Police officer fatally shot in Tamworth (1 Viewer)

[Lolsmith]

But you're placing those people upon a lower standing than the specific groups you've mentioned there because apparently that is more malicious (which it fucking isn't, it's just as malicious)

If their lives are worth less, can we therefore also subject them to separate laws and regulations (you already have)? Where does the point stop?

 

[enoilgam]

But you're placing those people upon a lower standing than the specific groups you've mentioned there because apparently that is more malicious (which it fucking isn't, it's just as malicious)

If their lives are worth less, can we therefore also subject them to separate laws and regulations (you already have)? Where does the point stop?

Its an extremely difficult to deal with this issue because all homicides are different and there are different functions of criminal penalties (i.e. retribution, protect society, send a message). In terms of retribution, then treating murders differently is placing certain lives above others. But in terms of protecting society there needs to be higher penalties. At the end of the day, what kind of murderer would you want free: a guy who kills his wife because she was sleeping with the mailman, a cop killer or a serial killer. Id take wife killer over the other two any are, he is way less dangerous.

It should be pointed out that the CJS deals with murders differently. Take the difference in sentencing between Klajsich (not sure on spelling) and Ivan Milat. Klajsich was convicted of ordering a hit on his wife, whilst Ivan Milat is a convicted serial killer. Klajsich got a lesser sentence than Milat (Klajsich got 25/30 years and Milat got life without parole). This disparity isnt because society is saying Ivan Milat killed more valuable people, but because if Milat was released he would pose a severe danger to society, as opposed to klajsich who doesnt.

 

[Timske]

Its an extremely difficult to deal with this issue because all homicides are different and there are different functions of criminal penalties (i.e. retribution, protect society, send a message). In terms of retribution, then treating murders differently is placing certain lives above others. But in terms of protecting society there needs to be higher penalties. At the end of the day, what kind of murderer would you want free: a guy who kills his wife because she was sleeping with the mailman, a cop killer or a serial killer. Id take wife killer over the other two any are, he is way less dangerous.

It should be pointed out that the CJS deals with murders differently. Take the difference in sentencing between Klajsich (not sure on spelling) and Ivan Milat. Klajsich was convicted of ordering a hit on his wife, whilst Ivan Milat is a convicted serial killer. Klajsich got a lesser sentence than Milat (Klajsich got 25/30 years and Milat got life without parole). This disparity isnt because society is saying Ivan Milat killed more valuable people, but because if Milat was released he would pose a severe danger to society, as opposed to klajsich who doesnt.

^ was about to say the same thing

 

[Smoke Eater]

Australian police officers do not wear concealed or unconcealed ballistic or even stab vests which I find absolutely stupid. Even if it's 40 degrees, I'd be donning a vest as a Level II (w or w/o ceramic plates) would protect against that kind of gunshot wounds, plus protects your chest during car crashes. No excuse not to wear one when you carry a firearm. I'd wear a concealed one like they do in America.

 

[Minion of Doom]

they should use ned kellys armour becuz its aussie here. haha.

 

[Annihilist]

"Police officer > anyone else."

Am I the only one who sees a problem with this?

 

[soloooooo]

"Police officer > anyone else."

Am I the only one who sees a problem with this?

Yes.

 

[Lolsmith]

Yes.

WHY CAN'T I NEG YOU

WHY CAN I NEVER NEG YOU

 

[Cl324]

"Police officer > anyone else."

Am I the only one who sees a problem with this?

Its not that a police officer's life is more valuable. The crime itself is worse.

 

[Annihilist]

Its not that a police officer's life is more valuable. The crime itself is worse.

The crime is worse due to society's and/or the law's perception that police are more valuable.

 

[Cl324]

The crime is worse due to society's and/or the law's perception that police are more valuable.

No I dont think so. Killing police whilst they are not in uniform will yield the same punishment as killing an ordinary person.
But murdering a policeman on duty will and should result in a harsher punishment. Why?

1. Incapacitation - Criminals who kill police officers are usually more ruthless and pose a greater threat to society
2. Deterence - Noone should be murdered whilst performing public duties. How many police officers will we have if it is the norm to get shot at work?

Killing police officers is the biggest fuck you to the law that a person can give but it goes both ways. Policeman who use the law to commit their crimes also will result in a greater sentence.
e.g, Mark Standen. He was a high ranking police officer who used his position to attempt to import drugs. He got a 20+ year sentence for conspiracy to import illegal substances.For a preliminary offence he got a punishment greater or equivalent to the murder of another human being. This wasnt because the drugs were more dangerous/valuable (i.e. it wasnt anthrax just recreational stuff) but because he used his powers in public office to manipulate the law.

 

[Annihilist]

No I dont think so. Killing police whilst they are not in uniform will yield the same punishment as killing an ordinary person.
But murdering a policeman on duty will and should result in a harsher punishment. Why?

1. Incapacitation - Criminals who kill police officers are usually more ruthless and pose a greater threat to society
2. Deterence - Noone should be murdered whilst performing public duties. How many police officers will we have if it is the norm to get shot at work?

Killing police officers is the biggest fuck you to the law that a person can give but it goes both ways. Policeman who use the law to commit their crimes also will result in a greater sentence.
e.g, Mark Standen. He was a high ranking police officer who used his position to attempt to import drugs. He got a 20+ year sentence for conspiracy to import illegal substances.For a preliminary offence he got a punishment greater or equivalent to the murder of another human being. This wasnt because the drugs were more dangerous/valuable (i.e. it wasnt anthrax just recreational stuff) but because he used his powers in public office to manipulate the law.

I'm very cynical about police's "public duties" mainly because laws just don't work, and police seem to be around to inhibit our freedoms. That's sounds like a "Fuck da poliec" comment, but it's true. I don't think the duties of the police are as important as we make it out to be. And even if they are they don't do their job very well. In some ways the police force are counter-productive to law enforcement. If some people feel oppressed they'll get angry and/or nihilistic and just stop caring, breaking law after law etc. as a response to the strict nature of "law enforcement".

But I digress. To address your two points explicitly:

1) I sort of do and don't understand this point. While people who kill police officers may appear to be a greater threat to "society", I think they're just a greater threat to other police officers. In fact, I think that people who kill police officers are more likely (generalisation) to only kill police officers discriminately as their mindset. Speculating here, though.
2) As I said, the public role of the police force is debatable at best, and the quality of their services are questionable.

 

[a c]

2. Deterence - Noone should be murdered whilst performing public duties. How many police officers will we have if it is the norm to get shot at work?

Noone should be murdered at all. You haven't at all explained why there needs to be greater deterrence for murdering police, than for murdering anyone else.

You're saying, we should use full deterrence to stop people killing police, but we'll just slightly deter the killing of everyone else, a softer deterrence is acceptable. How many people will we have around at all, if it is the norm to get shot when doing things other than police work?

Why would you not use the 100% deterrence all the time, whatever that may be.

Mark Standen. He was a high ranking police officer who used his position to attempt to import drugs. He got a 20+ year sentence for conspiracy to import illegal substances

That's disgusting.

 

[a c]

Society needs to make it clear that they will not tolerate people killing the police - its even a key rule in the underworld (its one of the top rules for the Italian Mafia) that police officers are not to be touched. The crime is a serious one because it strikes at the moral fibre of society.

That's just because the italian police are corrupt lol, they are the criminals.

 

[mirakon]

No I dont think so. Killing police whilst they are not in uniform will yield the same punishment as killing an ordinary person.
But murdering a policeman on duty will and should result in a harsher punishment. Why?

1. Incapacitation - Criminals who kill police officers are usually more ruthless and pose a greater threat to society
2. Deterence - Noone should be murdered whilst performing public duties. How many police officers will we have if it is the norm to get shot at work?

Killing police officers is the biggest fuck you to the law that a person can give but it goes both ways. Policeman who use the law to commit their crimes also will result in a greater sentence.
e.g, Mark Standen. He was a high ranking police officer who used his position to attempt to import drugs. He got a 20+ year sentence for conspiracy to import illegal substances.For a preliminary offence he got a punishment greater or equivalent to the murder of another human being. This wasnt because the drugs were more dangerous/valuable (i.e. it wasnt anthrax just recreational stuff) but because he used his powers in public office to manipulate the law.

In terms of your incapacitation argument, I think anyone who is willing to murder another human being is a danger to societ regardless of whether they are targetting police or not. You can't really "grade" victims.

2. Again in terms of your deterrence argument, whats the point of specific deterrence of cop murder. Shouldn't we deter murder full stop?

You say murdering a policeman is a big fuck u to the law. Tbh so is murdering ANY individual

 

[funkshen]

making the murder of an on duty police officer worse than the murder of a citizen is simply one of the ways a hegemonic legal order asserts itself. rationalising it is absurd.

protip: we don't have a justice system, we have a legal system. if you don't like it, don't kill a fucking cop

 

[Cl324]

Noone should be murdered at all. You haven't at all explained why there needs to be greater deterrence for murdering police, than for murdering anyone else.

You're saying, we should use full deterrence to stop people killing police, but we'll just slightly deter the killing of everyone else, a softer deterrence is acceptable. How many people will we have around at all, if it is the norm to get shot when doing things other than police work?

Why would you not use the 100% deterrence all the time, whatever that may be.



That's disgusting.

Yes nobody should be murdered at all but different cases call for different sentences. A person killing a family member who was dying in pain should get a lesser sentence than somebody who murdered in cold blood. I'm not saying slightly deter everyone else. Its not like its a 1 yr sentence for civilians and 100 yrs for police. Its more like a 20 yrs vs 25yrs.

You said the policeman importing drugs is disgusting but what about any other person? Is it less disgusting when we do it
Why would we need to deter policeman more than others. Why shouldnt we give everyone 100% deterrence all the time

Its not about the victim or drugs. Its about the crime itself and as I said, its a two way street.

 

[a c]

Yes nobody should be murdered at all but different cases call for different sentences. A person killing a family member who was dying in pain should get a lesser sentence than somebody who murdered in cold blood. I'm not saying slightly deter everyone else. Its not like its a 1 yr sentence for civilians and 100 yrs for police. Its more like a 20 yrs vs 25yrs.

I still don't understand, you're just re-stating your premise, I don't see why there shouldn't be the full deterrent in all cases?
Why wouldn't you give the 25yr sentence to everyone, if it will reduce the number of civilian murders? Why is 20yrs not enough of a sentence for killing police? Does the absolute sentence matter at all, or is the only thing that is important is the relative value of sentences?

You said the policeman importing drugs is disgusting but what about any other person? Is it less disgusting when we do it
Why would we need to deter policeman more than others. Why shouldnt we give everyone 100% deterrence all the time

The punishment is disgusting, the police officer who imported drugs should be commended, free Standen.

 

[Andrew Baron]

In the ordinary case, I would suggest that an assault upon the monarch's soldiers is equivalent to a direct assault on the monarch himself, and would be in advocacy of a swift execution. In the case of our self-titled "police", however, I can merely applaud the actions of the individual responsible. As a member of the police of our country, you are an upholder of a fundamentally heretical legislative system that rejects vassalage, the authority of the Catholic church and the (genuine hegemony) of the monarch. As these are institutions bound inextricably to divine mandate, I can only make the connection that an upholder of that which fundamentally rejects the highest authority in the universe, our Lord, is demonic, and thus worthy of death. However, this does not touch upon the morality of the usage of the firearm, a weapon I feel which diminishes the hegemony of the trained man at arms and thus the divine order in total.