I find it morally reprehensible for the state to assigned a higher value of life to one person or group simply based on a job. The shooter (if guilty of murder) should die for murdering another human being, not because he murdered a <insert job title of choice>.
The whole concept makes me want to puke.
+1 on this.
Were I to be selected as a juror in such a case (fat chance, given competent
voir dire by the prosecutor) there is NO way I would convict ANYONE were they charged with a crime against a government employee that would
not apply if they harmed a private citizen. Charge the AZ killer with
murder, fine, I'll readily convict. Charge them with
murder of a government employee . . . nope. Likewise, I wouldn't convict a private citizen charged with a crime for behavior that, say, Congress exempted itself from . . . which includes everything from compliance with the ADA to insider trading.
Government employees ought to be subject to, and protected by,
exactly the same set of laws that protect and apply to me, the only exceptions being those explicitly stated in the Constitution, such as the protection from libel that Congresscritters get for things they say on the floor during a session of Congress.
We shouldn't have
de facto royalty in this country.