just all about the money. I doubt any of the news people or media give an actual **** or will lose sleep over that celebrity dying. It's money and political correctness

[Metalject]

1a. Absolutely.
1b. Absolutely. Without some form of law and order it would be anarchy. Stiffer penalties are deterrents to help achieve order. To quote Charles Barkley it would be "the wild wild west" without police.
Without harsher penalties for police, emergency workers, teachers, etc., it would be open season on them and this country would fall apart.
2. Sure, people who impact society in a meaningful way will be. They're simply known by more people via their accomplishments. Think Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, medical pioneers, etc.
3. Agree

imho.

Law and order, absolutely necessary, I agree. But That doesn't have anything to do with the level of a penalty, the severity. Murder should carry a sever penalty regardless of the victim being a cop or citizen...the life of one isn't more valuable than another. Punish the crime, do not base the punishment on who the crime was committed against. And that's not an anti-cop sentiment.

Anyway, I don't care for anything that gives value to one life over another on the basis of a job, a physical achievement or position in the community. That type of thinking, IMO, is the type George Bernard Shaw loved to endorse, who was, again IMO, nothing but evil to his core although often praised as a genius in modern history.

[Oki-Des]

We cant let media dictate the importance of anything. If we did the Kardashian's would be the most important people in the world; which we all know is NOT THE CASE.

[Times Roman]

There are two relevant aspects to human life we should consider:

1) The intrinsic value of that human life
2) The net contribution to society that life has made

Therefore, to a certain extent, all life is equal. But how we treat that life is also a reflection of #2 as well.

proof:

if you are a net detractor from society, society will punish/kill you. Think state sponsored executions
if you are a net contributor to society, society will reward you. Think actors and A list athletes.

So you need to consider not only how individuals treat one another, but also how groups of individuals (called societies) treat you. We all know that the psychology of individuals is much different than the psychology of societies.

This should help you understand better

[kelkel]

Law and order, absolutely necessary, I agree. But That doesn't have anything to do with the level of a penalty, the severity. Murder should carry a sever penalty regardless of the victim being a cop or citizen...the life of one isn't more valuable than another. Punish the crime, do not base the punishment on who the crime was committed against. And that's not an anti-cop sentiment.

Anyway, I don't care for anything that gives value to one life over another on the basis of a job, a physical achievement or position in the community. That type of thinking, IMO, is the type George Bernard Shaw loved to endorse, who was, again IMO, nothing but evil to his core although often praised as a genius in modern history.

Murder carries a severe penalty regardless. As I stated earlier, if not for higher penalties for crimes against specific professions it would be chaos. Look at all the teachers who get assaulted now and imagine how much worse it would be. The amount of cops that are killed would grow exponentially as well. Then, when it becomes more of an open season on cops they would then become more aggressive toward the public and assume an even more defensive posture. It's about balance and federal, state and local laws help to achieve those. If there aren't enhanced penalties against certain professions then those in said professions should not be held to higher standards, to follow your line of thinking.

[musclestack]

"The death of one is a tragedy; the death of millions is just a statistic." -Marilyn Manson (one of the probably many who have been credited for coining this phrase)

This may be slightly off the original topic, but have you ever considered why, many times, when one person makes the news upon death, everyone knows his/her name and background, but when, say, a natural disaster strike and takes the lives of many, it's just a number?

[Docd187123]

Murder carries a severe penalty regardless. As I stated earlier, if not for higher penalties for crimes against specific professions it would be chaos. Look at all the teachers who get assaulted now and imagine how much worse it would be. The amount of cops that are killed would grow exponentially as well. Then, when it becomes more of an open season on cops they would then become more aggressive toward the public and assume an even more defensive posture. It's about balance and federal, state and local laws help to achieve those. If there aren't enhanced penalties against certain professions then those in said professions should not be held to higher standards, to follow your line of thinking.

If murder carries a sever penalty regardless, one that supposedly is supposed to detract someone from committing murder, than why the need for an even stiffer penalty when it relates to killing a police officer?

Last year police officers killed more people than people killed police officers. Last year more DOT workers were killed on the job than police officers.

^^^maybe we should make killing civilians by police officers a greater crime with a stiffer penalty bc it seems that it's more open season on the citizenry than it is on the police officers.

If it's one thing we should have learned by now is stiffer penalties don't do much to deter crime. If so, the death penalty would have had a profoundly greater impact than it currently does.

[Times Roman]

If murder carries a sever penalty regardless, one that supposedly is supposed to detract someone from committing murder, than why the need for an even stiffer penalty when it relates to killing a police officer?

Last year police officers killed more people than people killed police officers. Last year more DOT workers were killed on the job than police officers.

^^^maybe we should make killing civilians by police officers a greater crime with a stiffer penalty bc it seems that it's more open season on the citizenry than it is on the police officers.
If it's one thing we should have learned by now is stiffer penalties don't do much to deter crime. If so, the death penalty would have had a profoundly greater impact than it currently does.

Doc,

I respect your opion in a lot of areas, but this one has me scratching my head about you.

Let's stop and think. The basic premise is that an employee should not have to face death as a natural consequence of doing their job. in order to achieve that objective, certain precautions must be made. one is the authority to use lethal force for the police officer to protect themselves from eminent danger. I will admit this is a judgement call. but no matter how you slice it, it will always be a judgment call; leaving civilians like you and I to second guess the officer "after the fact".

Here is a fact of life:

People will die in the line of fire during incidents involving police officers. Some on the side of law enforcement, and some on the side of civilians.

Since the civilian population tremendously outnumbers law enforcement in the line of fire (boots on the ground), it would be extremely alarming if LE had more that die in the line of fire instead of the other way around, wouldn't you agree? (you seem to think that more LE should die in the line of fire than the citizens)

I may complain about the WAY LE is used to run this country (minor speeding tickets, jay walking, very small amounts of marijuana, that sort of thing), I will not argue that LE has a legitimate role in ANY civilized society.

I either read your comment wrong, or you didn't' think your answer out very well. You usually have pretty level headed answers, which is why I'm scratching my head...?

[Docd187123]

Doc,

I respect your opion in a lot of areas, but this one has me scratching my head about you.

Let's stop and think. The basic premise is that an employee should not have to face death as a natural consequence of doing their job. in order to achieve that objective, certain precautions must be made. one is the authority to use lethal force for the police officer to protect themselves from eminent danger. I will admit this is a judgement call. but no matter how you slice it, it will always be a judgment call; leaving civilians like you and I to second guess the officer "after the fact".

One of my jobs when I was a teenager was working in a manufacturing plant where I was almost killed by a 50ton press. Are you arguing giving that press the death penalty or giving it a stiffer punishment bc I "as an employee should not have to face death as a natural consequence of doing my job"?

What about doctors without borders? Those doctors face much more dangerous situations than police officers, why not make it a stiffer penalty for killimg them?

The premise isn't about not facing death as a natural consequence of doing your job bc if you accept the position of police officer you accept the inherent dangers of the job. Are we to tell our military men and women that they shouldn't have to face death as a consequence of their career choice?

You are valuing the life of one person more than another and justifying it with "the ends justify the means". This means all you're saying is that the life of one person maybe worth more than the life of another.

Here is a fact of life:

People will die in the line of fire during incidents involving police officers. Some on the side of law enforcement, and some on the side of civilians.

Agreed

Since the civilian population tremendously outnumbers law enforcement in the line of fire (boots on the ground), it would be extremely alarming if LE had more that die in the line of fire instead of the other way around, wouldn't you agree?(you seem to think that more LE should die in the line of fire than the citizens)

No, I think that the statistics show it's more dangerous being a citizen confronted by a cop than a cop confronted by a citizen.

Every police officer on the job carries a weapon, not every civilian carries one boots on the ground isn't the whole picture if some of the boots are armed with only their cellphones. Then you have to figure how much of the civilian population actually encounters police? Some go their whole lives never being pulled over, ticketed, or arrested.

Also your attempting to argue that killing a police officer should have stiffer penalties yet acknowledge the fact that they kill more people than they themselves are killed. Just how dangerous is this job if that's the case?

I may complain about the WAY LE is used to run this country (minor speeding tickets, jay walking, very small amounts of marijuana, that sort of thing), I will not argue that LE has a legitimate role in ANY civilized society.

I never argued that they don't have a legitimate role, I'm arguing that their lives should be treated the same as everyone else's. No better no worse. Murder is when one human being unlawfully kills another human being. The definition of murder makes no room for who was murdered or who did the murdering.

I either read your comment wrong, or you didn't' think your answer out very well. You usually have pretty level headed answers, which is why I'm scratching my head...?

[Docd187123]

If one cannot accept the risks or consequences involved in their career choice they should rethink their choice.

[Times Roman]

One of my jobs when I was a teenager was working in a manufacturing plant where I was almost killed by a 50ton press. Are you arguing giving that press (do you mean the press OPERATOR or the machine itself?) (if you mean the operator, then I am sure the death at most would have been one of sentencing the operator to negligance) the death penalty or giving it a stiffer punishment bc I "as an employee should not have to face death as a natural consequence of doing my job"?

1) I used the term "employee" to also, and specifically, refer to LE. Bottom line, they are still employees

2) I went on to clarify "natural consequence" later on....
What about doctors without borders? Those doctors face much more dangerous situations than police officers, why not make it a stiffer penalty for killimg them?

I would like to see the stats on that comment. Please include a link to an authoritative reference that is credible....

The premise isn't about not facing death as a natural consequence of doing your job bc if you accept the position of police officer you accept the inherent dangers of the job. Are we to tell our military men and women that they shouldn't have to face death as a consequence of their career choice?

somehow, you didn't read the very next sentence I wrote that you somehow forgot to include in your paraphrase of the first sentence I wrote...

" in order to achieve that objective, certain precautions must be made. one is the authority to use lethal force for the police officer to protect themselves from eminent danger."

this is a reasonable position, would you not agree?

You are valuing the life of one person more than another and justifying it with "the ends justify the means". This means all you're saying is that the life of one person maybe worth more than the life of another.

that is not exactly what I said, is it. you interpreted and filtered what I said and somehow came up with this.

what I said was...

"There are two relevant aspects to human life we should consider:

1) The intrinsic value of that human life
2) The net contribution to society that life has made

Therefore, to a certain extent, all life is equal. But how we treat that life is also a reflection of #2 as well.

proof:

if you are a net detractor from society, society will punish/kill you. Think state sponsored executions
if you are a net contributor to society, society will reward you. Think actors and A list athletes.

So you need to consider not only how individuals treat one another, but also how groups of individuals (called societies) treat you. We all know that the psychology of individuals is much different than the psychology of societies."



Agreed



No, I think that the statistics show it's more dangerous being a citizen confronted by a cop than a cop confronted by a citizen.

Every police officer on the job carries a weapon, not every civilian carries one boots on the ground isn't the whole picture if some of the boots are armed with only their cellphones. Then you have to figure how much of the civilian population actually encounters police? Some go their whole lives never being pulled over, ticketed, or arrested.

Also your attempting to argue that killing a police officer should have stiffer penalties yet acknowledge the fact that they kill more people than they themselves are killed. Just how dangerous is this job if that's the case?



I never argued that they don't have a legitimate role, I'm arguing that their lives should be treated the same as everyone else's. No better no worse. Murder is when one human being unlawfully kills another human being. The definition of murder makes no room for who was murdered or who did the murdering.

please read my notes.

I'm trying to be very clear.

please take a moment to understand and not miscommunicate it to yourself and others....

[Times Roman]

If one cannot accept the risks or consequences involved in their career choice they should rethink their choice.

Doc,

I'm not going to tarnish the respect I have for you by arguing with you.

If you knew me, you would also know I am NOT a big supporter of LE. But I'm not going to spit in their eye and call them pigs either. Maybe there was a time when I was young like you, but I have been around long enough to see this problem from many sides and perspectives, and to think long and hard about it, and more than just from a personal perspective.

So take a breath, and regain a critical perspective.

Cheers!

Roman

[Bonaparte]

What about doctors without borders? Those doctors face much more dangerous situations than police officers, why not make it a stiffer penalty for killimg them?

Attacks against EMS and hospital personnel (doctors, nurses, paramedics, etc) do carry higher penalties in most places.
What you seem to be missing is that these harsher prosecution laws are meant to deter someone who has already attacked civilians from also attacking the professionals who are placing themselves in harm's way and do not have the luxury to just run away and "let someone else take care of it".

If someone has already crossed that line and committed violence against another civilian, there must be another line drawn to make him think twice about attacking those professionals charged with the task of stopping him.

Society cannot afford to have as many public servants killed as random civilians. We would run out of public servants very fast, and then there would be anarchy and we'd all be burning and raping each other.

[lovbyts]

Attacks against EMS and hospital personnel (doctors, nurses, paramedics, etc) do carry higher penalties in most places.
What you seem to be missing is that these harsher prosecution laws are meant to deter someone who has already attacked civilians from also attacking the professionals who are placing themselves in harm's way and do not have the luxury to just run away and "let someone else take care of it".

If someone has already crossed that line and committed violence against another civilian, there must be another line drawn to make him think twice about attacking those professionals charged with the task of stopping him.

Society cannot afford to have as many public servants killed as random civilians. We would run out of public servants very fast, and then there would be anarchy and we'd all be burning and raping each other.

But that is exactly what certain groups are saying should be done, such as in the Michael Brown case. They are saying when/if Michael Brown was charging the officer he should have just ran away. STUPID...

[Times Roman]

here's what I do think of LE

to a high extent, there are too many of them that have too much time on their hands.

the proof of this statement is by observing how they spend a significant portion of their time hassling citizens

1) pulling people over that for all intents and purposes, are operating their vehicles safely, yet are pulled over for doing a few miles an hour over the speed limit

2) giving a handicapped person's vehicle a parking ticket because 1 tire is touching a painted line

3) pulling someone over for a seat belt violation at night on a country road when it is hard to see

4) pulling over someone on a Harley that has been following you for over a mile, and then the cop pulls to the right quickly, just long enough to get behind the guy on the Harley, just to give him a speeding ticket. The Harley rider took the cop to court and easily beat the charges, but what a huge waste of time for the cop who sucked off the taxpayers by pulling overtime, the courts for the frivolous ticket, and the citizen for having to take time off from work.

The list can go on and on. The solution for this is to reduce the headcount of police officers so that they no longer have time for pulling this stupid shit.

And this example also extends to other civil servants that suck off tax payers, like the fire department. Google Ripon, Ca fire department. each station probably only gets four calls a day. yet they drive only the best, most modern fire trucks and use the best fire equipment, and their fire stations are like little apartments. All paid for by the tax payer. True, they have a huge volunteer force, and intentionally so. What happened was, there was a huge endowment to the volunteer fire fighters, millions, and it has to be spent on the volunteers. so they lead these poor fvckers on telling them to just play the game and they will be next in line to be hired full time (volunteers do not make any money). But it's been almost ten ? years since the last volunteered was hired. this doesn't mean they don't hire, just not volunteers. asnd they borrow money from the volunteer endowment.

friggin game

[kelkel]

Attacks against EMS and hospital personnel (doctors, nurses, paramedics, etc) do carry higher penalties in most places.
What you seem to be missing is that these harsher prosecution laws are meant to deter someone who has already attacked civilians from also attacking the professionals who are placing themselves in harm's way and do not have the luxury to just run away and "let someone else take care of it".

If someone has already crossed that line and committed violence against another civilian, there must be another line drawn to make him think twice about attacking those professionals charged with the task of stopping him.

Society cannot afford to have as many public servants killed as random civilians. We would run out of public servants very fast, and then there would be anarchy and we'd all be burning and raping each other.

I've tried to explain that yet failed miserably. I'm guessing it's just the extreme liberal mindset these days regurgitated by so many college professors, etc. I could be wrong but that's the impression given. I guess a public servant must be almost killed before they can fight back....

[Juced_porkchop]

Are certain lives more valuable than others? The initial response by most would be no, that each life is just as valuable as another. If that's the case, why does everything in our society say differently? Here are some examples:

1. If I walk into a room and kill the first person I see, I will be arrested and sentenced harshly. If I walk into the same room, kill the first person I see and that person is a police officer, I will receive a much harsher sentence.

2. If a leader, be it political or in business dies, a large portion of society mourns his loss. This man could have been, let's just say "subpar" when it comes to his family and personal relationships, but he did contribute to society as a whole in some way. And that same day another man dies, a regular man who made little to no impact on society in terms of what we all see. He was loved by his family and friends, a good man, but other than his immediate family no one really mourns his loss.

3. Ten people die tragically, let's say due to some type of terrorist or criminal act. Ten lives are cut tragically short. That same day in the same city, ten people die of cancer, ten lives are cut tragically short. Regardless of what kind of people these twenty people were, people will mourn the ten that lost their life to tragic violence far more than the other ten; in fact, in comparison it will be immeasurable.

Personally, I think we have a warped view of the value of life, and I think all three of the examples above show this warped view. In any of the deaths above, I cannot see how one is more meaningful in terms of who that person was. Am I wrong? Do we have a warped sense of the value of life or do we see and view things properly?

All life is sacred! f*ck society, political and conditioned views. IMO...

[GirlyGymRat]

All life is sacred! f*ck society, political and conditioned views. IMO...

I'm with juiced. LoL

[Docd187123]

I've tried to explain that yet failed miserably. I'm guessing it's just the extreme liberal mindset these days regurgitated by so many college professors, etc. I could be wrong but that's the impression given. I guess a public servant must be almost killed before they can fight back....

If you can please point me to the part where I stated they're not allowed to fight back I'll grant you the point. All I've said is that the punishment of a crime should be no different based on who it was committed against. That does NOT in any way, shape, or form say anything about them being able to fight back or not.

[Docd187123]

Attacks against EMS and hospital personnel (doctors, nurses, paramedics, etc) do carry higher penalties in most places.
What you seem to be missing is that these harsher prosecution laws are meant to deter someone who has already attacked civilians from also attacking the professionals who are placing themselves in harm's way and do not have the luxury to just run away and "let someone else take care of it".

If someone has already crossed that line and committed violence against another civilian, there must be another line drawn to make him think twice about attacking those professionals charged with the task of stopping him.

Society cannot afford to have as many public servants killed as random civilians. We would run out of public servants very fast, and then there would be anarchy and we'd all be burning and raping each other.

If someone has crossed he line and violence against a civilian, no law or punishment is going to make them think twice about doing the same to a police officer. They view the citizen as defenseless and commit the violence. A police officer they know has a gun and can and will shoot back or fight back. I are that's what deters them not a punishment after the fact.

[Docd187123]

Doc,

I'm not going to tarnish the respect I have for you by arguing with you.

If you knew me, you would also know I am NOT a big supporter of LE. But I'm not going to spit in their eye and call them pigs either. Maybe there was a time when I was young like you, but I have been around long enough to see this problem from many sides and perspectives, and to think long and hard about it, and more than just from a personal perspective.

So take a breath, and regain a critical perspective.

Cheers!

Roman

This has nothing to do with me supporting LE or not. To be quite honest with you, there's a cop turned SWAT team member who married into my family and I am worried about his well being. I still don't think increased punishment is a good idea for cop killers.

[Docd187123]

please read my notes.

I'm trying to be very clear.

please take a moment to understand and not miscommunicate it to yourself and others....

1 and 2 you missed my point.

I'll try and post links later but for now you can look up what happened to DWB in Sudan and other African countries.

If someone uses force on a cop I have absolutely no issue with them using force, deadly if necessary, to defend themselves. The issue once again isn't about them defending themselves, it's about the crime and punishment aspect. I never said to tie their hands behind their backs and go serve warrants on drug cartels or anything of the sort.

I don't beleive the death penalty works at all which IMO invalidates your proof. A list actors and celebrities don't have laws re-written to make killing them a worse crime than killing an average citizen.....

[kelkel]

All I've said is that the punishment of a crime should be no different based on who it was committed against. That does NOT in any way, shape, or form say anything about them being able to fight back or not.

Well, this is where all our current lawmakers for generations feel you are wrong, as do I. I don't understand how anyone cannot see how enhanced penalties in this situation is not a deterrent. Why would anyone not want people in these professions to have these added protections baffles me. Crime against workers in those fields would rise exponentially as scumbags who have no problems assaulting fellow scumbags would have even less an issue with assaulting cops, teachers, fire fighters, etc.

[Docd187123]

Well, this is where all our current lawmakers for generations feel you are wrong, as do I. I don't understand how anyone cannot see how enhanced penalties in this situation is not a deterrent. Why would anyone not want people in these professions to have these added protections baffles me. Crime against workers in those fields would rise exponentially as scumbags who have no problems assaulting fellow scumbags would have even less an issue with assaulting cops, teachers, fire fighters, etc.

Lawmakers aren't always right though. We all know that.

Do you know how many police officers were killed by felonious acts in 2013? The answer is 27.

Do you know how many police officers died as a result of accidents? The answer is 49. Of those 49 deaths by accident, do you know how many were traffic related auto accidents? The answer is 23. And of those 23 killed in an auto accident, 14 were not wearing a seatbelt (ironic bc you and I would get a ticket for that ).

So it's more dangerous to be a cop bc of an accident than it is to be killed when he is responding to a felony call. And half as many cops died in auto accidents as died during felony acts.

28 cop killers were identified in those 27 cop murders. Of those 28 people, 20 already had prior criminal records. Seems like no amount of strict punishment deters most people who kill cops.

The argument that it would be a field day on cops if the penalty of killing one was reduced to that of killing a regular civilian has little to no merit. The figures and statistics do not back up that argument.

[Docd187123]

Meanwhile, in 2014 there were over 1000people killed by cops. Yes most of them were justified killings but how many were not? It's hard to tell bc cops killing citizens goes largely Unwatched by bureaucratic agencies. If even one quarter of one percent of those killings were unjustified, that means, like I mentioned earlier, it's more of an open season on you and me than it is on a police officer doing his job. Z

[Bonaparte]

Lawmakers aren't always right though. We all know that.

Do you know how many police officers were killed by felonious acts in 2013? The answer is 27.

Do you know how many police officers died as a result of accidents? The answer is 49. Of those 49 deaths by accident, do you know how many were traffic related auto accidents? The answer is 23. And of those 23 killed in an auto accident, 14 were not wearing a seatbelt (ironic bc you and I would get a ticket for that ).

So it's more dangerous to be a cop bc of an accident than it is to be killed when he is responding to a felony call. And half as many cops died in auto accidents as died during felony acts.

28 cop killers were identified in those 27 cop murders. Of those 28 people, 20 already had prior criminal records. Seems like no amount of strict punishment deters most people who kill cops.

The argument that it would be a field day on cops if the penalty of killing one was reduced to that of killing a regular civilian has little to no merit. The figures and statistics do not back up that argument.

Do you really have some objection to those performing certain jobs for the public being granted a bit more legal protection? For what possible reason? It doesn't affect you (unless you're a scumbag who would want to take a swing or a shot at a civil servant).
And does this asinine stance of your extend to assault/battery charges increased a degree of severity, or just murder and capital punishment?

I'm sure you're aware of this, but statistics alone cannot replace logic and good sense.

Also, bear in mind who you are arguing with. This is personal, not an exercise in philosophy and statistics for shits and giggles.

[Docd187123]

Do you really have some objection to those performing certain jobs for the public being granted a bit more legal protection? For what possible reason?

Yes I do. Because that same legal protection is not afforded the rest of the population. Bc "all men are created equal" and if all men are created equal why are some "more equal" than others? Bc the life of one person should not outweigh the life of another.

Metalject said it better than I in post 7.

It doesn't affect you (unless you're a scumbag who would want to take a swing or a shot at a civil servant).

I'll admit I've had my run ins with the law when I was younger and the only one I swung at was one who insulted my ethnicity. Other than that I've been cordial with police when they've been cordial with me. I've never taken a shot at a police officer either.

And yes it does affect me. It tells me that his life is more valuable than almost everyone else when that goes against what this country was founded on. Not only that but like I said, I have a family member who is on a police force in my state. I care deeply about what happens to him on the job but I'm not deluded into thinking that a stiffer penalty for killing him would make his job safer.

And does this asinine stance of your extend to assault/battery charges increased a degree of severity, or just murder and capital punishment?

You mean assault and battery against a cop? If so then yes, assaulting a cop should carry the same penalty as assaulting you or me. You only think it asinine bc you disagree with it.

I'm sure you're aware of this, but statistics alone cannot replace logic and good sense.

Perhaps not, but how accurate is the logic and good sense if the statistics show a very different story from the one you are arguing?

You also didn't argue the statistics, I assume bc you haven't looked them up. So please look at the statistics I posted and tell me again that without stiffer punishments it would be open season on cops when in 2008 there were 461,000 sworn officers and in 2013 27 of them were killed by felonious acts? Yes I know the years are different but I don't think the Bureau of Justice Statistics has a more recent year.

You argued In your first post that we would run out of public servants if more were killed than civilians. The military which is tasked with protecting us as well doesn't seem to have a shortage of people signing up and enlisting when military deaths FAR FAR FAR outweigh those of public servants.

Also, bear in mind who you are arguing with. This is personal, not an exercise in philosophy and statistics for shits and giggles.

I know perfectly well who I'm arguing with and what you do for a living. It maybe personal to you but we all know emotions don't make for the best logic or good sense. As I've said several times so far, I have a cop in my family, I also have several doctors and nurses in my family, and I have teachers (I mention teachers bc Kel brought them up earlier) in my family, my girlfriend's mom and two aunts are trauma RNs. So as much as this would affect you it would affect me as well.

[Bonaparte]

Yes I do. Because that same legal protection is not afforded the rest of the population. Bc "all men are created equal" and if all men are created equal why are some "more equal" than others? Bc the life of one person should not outweigh the life of another.

The extra protection only applies while they are performing their duties. So they are not only a man, but an extension of the system; which is why they are avenged more harshly than the next man.
If you cannot accept this concept, then I am done wasting my words on you.

[Docd187123]

The extra protection only applies while they are performing their duties. So they are not only a man, but an extension of the system; which is why they are avenged more harshly than the next man.
If you cannot accept this concept, then I am done wasting my words on you.

Would you favor harsher penalties for civil servants who unjustifiably kill civilians while they are performing their duties?

Edit* unjustifiably kill

[kelkel]

I've never taken a shot at a police officer either.

To even remotely feel the need to point this out really says something about your personality and mindset.

[Docd187123]

To even remotely feel the need to point this out really says something about your personality and mindset.

Bonaparte made the following claim:

It doesn't affect you (unless you're a scumbag who would want to take a swing or a shot at a civil servant).

So my statement says nothing about my mindset and personality in reality bc I was simply responding to the person who did in fact brought it up. I was attempting to show him that it does affect me even though I've never had the need to do that. Please read the entire discourse between Bona and I without taking my statement out of context.

[kelkel]

Bonaparte made the following claim:



So my statement says nothing about my mindset and personality in reality bc I was simply responding to the person who did in fact brought it up. I was attempting to show him that it does affect me even though I've never had the need to do that. Please read the entire discourse between Bona and I without taking my statement out of context.

I don't think it's out of context at all. You're simply turning into a politician with your verbiage to help you "win" any conversation you're in.

[Metalject]

First comment is perhaps an obvious yet often forgotten one. 99% of the people in this thread and on this message board are law breakers and would be subject to extreme police action if they were caught. And most would find the behavior of the police against them to be over the top as well as demeaning if they were to find themselves in that position. Most here are criminals according to the law, and while their life may hold value as all life does, they would quickly find they have forfeited that value (to a degree) if ever in a hand caught in the cookie jar situation.

Police are definitely necessary. Police also without question need some leeway in terms of what they can and cannot do, a definite need for authority in some situations. But it's important to remember and recognize that authority comes from the people they are intended to serve, merely an extension of the larger government arm. Policemen are often referred to as Public Servants, but, in my opinion, we've long lost the sense of what that means. While we call them servants they have largely turned into enforcers and have been raised to a position over those they were intended to serve. The police themselves are not really to blame - they are merely tools of the larger apparatus, they are not the apparatus.

When you look at the use of deadly force, policemen should without question have this right of power when their lives are threatened. But the same right should be given to men who are not police officers...all men should equally possess this right because as men they are equal. And when one attempts to unjustifiably take a life of an individual, cop or not, the punishment should be just as severe in either case. Personally, I believe taking another's life without just cause is reason enough to forfeit your life. This could mean a death penalty or life in prison, that's another argument, but in either case your freedom is forfeit.

[Bonaparte]

Would you favor harsher penalties for civil servants who unjustifiably kill civilians while they are performing their duties?

Edit* unjustifiably kill

Of course not. LE wouldn't be able to do anything if they had to fear the death penalty every time they draw their weapon. We would all be less safe, not more.

And bear in mind that public servants are held to a higher degree of accountability than the average citizen. If we get caught doing something illegal, it turns into a media shitstorm and we lose our jobs. Some factory worker or whatever gets a DUI and nobody cares.

[Docd187123]

I don't think it's out of context at all. You're simply turning into a politician with your verbiage to help you "win" any conversation you're in.

So there are winners in online conversations? Funny, I thought we all got to speak our piece as we saw fit so long as we follow the rules of the forum.

Politicians are just as good at misrepresenting what someone said as they are at playing with verbiage.