How we value life???

[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...?

[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....

[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.....

[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...

[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....

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.