Its about dammed time 18 replies

  • 1
  • 2

Please wait...

Tom_Son

It rocks to be me!!

50 XP

7th April 2008

0 Uploads

161 Posts

0 Threads

#11 11 years ago

This is kinda scary, soem people seem to think that even if there is reasonable doubt that this man is guilty he should be excecuted, so what happens if he is excecuted and it turns out to be someone else, does the other dude get killed as well or isn't it possible to have two death scentences over the same case??




Admiral Donutz Advanced Member

Wanna go Double Dutch?

735,271 XP

9th December 2003

0 Uploads

71,460 Posts

0 Threads

#12 11 years ago
Demonseed;4598152Murder of a police officer is a much more heinous crime, simply because police officers are working for a meager wage for the benefit of their fellow citizens. Nothing quite prepares you for the work you do as an officer of the law (trust me, I did it for a little over 5 years). This is why the phrase 'cop-killer' is so powerful in the American lexicon.

well to be fair, I can understand why people would want to punish people who work for the emergency forces (police, paramedics, firefighters) harsh. Though on he other hand all people ar equal and no person is more "important" then an other. It's wrong to kill a man. And I think good arguments can me made to favour and disfavour harsher penalties against violence towards emergency forces. Though one could also argue that shooting an unarmed citizen is a whole lot more evil then shooting an police officer in a shoot out (the citizen didn't chose to be there and couldn't defend himself. An officer did chose to put himself in harmsway with the risks that go with it).

Overhere they wish to increase penalties when people are violent towards emergency services (some recent incidents were paramedics have been threatend, intimidated and such and an offduty police officer that was shot dead when she showed her batch to a speeding driver).

I probably go with "if you shoot an unarmed man you are more worse then shooting somebody in the mids of a firefight". Both are wrong and should be punished heavily but shooting an innocent passerby or for that matter a police officer (or paramedic or whatever) that is approaching you is pretty sick. A general rule of thumb of "if you shoot while no fire was directed at you you're more worse then you returning fire to somebody who is shooting at you".

But there is never a good reason to shoot an other man (well except when you are in mortal danger and it's either you or he who leaves in a bodybag).

Such special laws should be written with the utmost care, as said if you shoot lets say a paramedic you're pretty damn sick. But if just yell at such a person because you are in a state of panic ("help me, if I die I'll kill you" / "Help my sister or I'll kill you") and thus quite reasonabily are not fully aware of the stuff you are yelling or doing it would be a bit harsh to punish somebody for that (more harsh then yelling the same stuf at a random citizen). In the las example emergency services should perhaps even have a bit of a skin (understanding) since people in a state of panic might be smewhat unreasonable and do or say things they wouldn't normally do.

In the end it's probably best to let a court decide whether or not criminal actions should be punished extra severly or less severly depending on the exact and unique circumstances (which allows to punish a cop killer more severily if need be or acknowledge that somebody react differently then one normally would and is sorry of yelling names at an officer).

Yeah, this article isn't exactly a paragon of information. I would hazard a guess that there is much more to the conviction than the article states, simply because the state Supreme Court had turned down so many appeals, even in the face of witnesses recanting their testimony.

Agreed. I do wonder what is covered by an "offduty policeofficer". It could be somebody who is just temporary off duty (lunch break, between shifts) but still in uniform or somebody who is not in uniform (private time). One can hardly call somebody a cop killer if said cop wasn't identifable a police officer.




Demonseed Advanced Member

Gettin' real tired of you ducking me, man...

50 XP

29th December 2004

0 Uploads

464 Posts

0 Threads

#13 11 years ago

Admiral Donutz;4598238well to be fair, I can understand why people would want to punish people who work for the emergency forces (police, paramedics, firefighters) harsh. Though on he other hand all people ar equal and no person is more "important" then an other. It's wrong to kill a man. And I think good arguments can me made to favour and disfavour harsher penalties against violence towards emergency forces. Though one could also argue that shooting an unarmed citizen is a whole lot more evil then shooting an police officer in a shoot out (the citizen didn't chose to be there and couldn't defend himself. An officer did chose to put himself in harmsway with the risks that go with it).

Overhere they wish to increase penalties when people are violent towards emergency services (some recent incidents were paramedics have been threatend, intimidated and such and an offduty police officer that was shot dead when she showed her batch to a speeding driver).

I probably go with "if you shoot an unarmed man you are more worse then shooting somebody in the mids of a firefight". Both are wrong and should be punished heavily but shooting an innocent passerby or for that matter a police officer (or paramedic or whatever) that is approaching you is pretty sick. A general rule of thumb of "if you shoot while no fire was directed at you you're more worse then you returning fire to somebody who is shooting at you".

But there is never a good reason to shoot an other man (well except when you are in mortal danger and it's either you or he who leaves in a bodybag).

Such special laws should be written with the utmost care, as said if you shoot lets say a paramedic you're pretty damn sick. But if just yell at such a person because you are in a state of panic ("help me, if I die I'll kill you" / "Help my sister or I'll kill you") and thus quite reasonabily are not fully aware of the stuff you are yelling or doing it would be a bit harsh to punish somebody for that (more harsh then yelling the same stuf at a random citizen). In the las example emergency services should perhaps even have a bit of a skin (understanding) since people in a state of panic might be smewhat unreasonable and do or say things they wouldn't normally do.

In the end it's probably best to let a court decide whether or not criminal actions should be punished extra severly or less severly depending on the exact and unique circumstances (which allows to punish a cop killer more severily if need be or acknowledge that somebody react differently then one normally would and is sorry of yelling names at an officer).

At least where I live the 'modifiers' on charges relate specifically to assault on an officer. Simply screaming at the cops won't even get you charged, unless it's with disorderly conduct (a misdemeanor, usually punishable by a fine). Normally that doesn't even happen, unless you've already been charged with something else.

I don't think that the situation you describe above would ever result in charges, unless the officer was a complete moron, and even then, I can't imagine any judge not looking at it and immediately tossing it out.

Agreed. I do wonder what is covered by an "offduty policeofficer". It could be somebody who is just temporary off duty (lunch break, between shifts) but still in uniform or somebody who is not in uniform (private time). One can hardly call somebody a cop killer if said cop wasn't identifable a police officer.

In many cases, the 'modifier' is dependent on the officer identifying himself. Obviously, having the uniform on is identification enough. In an off-duty situation, or if we were working a 'special-duty' (for example, we had a post at a local movie theater that often had disturbances. An off-duty officer worked that post in plain clothes.) we were required to identify ourselves as officers immediately upon responding to any situation, whether it appeared serious or not.




Admiral Donutz Advanced Member

Wanna go Double Dutch?

735,271 XP

9th December 2003

0 Uploads

71,460 Posts

0 Threads

#14 11 years ago

Demonseed;4598275At least where I live the 'modifiers' on charges relate specifically to assault on an officer. Simply screaming at the cops won't even get you charged, unless it's with disorderly conduct (a misdemeanor, usually punishable by a fine). Normally that doesn't even happen, unless you've already been charged with something else.

I don't think that the situation you describe above would ever result in charges, unless the officer was a complete moron, and even then, I can't imagine any judge not looking at it and immediately tossing it out.

The example I mentioned earlier (a guy threatening a paramedic) happend a week or two ago and went like this:

An immigrant (teenage I believe) boy was stabbed in the streets of Amsterdam. An ambulance went to the scene and arrived there with no police forces around. It's not uncommon forpolice to respond to emergency calls for paramedics and the fire dept aswell so they can secure the area (keeping bystanders in a save distance so they won't hinder the emergenc services).

The byo was in quite a bad shape and his family (who called the paramedics) were in quite a shock and panicked. The older brother of the boy yelled at one of the paramedics "Save him or I'll kill you" or "If he dies, your die!" (can't recall the exact line). This scared the paramedics who went back into the ambulance.

I'm not sure what else happend on the scene, I heard that the button to call for police assistance didn't function but eventually the stabbed boy was rushed to hospital and his condition was stabalized. The paramedics of the city were shocked by the incident and went on a strike to show their discomfort and reaction against those who threaten or intimidate emergency service people (especially paramedics).

The brother who threatend to harm the paramedics was arrested and put in a police cell. shortly after the incident he announced that he was sorry and acted while in a state of panic (believing his brother was dying before his own eyes) and that he never meant for this to happen. After some short time (a day or two?) in jail he was released and is now awaiting prosecution for his action which may be punished with jail time or a fine.

Ofcourse opinions are divided. Some say that they can't condone wait the guy said but that since he said he regretted his actions sincerely and given the circumstances he should be let go. Others say that he should be going to jail to sent out a message to those who threaten or even assault paramedics (fire fighters and police officers).

If you ask me the guy should walk and prosecution is kinda a waste of time. The guy admitted to his mistakes and sincerely regrets his actions. If the paramedics accept this (I think they did) that should be sufficient reason to let him go. Now if the guy assaulted the paramedics it would have been a whole other story. In short: the paramedics must have sort of f restistance (though skin) to ignore some of the stuff thrown at them since people may not be fully aware of what they are doing in a state of panic. Ofcourse it should be made clear that such actiions cna not be approved of though and a person who sincerly threatens paramedics should not get away with it. But overall the paramedics should realize they may have to deal with people who react somewhat negatively towards them (at the time due to the state they are in).

The same applies to other situations such as one who calls names at an officer should be fined but if a drunk person does the same then a more relaxed attitude is wanted. A person in a sane and calm state of mind calling an officer "dickhead" should be made clear this is no acceptable. WHile a drunk (aslong as he doesn't do any harm to his surroundings) should be excused (it still wouldn't be something to approve off but the circumstances make it understandable).

In many cases, the 'modifier' is dependent on the officer identifying himself. Obviously, having the uniform on is identification enough. In an off-duty situation, or if we were working a 'special-duty' (for example, we had a post at a local movie theater that often had disturbances. An off-duty officer worked that post in plain clothes.) we were required to identify ourselves as officers immediately upon responding to any situation, whether it appeared serious or not.

True, but this article doesn't clarify whether we are talking about an offduty officer who identified himself (so that whoever shoot him must have known he shot a cop) or if he was un plain cloths and didn't identify himself (properly). For all I know the author could make it sound like a cop killer by using the word "off duty police officer" in a rather liberal (read: biased/inpropper) way to make people draw the wrong conclusions (stering up negative attitudes towards the criminal). I guess we just have to say that this article hasn't been very well written so I wouldn't draw any conclusions from it.




Mr. Pedantic

I would die without GF

234,620 XP

8th October 2006

0 Uploads

23,127 Posts

0 Threads

#15 11 years ago
but what in the fucking hell does Bush have to do with this?

Sorry, I misread.

Ofcourse opinions are divided. Some say that they can't condone wait the guy said but that since he said he regretted his actions sincerely and given the circumstances he should be let go. Others say that he should be going to jail to sent out a message to those who threaten or even assault paramedics (fire fighters and police officers).

I think he should be charged and, if the jury decides so, sent to jail. It's extremely unproductive to threaten the only people there who have a good chance of saving the guy's life, no matter what situation this is in. And as someone who wants to work in the emergency medical services, I sure hope nobody gives me death threats, after doing all I can for the patient.




Admiral Donutz Advanced Member

Wanna go Double Dutch?

735,271 XP

9th December 2003

0 Uploads

71,460 Posts

0 Threads

#16 11 years ago

Mr. Pedantic;4598455Sorry, I misread.

I think he should be charged and, if the jury decides so, sent to jail. It's extremely unproductive to threaten the only people there who have a good chance of saving the guy's life, no matter what situation this is in. And as someone who wants to work in the emergency medical services, I sure hope nobody gives me death threats, after doing all I can for the patient.

We;; that will be up to the judges to decide. We don't have a jury here but a council of judges (three or so) who deal with criminal cases and who together make a verdict.




Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#17 11 years ago
Admiral Donutz;4598503We;; that will be up to the judges to decide. We don't have a jury here but a council of judges (three or so) who deal with criminal cases and who together make a verdict.

I've always been curious about the judical system of other countries, and whether they are more or less fair. Who will be able to be more impartial? Three judges or twelve jurors?




Admiral Donutz Advanced Member

Wanna go Double Dutch?

735,271 XP

9th December 2003

0 Uploads

71,460 Posts

0 Threads

#18 11 years ago

I guess it's hard to tell. A jury may appear more neutral but on the other hand a council of judges who have a extremely good knowledge of the law and lawsuits (as in dealing with evidence, lawyers and such and thus not falling for devious suggestions/tricks of lawyers) may be less inclinded to let their emotions influence their judgement.

I just checked and depending on the case their might be one judge (simple cases, I know for example appeals to traffic tickets ae done by one judge), three judges (serious crimes) or even more judges incase the case is of an extremely large scope (think about cases dealing with top figures of organized crime). The number of judges is always an uneven amount (for when they debate and the sentence I bet). A group of jurors might tend to "group think" (a not too uncommon phenomomen where a group decides on a certain action even though an indivudual in the group is against it but feels presured into doing what the group seems to demand).

On the other hand, judges might grow "tired" of their position after dealing with yet an other case ("here we go again...").

I guess that the quality depends the most on the justice system as a whole: How well is the retreavel of evidence? How well are the general procecuters? of which standard are interogations (how easy is it too fool interogators or how often does it happen that a person gives a false confession due to sheer pressure of the general procecuters?) . How much influence do lawyers have? Which systems are in place to stop procecutrs which suffer from "tunnel vision" (they are "sure" this is ther guy/gal and unknowly filter out evidence that pleads the guy/gal free or too easily see a certain fact as propper evidence to nail the guy/gal and thus lose an open mind towards potential others who may be responsible for the crime at hand). How much of a significance is it to have a well payed lawyer (or can a relatively cheap one perform nearly as good as a job?) . How neutral are the crime labs that review the evidence (DNA testing for example)? And so on.

Overall I feel quite safe with the system we have in place so that I can believe a proffesional verdict is made and no cheesy lawyer can convince a unproffesional jury due to smart use of words (as were a proffesional would easily see through this facade).

But given the fact that innocent people still end up in jail in various countries with different justice systems it's obvious that no system is perfect and completely flawless. Which system is less prone to poor (faulty) judgement I do not know.




Mr. Pedantic

I would die without GF

234,620 XP

8th October 2006

0 Uploads

23,127 Posts

0 Threads

#19 11 years ago

I also think jurors may also tend to be more biased because of socioeconomic background, and because some ethnicities are less inclined to perform jury service. For example, my parents have never done jury service, and none of my family friends who are chinese have performed jury service, even though quite a few have been asked. However, most of my friends who come from Western backgrounds who are asked to do jury service comply.




  • 1
  • 2