Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: roo_ster on January 13, 2011, 03:38:06 PM
-
http://www.politico.com/blogs/joshgerstein/0111/Obama_speech_undercuts_federal_charge_for_judges_murder.html
How many ways can I say, "I hope it undermines any charges against the shooter based on the elected or appointed status of his victims?"
We're not supposed to have a nobility in this country, Article I, Section 9.
-
http://www.politico.com/blogs/joshgerstein/0111/Obama_speech_undercuts_federal_charge_for_judges_murder.html
How many ways can I say, "I hope it undermines any charges against the shooter based on the elected or appointed status of his victims?"
We're not supposed to have a nobility in this country, Article I, Section 9.
Too late for that.
-
I was floored when I heard that the feds wanted to prosecute for "assassination of a federal judge while he was in the course of his duties."
I hope this kid fries for what he did.
But I abhor the temptation to throw EVERYTHING at someone just so that as much as possible sticks.
It reminds me of the helicopter crash over downtown Phoenix a couple years ago, where two news choppers collided while they tried to film a high speed police chase. The prosecutor charged the fleeing driver with the murder of the news crew in the choppers. [barf]
This judge wasn't doing anything in the course of his duties. He just got out of Mass, and happened to notice the Giffords was doing some gladhanding at the grocery store in his neighborhood.
-
^^^ My wife and I were discussing this very thing last night: the judge was there serendipitously, and was not specifically targeted (so I assume) for his role as a judge. We were wondering if a Federal death penalty would be sought for this if the judge was not targeted.
-
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.
-
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.
It's getting to the point where the only killers who don't get additional charges thrown at them are those who kill white heterosexual males who are not government employees.
-
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.
This.
With bells on it.
-
It reminds me of the helicopter crash over downtown Phoenix a couple years ago, where two news choppers collided while they tried to film a high speed police chase. The prosecutor charged the fleeing driver with the murder of the news crew in the choppers. [barf]
We had a kid around here tooling along on a bright summer day on his motorcycle doing 100+ on a curvy country road. A 25-year-old state trooper in an unmarked SUV passed him oncoming, stopped, turned around and made pursuit. The trooper promptly put his SUV into a tree at 90mph, no seatbelt, drt.
Motorcycle boy shut it down a few miles later and promptly got picked up by another trooper based on description. Claimed to not know he was ever being pursued (he easily could have been out of sight around a curve before the trooper could have turned around).
Anyway, he was convicted of manslaughter.
-
It's getting to the point where the only killers who don't get additional charges thrown at them are those who kill white heterosexual males who are not government employees.
I resemble that remark!
-
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/federal-laws-providing-death-penalty
You will all find this of interest. Federal charges that carry a death penalty. The list sure has expanded over the years. A drug-related drive-by shooting? Murder by a federal prisoner? Willful wrecking of a train resulting in death?
I am sure there are interesting stories behind how some of these got added to the list.
-
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.
Yup.
-
The higher penalties might reflect greater risk associated with the job, not "special status." You might have higher penalties for killing a judge, for example, because there are more people out there motivated to kill a judge than there are people motivated to kill a random, white male, non-government employee.
It does seem sensible that people at the lowest risk of murder don't have special penalties designed to protect them.
-
The higher penalties might reflect greater risk associated with the job, not "special status." You might have higher penalties for killing a judge, for example, because there are more people out there motivated to kill a judge than there are people motivated to kill a random, white male, non-government employee.
It does seem sensible that people at the lowest risk of murder don't have special penalties designed to protect them.
Well, then, killing black and mexican inner-city males living in housing projects ought to bring super-dooper death penalty squared, 'cause they are at highest risk to be murdered.
Federal judges likely don't even rate, frequency-wise.
Wikipedia says a grand total of four since 1979:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_murdered_United_States_federal_judges
OTOH, for blacks (male & female):
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbjs.ojp.usdoj.gov%2Fcontent%2Fhomicide%2Fvrace.png&hash=128f6a544e04f8e016a13b03ddfbcf11230705ab)
-
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.
-
The higher penalties might reflect greater risk associated with the job, not "special status." You might have higher penalties for killing a judge, for example, because there are more people out there motivated to kill a judge than there are people motivated to kill a random, white male, non-government employee.
It does seem sensible that people at the lowest risk of murder don't have special penalties designed to protect them.
Surely you jest? Amount of risk does not entitle one to special class treatment, because thats what it's about: Separating those who work for us from us.
-
I ran some numbers last year, and retail store owners are 20X more often the victims of assault, battery, murder and murder than are police officers. I would assume that judges face less danger than do police officers.
Should we have an extra 20 year federal sentence for killing a convenience store owner?
-
Well, then, killing black and mexican inner-city males living in housing projects ought to bring super-dooper death penalty squared, 'cause they are at highest risk to be murdered.
Federal judges likely don't even rate, frequency-wise.
Wikipedia says a grand total of four since 1979:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_murdered_United_States_federal_judges
OTOH, for blacks (male & female):
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbjs.ojp.usdoj.gov%2Fcontent%2Fhomicide%2Fvrace.png&hash=128f6a544e04f8e016a13b03ddfbcf11230705ab)
Actually, for the most part it does - gang or other crime related homicides (which comprise the overwhelming majority of these killings) are mostly LWOP or death penalty offences. Those statutes target precisely the groups you're referencing.
Monkeyleg, Jamis:
Killing a convenience store owner is, for all practical purposes and in most states, a death penalty or life without parole offence. There ARE special crimes for murders committed while robbing a store, or in the course of numerous other felonies.
Amount of risk does, imho, justify enhanced penalties - more incentive to commit the crime warrants greater deterrence in response.
-
Would you support harsher punishments for thieves who target rich people? Greater incentives, and all?
Lighter punishments for trying to rob from poor people? Smaller incentive...?
Take it to the extreme. Would you support zero punishment for trying to rob someone who's broke and penniless, since he has nothing worth stealing and presents no incentive to theft?
-
Would you support harsher punishments for thieves who target rich people?
Harsher penalties for Democrats ???
I'll have to think about that one a bit... >:D
=D
-
Would you support harsher punishments for thieves who target rich people? Greater incentives, and all?
Lighter punishments for trying to rob from poor people? Smaller incentive...?
We're talking about murder, but in case you didn't know, it's already a more serious crime to steal or try to steal more money than it is to steal less. Hence the punishment distinction you're referring to actually exists in practice, and it does make some sense: trying to steal a million dollars is a more serious crime than stealing $10.
Take it to the extreme. Would you support zero punishment for trying to rob someone who's broke and penniless, since he has nothing worth stealing and presents no incentive to theft?
Why would we take it to this extreme, and why would a crime cease to be a crime on my reasoning? I'm not sure how the example is in any way relevant.
-
trying to steal a million dollars is a more serious crime than stealing $10.
Then how is it that my BIL did some jail time but Barney Frank did not? ;)
-
Then how is it that my BIL did some jail time but Barney Frank did not? ;)
Hahaha, yes, you've captured something that is very suspicious - public corruption is one of the toughest crimes to prove, significantly more difficult than any other kind of fraud, regardless of the amount. I wonder how the law got written that way...
-
I ran some numbers last year, and retail store owners are 20X more often the victims of assault, battery, murder and murder than are police officers. I would assume that judges face less danger than do police officers.
Outside sales is even worse. (Though I haven't been able to find a breakdown of, say, B2B vs residential doorknockers, etc. It would be interesting in determining the main factors; the doorknockers are in bad neighborhoods on foot, but the B2B guy is wandering around unfamiliar towns, well dressed, in a nice car, almost certainly unarmed, etc.) The Fuller Brush guy has a much higher risk of being a victim of violent crime on the job than a cop, and yet there aren't any special protections for him.
-
...public corruption is one of the toughest crimes to prove, significantly more difficult than any other kind of fraud, regardless of the amount.
Yeah, I guess the authorities have to find the money in the freezer before the politician can actually be charged.