A normal home owner needs that protection too. It shouldn’t make any difference just because they’re a copperOriginally Posted by Ethos
If your wife came home tonight and disturbed 3 burglars I’d also like think she had the protection of them thinking about a proper life term.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It's no wonder when effectively the court gave out just 10 years for accidentally on purpose murdering a Police Officer in horrible fashion during the course of committing a crime. Johnny scofflaw will continue to rip the urine out of the system/ members of law abiding society. Yeeha.
Mind you it isn't much better at the top either, a fish rots from the head down.
Thing is they know that they can blatantly break the law and get away with it. There’s always some do gooder who will champion their cause even though they know they are guilty.
Started out with nothing. Still have most of it left.
i have signed , my own reasons, but boy do thy know how to spam / bombard you with e mails afterwards ! well change .org are yanks, yes i have unsubscribed.
Aye the poor lambs most likely victims of discrimination, poverty, lack of opportunity, theres' nearly always summat or other. Which overlooks the simple fact that while life is unfair to most at some point, most don't respond by embracing criminality as a life choice.
Still we are where we are.
Actually, I've changed my mind on this.
I've looked at how many Police officers have been killed in the line of duty and decided that if it brings some comfort to the widow of PC Harper then I see no harm in it.
The numbers are tiny, in reality, and the number where a conviction less than murder was achieved even more miniscule, despite the protestations of the usual suspects, so it won't make a jot of difference.
And before they respond "You think it's acceptable for some Police officers to die, then?", no, of course, ANY is too many, but I still don't think this will affect the (small) numbers in any significant way.
M
Last edited by snowman; 25th August 2020 at 10:54.
Breitling Cosmonaute 809 - What's not to like?
I have no problem with longer sentences but do think the police need a greater deterrent. Interesting term 'protection' - I'd think of this additional deterrent as similar to additional protection equipment where again, the Police have more than the general public given the nature of their job.
I hope that if it comes about, then it will apply to all emergency workers, including members of the NHS and Fire Services. Nurses/Doctors in AE for example.
Whoever does not know how to hit the nail on the head should be asked not to hit it at all.
Friedrich Nietzsche
It won’t, but don’t forget the coastguard, mountain rescue etc.
Yes, because they are always being attacked by the people they are saving aren’t they
How many AE doctors have been killed whilst on AE emergency duty?Yes, because they are always being attacked by the people they are saving aren’t they
Any?
Who would these workers call if faced with someone violent and dangerous and perhaps armed with a weapon?
Started out with nothing. Still have most of it left.
Interesting to see how emergency services worker is clarified. Is it intended to apply to call centre workers taking 999 calls for example. What about the IT function of the emergency services?
As I’ve stated before I appreciate the sentiment behind this, and while I don’t agree that it’s right to identify one area of society for special treatment I now think the biggest issue is the whole thing is unworkable and ill thought out.
Take the recent ‘key worker’ classification for example. I know of cases where retired people are swanning around with genuine key worker letters because they’re helping out with household chores for IT workers in food retail.
Yes, whole thing poorly thought out and unnecessary IMO.
Don’t see why you are extrapolating it to emergency worker support staff though. Why IT, what about those working in the police canteen?
Yep exactly my point. I just used IT as an example. There’s a whole host of roles and business areas that build out the emergency services. Just focusing on police, I would argue that you’ve got CPS, lawyers internal and external, their It departments and catering services it’s a very long list! Without these, the frontline services could not be performed. Are they all to be included? Where do you draw the line.
Unworkable.
The criteria that has been called for to be the basis of "Harper's Law" is probably unworkable, there will be a lot of dissatisfaction amongst those who think others should be included.
R
Ignorance breeds Fear. Fear breeds Hatred. Hatred breeds Ignorance. Break the chain.
I seem to remember (not enough details for a search) a hostage situation in the oughties where a hostage was wounded, the police would not bulge and it is the paramedics who went in, attended the hostage and ended the stand off.
'Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain' - Schiller.
There will always be an exception to the norm. But no doubt police would have had their reasons for not going in. Perhaps paramedics would be seen as less threatening by the hostage taker? Without more details who knows?
But I believe my statement is generally true.
Started out with nothing. Still have most of it left.
I was not suggesting it wasn’t. In a sad way, the police acting on a burglary is also becoming an exception, due to insufficient resources and not because they don’t care, I hasten to add.
And I also remember the police chief who remained in his car while an officer was dying, waiting for reinforcements during a recent terrorist attack in London.
What I am saying here is that it’s not the uniform or the badge that deserves protection over and beyond other citizens. Some people, including of course many badge holders, will put themselves in danger against thugs to protect others (using a narwhal tooth if necessary) and no specific law with increased sentencing will give them more protection.
'Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain' - Schiller.
So, "Who do the police call when they don't want to aggravate a situation?", you mean?
You can't have it your way and then sweep away a challenge with "There are always exceptions" - Tell us, how many police officers are killed (not died, although even including those the numbers aren't large) in the line of duty each year and how many of their killers escape with less than a murder conviction?
Your argument is that this is regular occurrence and that the system is rigged in favour of these killers escaping justice, but you don't provide any evidence to back up that this happening.
In a way, the Harper case is an exception to the norm - The people in the car didn't actively attack him, he sadly stepped into the loop and they drove away to evade capture. None of us KNOW for sure when they knew he was being dragged or if the outcome would have been different if they'd stopped when they did, but it's different to other cases where the criminal has actively used the vehicle as a weapon against the officer, even if, as we all agree, the result here was horrible and equally tragic for him and his relatives.
M
Last edited by snowman; 26th August 2020 at 10:24.
Breitling Cosmonaute 809 - What's not to like?
Started out with nothing. Still have most of it left.
If you can observe something then it should be able to be evidenced, otherwise it's a unfounded opinion.
R
Ignorance breeds Fear. Fear breeds Hatred. Hatred breeds Ignorance. Break the chain.
Did you read that in Pseuds Corner?
Started out with nothing. Still have most of it left.
OK, now I'm totally convinced of your argument...
If you bother looking, you'll find the number of deaths and causes in service for Police Officers very easily and they don't support your position that this is a common occurrence, but I'm not going to waste my time spoon-feeding you as you're clearly more interested in your world view and reinforcing it than the truth.
How is what I said any different to "Perhaps paramedics would be seen as less threatening by the hostage taker?"? - Once again, deflection and waffle rather than anything substantial.
M
Last edited by snowman; 26th August 2020 at 13:15.
Breitling Cosmonaute 809 - What's not to like?
" None of us KNOW for sure when they knew he was being dragged or if the outcome would have been different if they'd stopped".
So why was the car swerving from side to side? To finish him off? over a mile?
If your being pursued by a police car, I would have thought driving in a straight line to gain distance would be more natural for a get away.
Still murder in my view.
The legal system found otherwise though all the same for this petition.
I'm not trying to convince you or anybody of anything. Simply putting my view. If you want to put a case for the defence or have a debate then either the courts or a debating union are your best bet.
Which position exactly? "you'll find the number of deaths and causes in service for Police Officers very easily and they don't support your position that this is a common occurrence"
If you don't know It's not my job to tell you.
Started out with nothing. Still have most of it left.
Do you know for sure when they knew he was being dragged? All - or almost all - of the jury believed there was sufficient doubt about it to vote against a murder charge in favour of one of manslaughter.
R
Ignorance breeds Fear. Fear breeds Hatred. Hatred breeds Ignorance. Break the chain.
They couldn't prove they knew he was being dragged. So had to go with "sufficient doubt about it". I don't think that necessarily means the jury believed it.
Started out with nothing. Still have most of it left.
If the gang had dragged a member of LGB/a minority Religious/ethnic community, etc behind their car, then in addition to being convicted of manslaughter/murder, the CPS could have also suggested that it was also a hate crime. If the gang had known the person was gay, black, etc then there is a very good chance they would have been successful in getting a conviction. So I addition to a “standard” manslaughter/murder charge (they would get if they “just” killed a member of your family,) then an addition sentence would have been given.
Yet because the victim was “just” a policeman, Neither he, nor his family got this additional Protection/Justice under the law.
Perhaps Harper’s law, should simply include the addition of Frontline Emergency Services staff into existing “Hate crime“ legislation. Better still why not include everyone into “hate crime” legislation, rather than having a two tier system we have today.
Whoever does not know how to hit the nail on the head should be asked not to hit it at all.
Friedrich Nietzsche
Idiot!
'Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain' - Schiller.
Jesus that was a thick comment Andy. A life is a life, that is the point here. No one cares if that life was white, black, vegan, non-binary or an ultra straight hard man called Dave from Dagenham who eats a full English for breakfast every morning and has random Chinese words over different parts of his body.
Let's say you get convicted of Manslaughter - the Judge makes sense of the sentencing tables -
True - it is considered *within* the sentencing as an aggravating factor to take into account in sentencing and is described as:
* Offence motivated by, or demonstrating hostility based on any of the following characteristics or presumedcharacteristics of the victim: religion, race, disability, sexual orientation or transgender identity
False: This is specified included as an aggravating factors to take into account sentencing and is described as:Yet because the victim was “just” a policeman, Neither he, nor his family got this additional Protection/Justice under the law.
* Victim was providing a public service or performing a public duty at the time of the offence
Last edited by Alansmithee; 26th August 2020 at 15:29.
Didn’t affect the light sentences though.
Started out with nothing. Still have most of it left.
I'm replying to a very specific untrue point - as for light sentencing as pointed out previously on this thread - there is no evidence that sentences are particularly lighter than before (plus the myth of life means life has already been covered a few pages back) - I guess we could look at the 18th century?
I know, wasn’t particularly disagreeing with you, just didn’t think any allowance could have been made under the guidance you quoted given the sentence.
Started out with nothing. Still have most of it left.
Clearly you would be wrong.
If a human life is human life, then why do we have a legal system which specifically differentiates different types of human life. In fact S145 of the 2003 Criminal Justice Act makes this quite clear.
Also you might find this of some value in regards to sentencing.
Schedule 21 - Criminal Justice Act 2003 (determination of minimum term in relation to mandatory life sentence)
Schedule 21, paragraph 5(2)(g), provides for a starting point of 30 years (rather than 15 years) for the minimum term for a life sentence for murder aggravated on the grounds race or religion. S145 uplifts will not apply in such cases. For more information, see the legal guidance on Homicide: Murder and Manslaughter.
Now tell me that all human life’s are viewed equally under the law?
Whoever does not know how to hit the nail on the head should be asked not to hit it at all.
Friedrich Nietzsche
Makes perfect sense. It's the aggravated motive of the killer that makes the difference not the race of the person killed.
WTF?
'Different types of human life'?!
R
Ignorance breeds Fear. Fear breeds Hatred. Hatred breeds Ignorance. Break the chain.
It's not up to the jury to prove or disprove anything.
The jury were not sure that Henry Long knew that PC Harper was being dragged behind the vehicle, i.e. there was some doubt about it, sufficient enough for them to reject the charge of murder.
R
Ignorance breeds Fear. Fear breeds Hatred. Hatred breeds Ignorance. Break the chain.
Started out with nothing. Still have most of it left.
.
R
Ignorance breeds Fear. Fear breeds Hatred. Hatred breeds Ignorance. Break the chain.
R
Ignorance breeds Fear. Fear breeds Hatred. Hatred breeds Ignorance. Break the chain.
If you can't see it I can't help you.
Started out with nothing. Still have most of it left.
Really. That what you took from from the post? Not the differentiation that exists within the current law. Whooosh.
Whoever does not know how to hit the nail on the head should be asked not to hit it at all.
Friedrich Nietzsche
And you don’t believe that PC Harper, being an officer of the law, in a uniform, trying to stop these people from stealing a quad was NOT an aggravated motive in his death?
Alas even if it was, it would not be covered by the law which specifically mentions, ethnicity, religion, sexuality preferences.
Whoever does not know how to hit the nail on the head should be asked not to hit it at all.
Friedrich Nietzsche
I understand that there are sentencing considerations taken into account in the case of murder (not that it has any relevance to Harper's Law of course) but what was news to me was that there are different types of human life.
Every day is a school day, as they say.
R
Ignorance breeds Fear. Fear breeds Hatred. Hatred breeds Ignorance. Break the chain.
Oh Ralph’s, don’t you get bored with your deflect and distract posts. I know I do.
However, in the eyes of the law there are different types, because the law says so. Otherwise why would we have laws to provide this differentiation?
But it’s not just about sentencing considerations (not just for murder BTW), its that we have laws which specifically protect different sectors of the community. So if you can have laws specifically targeting the protection of specific sectors of the community, why not have laws protecting specific roles within those communities as well. Namely emergency workers and other front line civil servants.
BTW of course we have different type of humans. For one we have two sex, which different chromosomes, we have 3 main races, and of course we all have unique DNA.
Last edited by Andyg; 27th August 2020 at 11:57.
Whoever does not know how to hit the nail on the head should be asked not to hit it at all.
Friedrich Nietzsche
Those sentencing guidelines do not protect specific sectors of society.
They try to protect all sectors of society from people who have committed a crime based on racism or religious hatred.
Those guidelines hope to protect white people from Jihadi murderers as much as they would protect BAME people from a far right hate group. Equally.
We can all be victims of racism and/or religious hatred.
The problem with the possible Harper's law is that it specifically aims to differentiate a class of person from everyone else, by considerng injury to them as a more serious crime than to other persons.
I do not think that anylogic can see that as fair.
And that should have nothing to do with the specifics of the crime committed against PC Harper himself.
The jury would have to prove you had 'malice aforethought' to convict you for murder. Naturally, you would enter a plea of manslaughter because you would say, " I didn't mean to kill him".
If you didn't know the victim at all and just punched him it would be difficult to pin a murder charge on you.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
