>From: "Michael S. Lorrey" <email@example.com>
>James Rogers wrote:
> > On Tue, 18 Apr 2000, Zero Powers wrote:
> > > >From: James Rogers <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > > >
> > > >The only protection offered against illegitimate use of deadly force
> > > >the U.S. is to kill the state agents/police at the time the incident
> > > >occurs.
> > >
> > > Murder is *already* a capital offense, even if you are wearing a cop
> > > at the time you commit the murder. So I assume what you are
> > > some sort of summary execution which bypasses the jury trial process,
> > > That sounds like a really great plan. Oh, except for the minor
> > > that *no one in their right mind would become a cop*. I'm amazed that
> > > can hire people as cops now to get paid marginally well to risk their
> > > every working hour of the day. And now, in addition to getting
> > > suspended, fired and sued for making an error, you think they should
> > > *killed* too? Yeah, sure I might take that job...if it paid $10
> > > year.
>No, it would make sure that cops make sure that their actions are legal
>before they take them. When you are dealing with life or death issues,
>why does the life of an innocent law abiding civilian mean less than
>someone who has been condemned to death by a jury? You seem to think
>that so long as the cops are doing their jobs and following orders, they
>can kill whoever they want with impunity.
Well from James' more recent post it seems that I had *him* wrong when I
suggested that he was espousing summary execution for cops who did bad
shootings. He seems to understand the overarching impracticality of such an
extreme measure. You, however, seem to think it would be a good thing. So
I pose the question now to you - where in the world do you think you would
find people to take the job of a cop if a mistake in judgment would lead to
their summary execution? How much do you think such brave souls would have
to be paid to take the job?
Granted, trigger-happy cops are a bad thing. But are cops who are afraid to
shoot until *after* they are shot at necessarily a good thing? My guess is
that that would only lead to a sharp increase in the number of cops killed
in the line of duty. What you seem to suggest is a lose-lose situation for
the cops. If they shoot first, and they have made a mistake, they are
executed. If they don't shoot first, chances are they are executed by the
bad guys. Given that set of circumstances, if I had to choose between being
a cop and a robber..."stick 'em up buddy!"
"I like dreams of the future better than the history of the past"
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:09:34 MDT