How we value life???

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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

[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