To Protect and to Serve...

Status
Not open for further replies.
#10,403
#10,403
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
So the government needs to be dialed back? Who would do the dialing? Surely not "the people"
Click to expand...

The police could play that role of dialing back and be the check & balance between the lawmakers and the people. I've tried to explain that point to Grand several times, but he still comes back with this "duty bound" nonsense, even though one of LE's sworn duties is to uphold the Constitution. These cops have no problem violating the people's rights whenever they get a chance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#10,404
#10,404
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
Truthfully, everyone has their own personal biases and such. Objectivity is rubbish.
Click to expand...

I tend to be objective about many things, but yes, human nature does tend to bring out our inner biases when placed in certain situations. Child abuse was one of my pet peeves. As was molestation. I can't say I was ever lenient in those cases.
 
#10,407
#10,407
Rasputin_Vol said:
The police could play that role of dialing back and be the check & balance between the lawmakers and the people. I've tried to explain that point to Grand several times, but he still comes back with this "duty bound" nonsense, even though one of LE's sworn duties is to uphold the Constitution. These cops have no problem violating the people's rights whenever they get a chance.
Click to expand...

I think the big error in your thinking is the belief in magic parchment. The constitution is dead Ras, and has been for a long time.
An argument can also be made that the constitution was made for just this size of government.
 
#10,408
#10,408
Rasputin_Vol said:
I clearly said 25 years. I didn't say death. go back and find where I said he should be put to death.

Dont exaggerate.
Click to expand...

With your hatred? You wouldn't object in the least if he was sentenced to death. Don't try to pretend otherwise.

But of course with your "higher standards" the penalties would be and should be far more severe. So in this case, shooting at an occupied house that could have hurt or killed someone should be punishable by the maximum harm he could have caused. So death in this case.
 
#10,410
#10,410
Grand Vol said:
Can you please point towards the post where I gave anyone a break?

If you want to argue, become educated on the subject. Because you really do make yourself look like an idiot when you post stuff like this.
Click to expand...

I said you argued nuiances. You puffed your chest out and said show you similar cases where civilians received more time than this cop did for similar offenses and right away. Then you immediately began to discredit each case for either being apples/oranges or being in a different jurisdiction. So you make a request, I satisfied that request, and then you still pick it apart on nuiances and minor differences.
 
#10,411
#10,411
Rasputin_Vol said:
I said you argued nuiances. You puffed your chest out and said show you similar cases where civilians received more time than this cop did for similar offenses and right away. Then you immediately began to discredit each case for either being apples/oranges or being in a different jurisdiction. So you make a request, I satisfied that request, and then you still pick it apart on nuiances and minor differences.
Click to expand...

And I'm wrong for pointing out the fact that Florida had a minimum sentence for the woman convicted (and refused a plea bargain that would have been less than the cop got I might add) while Michigan does not?

Is that a nuiance or actually a fact?
 
#10,412
#10,412
Grand Vol said:
And I'm wrong for pointing out the fact that Florida had a minimum sentence for the woman convicted (and refused a plea bargain that would have been less than the cop got I might add) while Michigan does not?

Is that a nuiance or actually a fact?
Click to expand...

It is both. You tried to call me out and seemed to think that there were no other cases where civilians had done the samething as this cop and didn't get sentenced to more than 10 years. i proceeded to think of severall cases off the top of my head (Marissa Alexander case and SEPTA shooting) that had defendents serving longer senteces.

Then, that is when you backpeddle and start arguing nuiances. All I said was that 3.5 to 10 years wasn't enough time for the crime he did, and most jursdictions agree with me. Plus, who gives a damn what the sentence length is... the DAs in most of thos cases charged the defendents with attempted murder, which is what this cop should have gotten. You can't even bring yourself to even admit that.
 
#10,413
#10,413
Rasputin_Vol said:
It is both. You tried to call me out and seemed to think that there were no other cases where civilians had done the samething as this cop and didn't get sentenced to more than 10 years. i proceeded to think of severall cases off the top of my head (Marissa Alexander case and SEPTA shooting) that had defendents serving longer senteces.

Then, that is when you backpeddle and start arguing nuiances. All I said was that 3.5 to 10 years wasn't enough time for the crime he did, and most jursdictions agree with me. Plus, who gives a damn what the sentence length is... the DAs in most of thos cases charged the defendents with attempted murder, which is what this cop should have gotten. You can't even bring yourself to even admit that.
Click to expand...

I don't know how long he should have gotten but having read all the stories.....the main difference is people wasn't in harms way when he shot....the guy at the bar shot up the bar three times wounding someone....the people who shot up the septa bus came very close to hitting someone and admitted trying to kill someone....Marissa shot right by the guys head with his child in the same room.
 
#10,414
#10,414
So tell me this Ras, are cops a higher or lower class of citizen to be held to a greater judicial standard? Isn't a crime a crime? Is your inner prejudice showing out that skews your sense of justice?

You of all people should know the dangers of letting prejudice rule in a court of law. And make no mistake, you are prejudiced against law enforcement. So prejudiced you would slap the maximum punishment you could without a second thought on the matter. I mean, that's never happened to a class of people in this nation before.

So either cops are held to the same legal standards as everyone else or they get the maximum penalty each and every time.
 
#10,415
#10,415
MercyPercy said:
You obviously haven't researched the case at all, much less watched the video of the brutal assault. Why, I wonder? Are you afraid you might see something that would challenge your preconceived notions?
Click to expand...

I have seen the video and probably would have voted guilty just based off of it......the key is that we weren't at the trial and didn't hear any of the evidence...he claimed they are cop lovers for one simple fact that he hates cops.
 
#10,416
#10,416
MercyPercy said:
I do think within the context of their job, officers should be held to a higher standard than civilians. Outside of work, absolutely they should be treated like anyone else. On the job, they have a much bigger responsibility to the public. At my job, I often have to talk to rude, nasty people, and believe me, I would love to be rude and nasty right back. But I know that as an employee, I'm held to a higher standard than the individual and would be reprimanded for behaving similarly.

In a conflict between an officer and a civilian, I similarly believe it's the officer's responsibility to de-escelate the situation to the best of his or her ability without resorting to violence and control their emotions far better than the civilian. Isn't that part of their training? It's especially important they they be held to a higher standard on the job as they have a badge, a gun, power over civilians, and a responsibility for the safety of civilians.

You sign up for that job, you know you're putting your life on the line to protect others. I think there are too many LEOs that lack the self control and selflessness that should be necessary for such a responsibility.
Click to expand...

Agree 100
 
#10,417
#10,417
Rasputin_Vol said:
I said you argued nuiances. You puffed your chest out and said show you similar cases where civilians received more time than this cop did for similar offenses and right away. Then you immediately began to discredit each case for either being apples/oranges or being in a different jurisdiction. So you make a request, I satisfied that request, and then you still pick it apart on nuiances and minor differences.
Click to expand...

To be fair I could find worse cases that yielded less time. Unless we were informed we can't pretend to know why they received the sentence they did.
 
#10,418
#10,418
Grand Vol said:
So tell me this Ras, are cops a higher or lower class of citizen to be held to a greater judicial standard? Isn't a crime a crime? Is your inner prejudice showing out that skews your sense of justice?

You of all people should know the dangers of letting prejudice rule in a court of law. And make no mistake, you are prejudiced against law enforcement. So prejudiced you would slap the maximum punishment you could without a second thought on the matter. I mean, that's never happened to a class of people in this nation before.

So either cops are held to the same legal standards as everyone else or they get the maximum penalty each and every time.
Click to expand...

GV I'm gonna have to roll with the others on this point. We are, and should be held to a higher standard. We should embrace this and respect the position. i feel no moral obligation to protect an officer who has consciously made a decision to break the law.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#10,419
#10,419
MercyPercy said:
I do think within the context of their job, officers should be held to a higher standard than civilians. Outside of work, absolutely they should be treated like anyone else. On the job, they have a much bigger responsibility to the public. At my job, I often have to talk to rude, nasty people, and believe me, I would love to be rude and nasty right back. But I know that as an employee, I'm held to a higher standard than the individual and would be reprimanded for behaving similarly.

In a conflict between an officer and a civilian, I similarly believe it's the officer's responsibility to de-escelate the situation to the best of his or her ability without resorting to violence and control their emotions far better than the civilian. Isn't that part of their training? It's especially important they they be held to a higher standard on the job as they have a badge, a gun, power over civilians, and a responsibility for the safety of civilians.

You sign up for that job, you know you're putting your life on the line to protect others. I think there are too many LEOs that lack the self control and selflessness that should be necessary for such a responsibility.
Click to expand...

Maybe you'll get promoted from drive thru one day if you work really really hard..😜
 
#10,425
#10,425
Grand Vol said:
So tell me this Ras, are cops a higher or lower class of citizen to be held to a greater judicial standard? Isn't a crime a crime? Is your inner prejudice showing out that skews your sense of justice?

You of all people should know the dangers of letting prejudice rule in a court of law. And make no mistake, you are prejudiced against law enforcement. So prejudiced you would slap the maximum punishment you could without a second thought on the matter. I mean, that's never happened to a class of people in this nation before.

So either cops are held to the same legal standards as everyone else or they get the maximum penalty each and every time.
Click to expand...

Murder laws are written specifically elevating the charge to 1st degree (and death penalty in some states, iirc) if an officer is involved....regardless of premeditation. That may help you answer your questions and views of equality and whether a crime is a crime.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Advertisement





Back
Top