AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
... dead or injured police officer to me implies significant danger to me and other members of the public. That is why killing of a police officer holds a greater penalty that killing of a civillian. Someone willing to eliminate a defender of the peace is liable to do anything and so is a grave danger to the public..
That's odd, because a) a dead or injured police officer implies nothing other than the willingness to use deadly force on the part of the assailant regardless of whom they are and b) it presupposes the worth of an individual (and not the crime itself) as the validator of punishment. So if you want to make the case for a different level of sentencing, it should be directed at the willingness to use deadly force indiscriminately, and not because of the victim is a police officer - which suggests preferential treatment of that one class of victims because of their occupational position.
Besides, what about the flip side - i.e. the defender of the peace using the authority granted by one's position to commit crimes, engage in perjury and the like - why isn't there increased penalties for that - when knowledge of the law and intent is clear?
AoD
Last edited: