GHBucky, this post isn't an effort to cut short you line of argument, but to get to the heart of it.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by GHBucky
I am most emphatically opposed to a legal system that affords an 'out' for a criminal wearing a badge. They are fully capable of understanding the consequences of their actions, and did them with disregard for the consequences.
In fact, I want much harsher consequences for those who violate the public trust than for some random victim of a violent crime going about their private business but happened to injure an innocent bystander in the act of defending themselves from an attack.
|
So you are building on a principle that two men who do the very same thing should receive the same treatment, even if one works as a state agent and the other doesn't. This isn't a tort reform idea, but a more basic
what's good for the goose point.
If you are just venting, have at it. If you are interested in what is possible, know that the principle to which you give voice is fundamentally at odds with the behaviour of any sovereign. It isn't just applications of force; there are all sorts of doctrines in law to which you and I are subject, but that never apply against government.
Is that balanced, equal and fair? No. It's government.