View Single Post
Old November 20, 2021, 06:32 AM   #52
ghbucky
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2020
Posts: 1,017
Quote:
We have along history of putting people in different groups and treating them differently in our legal system. Minors are in a different group than legal adults. People who have been found mentally incompetent by a court are in another. Convicted felons are in another. and agents of the government in the course of their official duties are in yet another class.
Mentally incompetent and minors have been determined by the judiciary AND law makers as incapable of understanding the consequences of their actions. Felons have been determined by the judiciary AND law makers to have surrendered some of their rights by their actions that have previously been brought before the judiciary system.

But, somehow, agents of the government have been determined by the judiciary, NOT law makers, mind you, ONLY the judiciary, to be exempt from the consequences of their actions.

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.

Our current system of providing a shield for those who violate the law, simply because of who their employer is, when they are charged with upholding and enforcing the laws that they themselves violate is undermining the fabric of our society.

Defending this by saying 'well their career advancement is impacted' is hardly anything approaching justice. Justice would be them facing the exact same consequences that anyone else would face.

'oh darn, I killed an innocent woman, now I'll never make Sergeant'. You or me? We would be fortunate to 'only' be financially ruined and any legacy to our children be wiped away.

I see the arguments that affording protection from liability for someone defending themselves would somehow provide license for people to 'pray and spray' and ask myself: How is that argument any different from the argument that allowing people to go about their daily life while exercising their 2nd amendment right an invitation to shootouts over every single disagreement?
ghbucky is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.02633 seconds with 8 queries