FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Heavier sentences for Blue light killers?
Heavier sentences for Blue light killers?
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Not keen on this idea, where 3rd time lucky.. Anyway, 20 years could be given to anyone accidentally killing blue light emergency workers via manslaughter . To me it seems Orwellian, e.g that if your not a member of this group, your a lesser citizen and your life is not as important. Surely the law should be equally applied.?" I agree. Whilst I agree that sometimes they put their life on the line..thats what they signed up for. We are all (supposedly)equal. Even though we are clearly not. Big uproar about that police fella who was killed with the family calling for murder. And whilst it was horrific it was manslaughter..and didnt they get quite hefty sentences?like 17 years.? | |||
"Not keen on this idea, where 3rd time lucky.. Anyway, 20 years could be given to anyone accidentally killing blue light emergency workers via manslaughter . To me it seems Orwellian, e.g that if your not a member of this group, your a lesser citizen and your life is not as important. Surely the law should be equally applied.?" Should be life. As it should be for all blue light workers, police, ambulance, fire, etc. It isn't really a deterrent, when the sentence is lenient. | |||
"Not keen on this idea, where 3rd time lucky.. Anyway, 20 years could be given to anyone accidentally killing blue light emergency workers via manslaughter . To me it seems Orwellian, e.g that if your not a member of this group, your a lesser citizen and your life is not as important. Surely the law should be equally applied.? Should be life. As it should be for all blue light workers, police, ambulance, fire, etc. It isn't really a deterrent, when the sentence is lenient. " So if you want to imprison someone for life for unintentionally killing someone, what are you going to sentence someone who actually murders someone. A friends brother was out on the town and a guy hit him, he turned around and hit him back, guy fell, banged head on kerb and died. Mates brother went to prison for manslaughter, he served 5 or 6 years, by your statement he should have got life... | |||
"Not keen on this idea, where 3rd time lucky.. Anyway, 20 years could be given to anyone accidentally killing blue light emergency workers via manslaughter . To me it seems Orwellian, e.g that if your not a member of this group, your a lesser citizen and your life is not as important. Surely the law should be equally applied.? Should be life. As it should be for all blue light workers, police, ambulance, fire, etc. It isn't really a deterrent, when the sentence is lenient. " Personally wouldnt say 17 years is lenient. | |||
"Not keen on this idea, where 3rd time lucky.. Anyway, 20 years could be given to anyone accidentally killing blue light emergency workers via manslaughter . To me it seems Orwellian, e.g that if your not a member of this group, your a lesser citizen and your life is not as important. Surely the law should be equally applied.? Should be life. As it should be for all blue light workers, police, ambulance, fire, etc. It isn't really a deterrent, when the sentence is lenient. So if you want to imprison someone for life for unintentionally killing someone, what are you going to sentence someone who actually murders someone. A friends brother was out on the town and a guy hit him, he turned around and hit him back, guy fell, banged head on kerb and died. Mates brother went to prison for manslaughter, he served 5 or 6 years, by your statement he should have got life... " I would say yes. The bloke he killed went be able to return to his family, he went be able to go to work. Why should your friends brother only get a slap on the wrist for it. Then go about his life as normal after the event, get working seeing his family and friends again. I have always been on the side of life sentence, for taking a persons life regardless of the instance. | |||
"Not keen on this idea, where 3rd time lucky.. Anyway, 20 years could be given to anyone accidentally killing blue light emergency workers via manslaughter . To me it seems Orwellian, e.g that if your not a member of this group, your a lesser citizen and your life is not as important. Surely the law should be equally applied.? Should be life. As it should be for all blue light workers, police, ambulance, fire, etc. It isn't really a deterrent, when the sentence is lenient. So if you want to imprison someone for life for unintentionally killing someone, what are you going to sentence someone who actually murders someone. A friends brother was out on the town and a guy hit him, he turned around and hit him back, guy fell, banged head on kerb and died. Mates brother went to prison for manslaughter, he served 5 or 6 years, by your statement he should have got life... I would say yes. The bloke he killed went be able to return to his family, he went be able to go to work. Why should your friends brother only get a slap on the wrist for it. Then go about his life as normal after the event, get working seeing his family and friends again. I have always been on the side of life sentence, for taking a persons life regardless of the instance." Killing someone unintentionally is obviously serious, and sentencing should be appropriate. What I'm not happy with is that if a two tier sentencing system is introduced, then that's saying some people's lives are more important than others. | |||
"Not keen on this idea, where 3rd time lucky.. Anyway, 20 years could be given to anyone accidentally killing blue light emergency workers via manslaughter . To me it seems Orwellian, e.g that if your not a member of this group, your a lesser citizen and your life is not as important. Surely the law should be equally applied.? Should be life. As it should be for all blue light workers, police, ambulance, fire, etc. It isn't really a deterrent, when the sentence is lenient. So if you want to imprison someone for life for unintentionally killing someone, what are you going to sentence someone who actually murders someone. A friends brother was out on the town and a guy hit him, he turned around and hit him back, guy fell, banged head on kerb and died. Mates brother went to prison for manslaughter, he served 5 or 6 years, by your statement he should have got life... I would say yes. The bloke he killed went be able to return to his family, he went be able to go to work. Why should your friends brother only get a slap on the wrist for it. Then go about his life as normal after the event, get working seeing his family and friends again. I have always been on the side of life sentence, for taking a persons life regardless of the instance." So life for accidentally killing someone, hope you're never unfortunate enough to kill someone when you driving if your rules apply. So what sentence are you going to give the people that kill intentionally? The ones that premeditate? Is that not a more serious crime than accidentally killing someone? As to the two tier system, the 17 years or so received by the 3 in the car that dragged the policeman, sort of proves there is already a two tier system, that's a long sentence for manslaughter. | |||
"[Removed by poster at 05/08/20 21:36:26]" Which country does this term come from ? Honestly never heard that one ? | |||
| |||
"Not keen on this idea, where 3rd time lucky.. Anyway, 20 years could be given to anyone accidentally killing blue light emergency workers via manslaughter . To me it seems Orwellian, e.g that if your not a member of this group, your a lesser citizen and your life is not as important. Surely the law should be equally applied.? I agree. Whilst I agree that sometimes they put their life on the line..thats what they signed up for. We are all (supposedly)equal. Even though we are clearly not. Big uproar about that police fella who was killed with the family calling for murder. And whilst it was horrific it was manslaughter..and didnt they get quite hefty sentences?like 17 years.?" I agree everyone should be equal when it comes to the trial of who they killed accidentally or not but 17 years for these guys is a joke if it’s true they intimidated the jury, they also showed no remorse and I’m sure they would do it again tomorrow given the chance, so let’s hope none of us are in their path in 17 years time. | |||
 | |||
"Not keen on this idea, where 3rd time lucky.. Anyway, 20 years could be given to anyone accidentally killing blue light emergency workers via manslaughter . To me it seems Orwellian, e.g that if your not a member of this group, your a lesser citizen and your life is not as important. Surely the law should be equally applied.? Should be life. As it should be for all blue light workers, police, ambulance, fire, etc. It isn't really a deterrent, when the sentence is lenient. So if you want to imprison someone for life for unintentionally killing someone, what are you going to sentence someone who actually murders someone. A friends brother was out on the town and a guy hit him, he turned around and hit him back, guy fell, banged head on kerb and died. Mates brother went to prison for manslaughter, he served 5 or 6 years, by your statement he should have got life... I would say yes. The bloke he killed went be able to return to his family, he went be able to go to work. Why should your friends brother only get a slap on the wrist for it. Then go about his life as normal after the event, get working seeing his family and friends again. I have always been on the side of life sentence, for taking a persons life regardless of the instance." What do you get for murder then? | |||
"Not keen on this idea, where 3rd time lucky.. Anyway, 20 years could be given to anyone accidentally killing blue light emergency workers via manslaughter . To me it seems Orwellian, e.g that if your not a member of this group, your a lesser citizen and your life is not as important. Surely the law should be equally applied.? I agree. Whilst I agree that sometimes they put their life on the line..thats what they signed up for. We are all (supposedly)equal. Even though we are clearly not. Big uproar about that police fella who was killed with the family calling for murder. And whilst it was horrific it was manslaughter..and didnt they get quite hefty sentences?like 17 years.? I agree everyone should be equal when it comes to the trial of who they killed accidentally or not but 17 years for these guys is a joke if it’s true they intimidated the jury, they also showed no remorse and I’m sure they would do it again tomorrow given the chance, so let’s hope none of us are in their path in 17 years time. " If they intimidated the jury that was the judges responsibility. I'm no expert but 17 years seems a long time for mansaluahgter. | |||
"Not keen on this idea, where 3rd time lucky.. Anyway, 20 years could be given to anyone accidentally killing blue light emergency workers via manslaughter . To me it seems Orwellian, e.g that if your not a member of this group, your a lesser citizen and your life is not as important. Surely the law should be equally applied.? I agree. Whilst I agree that sometimes they put their life on the line..thats what they signed up for. We are all (supposedly)equal. Even though we are clearly not. Big uproar about that police fella who was killed with the family calling for murder. And whilst it was horrific it was manslaughter..and didnt they get quite hefty sentences?like 17 years.? I agree everyone should be equal when it comes to the trial of who they killed accidentally or not but 17 years for these guys is a joke if it’s true they intimidated the jury, they also showed no remorse and I’m sure they would do it again tomorrow given the chance, so let’s hope none of us are in their path in 17 years time. If they intimidated the jury that was the judges responsibility. I'm no expert but 17 years seems a long time for mansaluahgter." For me it depends on the manslaughter for the sentence given, pushing someone over who is trying to start a fight with you and they bang their head and die is kind of different than someone being caught in the act of committing a crime and then dragging the person who found them to their death, saying they didn’t know the police officer was there I think was complete bo**ocks. | |||
| |||
"Not keen on this idea, where 3rd time lucky.. Anyway, 20 years could be given to anyone accidentally killing blue light emergency workers via manslaughter . To me it seems Orwellian, e.g that if your not a member of this group, your a lesser citizen and your life is not as important. Surely the law should be equally applied.? I agree. Whilst I agree that sometimes they put their life on the line..thats what they signed up for. We are all (supposedly)equal. Even though we are clearly not. Big uproar about that police fella who was killed with the family calling for murder. And whilst it was horrific it was manslaughter..and didnt they get quite hefty sentences?like 17 years.? I agree everyone should be equal when it comes to the trial of who they killed accidentally or not but 17 years for these guys is a joke if it’s true they intimidated the jury, they also showed no remorse and I’m sure they would do it again tomorrow given the chance, so let’s hope none of us are in their path in 17 years time. If they intimidated the jury that was the judges responsibility. I'm no expert but 17 years seems a long time for mansaluahgter. For me it depends on the manslaughter for the sentence given, pushing someone over who is trying to start a fight with you and they bang their head and die is kind of different than someone being caught in the act of committing a crime and then dragging the person who found them to their death, saying they didn’t know the police officer was there I think was complete bo**ocks. " Of course it is ,and I think that's why they got a heavier sentence. Murder cant be too much more? | |||
| |||
| |||
"Are blue light workers exempt from health and safety laws in the UK?" I think so. The police were chasing someone who then ran across railway lines and the police wouldn't follow because of this | |||
"Not keen on this idea, where 3rd time lucky.. Anyway, 20 years could be given to anyone accidentally killing blue light emergency workers via manslaughter . To me it seems Orwellian, e.g that if your not a member of this group, your a lesser citizen and your life is not as important. Surely the law should be equally applied.? I agree. Whilst I agree that sometimes they put their life on the line..thats what they signed up for. We are all (supposedly)equal. Even though we are clearly not. Big uproar about that police fella who was killed with the family calling for murder. And whilst it was horrific it was manslaughter..and didnt they get quite hefty sentences?like 17 years.? I agree everyone should be equal when it comes to the trial of who they killed accidentally or not but 17 years for these guys is a joke if it’s true they intimidated the jury, they also showed no remorse and I’m sure they would do it again tomorrow given the chance, so let’s hope none of us are in their path in 17 years time. " True, it's up to the judge who gave out heavier sentences due to the circumstances, but i don't think a special law for one and not the other isn't the way to go. | |||
"Are blue light workers exempt from health and safety laws in the UK?" No.. There are certain excemptions in some other areas but all actions where there is conflict with the act should be as per a specific assessment .. Sometimes as with the lack of a local or national strategy in the fire service prior to 95 I think for responding to incidents in or near water were addressed post a fatality for one of the rescuers, often the way.. | |||
| |||
"Are blue light workers exempt from health and safety laws in the UK? I think so. The police were chasing someone who then ran across railway lines and the police wouldn't follow because of this " I was talking to a friend who is a traffic office not so long ago. When he did his "pursuing a villain" test (it may not be called that), he thought he had failed because at a dual-carriageway junction he did not follow the chased car due to it swerving last minute off. He actually passed because of this. The examiner said if he had taken the turn it would have been extremely dangerous to other road users... | |||
"Not keen on this idea, where 3rd time lucky.. Anyway, 20 years could be given to anyone accidentally killing blue light emergency workers via manslaughter . To me it seems Orwellian, e.g that if your not a member of this group, your a lesser citizen and your life is not as important. Surely the law should be equally applied.? Should be life. As it should be for all blue light workers, police, ambulance, fire, etc. It isn't really a deterrent, when the sentence is lenient. So if you want to imprison someone for life for unintentionally killing someone, what are you going to sentence someone who actually murders someone. A friends brother was out on the town and a guy hit him, he turned around and hit him back, guy fell, banged head on kerb and died. Mates brother went to prison for manslaughter, he served 5 or 6 years, by your statement he should have got life... I would say yes. The bloke he killed went be able to return to his family, he went be able to go to work. Why should your friends brother only get a slap on the wrist for it. Then go about his life as normal after the event, get working seeing his family and friends again. I have always been on the side of life sentence, for taking a persons life regardless of the instance. So life for accidentally killing someone, hope you're never unfortunate enough to kill someone when you driving if your rules apply. So what sentence are you going to give the people that kill intentionally? The ones that premeditate? Is that not a more serious crime than accidentally killing someone? As to the two tier system, the 17 years or so received by the 3 in the car that dragged the policeman, sort of proves there is already a two tier system, that's a long sentence for manslaughter. " Not long enough! | |||
" Not long enough!" So you'd be happy for blue light workers to be handed 20 plus years for manslaughter in the course of their duties? I haven't looked at any figures, we seem to hear as much about people dying when they're under the supervision of the police and in cells etc as we do about officers killed in the line of duty. At the moment it seems they get very preferential treatment when they kill someone... If we're going to punish those that harm more severely, then surely those supposed to be above reproach should be handed a severe sentence. | |||
"Not keen on this idea, where 3rd time lucky.. Anyway, 20 years could be given to anyone accidentally killing blue light emergency workers via manslaughter . To me it seems Orwellian, e.g that if your not a member of this group, your a lesser citizen and your life is not as important. Surely the law should be equally applied.? Should be life. As it should be for all blue light workers, police, ambulance, fire, etc. It isn't really a deterrent, when the sentence is lenient. So if you want to imprison someone for life for unintentionally killing someone, what are you going to sentence someone who actually murders someone. A friends brother was out on the town and a guy hit him, he turned around and hit him back, guy fell, banged head on kerb and died. Mates brother went to prison for manslaughter, he served 5 or 6 years, by your statement he should have got life... I would say yes. The bloke he killed went be able to return to his family, he went be able to go to work. Why should your friends brother only get a slap on the wrist for it. Then go about his life as normal after the event, get working seeing his family and friends again. I have always been on the side of life sentence, for taking a persons life regardless of the instance. So life for accidentally killing someone, hope you're never unfortunate enough to kill someone when you driving if your rules apply. So what sentence are you going to give the people that kill intentionally? The ones that premeditate? Is that not a more serious crime than accidentally killing someone? As to the two tier system, the 17 years or so received by the 3 in the car that dragged the policeman, sort of proves there is already a two tier system, that's a long sentence for manslaughter. Not long enough!"  | |||
" Not long enough! So you'd be happy for blue light workers to be handed 20 plus years for manslaughter in the course of their duties? I haven't looked at any figures, we seem to hear as much about people dying when they're under the supervision of the police and in cells etc as we do about officers killed in the line of duty. At the moment it seems they get very preferential treatment when they kill someone... If we're going to punish those that harm more severely, then surely those supposed to be above reproach should be handed a severe sentence." | |||
| |||
"I believe these people sjould get life,and I mean life" Which people? | |||
"Not keen on this idea, where 3rd time lucky.. Anyway, 20 years could be given to anyone accidentally killing blue light emergency workers via manslaughter . To me it seems Orwellian, e.g that if your not a member of this group, your a lesser citizen and your life is not as important. Surely the law should be equally applied.? Should be life. As it should be for all blue light workers, police, ambulance, fire, etc. It isn't really a deterrent, when the sentence is lenient. So if you want to imprison someone for life for unintentionally killing someone, what are you going to sentence someone who actually murders someone. A friends brother was out on the town and a guy hit him, he turned around and hit him back, guy fell, banged head on kerb and died. Mates brother went to prison for manslaughter, he served 5 or 6 years, by your statement he should have got life... I would say yes. The bloke he killed went be able to return to his family, he went be able to go to work. Why should your friends brother only get a slap on the wrist for it. Then go about his life as normal after the event, get working seeing his family and friends again. I have always been on the side of life sentence, for taking a persons life regardless of the instance. What do you get for murder then?" It used to be 16 years unless a judge loaded it. So yeah I would think the got longer then the standard life sentence. | |||
| |||
"We are and should all remain equal under the law as victims. If you are driving carelessly and kill someone it’s manslaughter so you get and appropriate sentence . If you’re dragging a man along behind the car whilst I agree it may not be murder it is surely aggravated manslaughter based on your intent. Ie committing a crime intentionally. They should get heavy sentences and I think they deserve it. I thought it would be longer. I suspect many people did which is why the sentences are being reviewed. " | |||
| |||
"I agree with the minimum. Also any assault on a "blue light" should result in a custodial sentence. " How would you explain to a family of a civilian /non blue light worker that the culprit isn't getting a heavier sentence because he/she's life was not as important? | |||
"I agree with the minimum. Also any assault on a "blue light" should result in a custodial sentence. " | |||
| |||
"I agree with the minimum. Also any assault on a "blue light" should result in a custodial sentence. How would you explain to a family of a civilian /non blue light worker that the culprit isn't getting a heavier sentence because he/she's life was not as important? " It's the position. They are more vulnerable than let's say someone who sells icecream. Violence against someone in a vulnerable position should be prosecuted more harshly. People's jobs are not equal in society. Some carry more risk and carry more responsibility. Im tempted to include teachers as well. | |||
"I agree with the minimum. Also any assault on a "blue light" should result in a custodial sentence. How would you explain to a family of a civilian /non blue light worker that the culprit isn't getting a heavier sentence because he/she's life was not as important? It's the position. They are more vulnerable than let's say someone who sells icecream. Violence against someone in a vulnerable position should be prosecuted more harshly. People's jobs are not equal in society. Some carry more risk and carry more responsibility. Im tempted to include teachers as well. " Agree re teachers Education is critical to our future . | |||
"Not keen on this idea, where 3rd time lucky.. Anyway, 20 years could be given to anyone accidentally killing blue light emergency workers via manslaughter . To me it seems Orwellian, e.g that if your not a member of this group, your a lesser citizen and your life is not as important. Surely the law should be equally applied.? I agree. Whilst I agree that sometimes they put their life on the line..thats what they signed up for. We are all (supposedly)equal. Even though we are clearly not. Big uproar about that police fella who was killed with the family calling for murder. And whilst it was horrific it was manslaughter..and didnt they get quite hefty sentences?like 17 years.? I agree everyone should be equal when it comes to the trial of who they killed accidentally or not but 17 years for these guys is a joke if it’s true they intimidated the jury, they also showed no remorse and I’m sure they would do it again tomorrow given the chance, so let’s hope none of us are in their path in 17 years time. If they intimidated the jury that was the judges responsibility. I'm no expert but 17 years seems a long time for mansaluahgter. For me it depends on the manslaughter for the sentence given, pushing someone over who is trying to start a fight with you and they bang their head and die is kind of different than someone being caught in the act of committing a crime and then dragging the person who found them to their death, saying they didn’t know the police officer was there I think was complete bo**ocks. " Agreed, their lawyers using the system to get them the lightest possible sentence and win the case. | |||
"I actually agree them at an assault on the police or other blue lights should result in custodial sentence as it’s an assault in our society and it’s rules. The blue lights need respect as such representatives . Some thug fighting with a policeman after drinking too much or spitting at a nurse oh and throwing rocks at fireman should result in at least a year inside . Fuck their civil rights they forfeit them by attacking our society. Yes there are bad policemen and I get some people have a tough start in life but 90% of the d*unks and thugs need to be put in their place . " | |||
"Not keen on this idea, where 3rd time lucky.. Anyway, 20 years could be given to anyone accidentally killing blue light emergency workers via manslaughter . To me it seems Orwellian, e.g that if your not a member of this group, your a lesser citizen and your life is not as important. Surely the law should be equally applied.? I agree. Whilst I agree that sometimes they put their life on the line..thats what they signed up for. We are all (supposedly)equal. Even though we are clearly not. Big uproar about that police fella who was killed with the family calling for murder. And whilst it was horrific it was manslaughter..and didnt they get quite hefty sentences?like 17 years.? I agree everyone should be equal when it comes to the trial of who they killed accidentally or not but 17 years for these guys is a joke if it’s true they intimidated the jury, they also showed no remorse and I’m sure they would do it again tomorrow given the chance, so let’s hope none of us are in their path in 17 years time. If they intimidated the jury that was the judges responsibility. I'm no expert but 17 years seems a long time for mansaluahgter. For me it depends on the manslaughter for the sentence given, pushing someone over who is trying to start a fight with you and they bang their head and die is kind of different than someone being caught in the act of committing a crime and then dragging the person who found them to their death, saying they didn’t know the police officer was there I think was complete bo**ocks. Agreed, their lawyers using the system to get them the lightest possible sentence and win the case." I think that the job of their lawyers, just as it's the job of the crown to use the system to get them convicted and the longest possible sentence. | |||
"Not keen on this idea, where 3rd time lucky.. Anyway, 20 years could be given to anyone accidentally killing blue light emergency workers via manslaughter . To me it seems Orwellian, e.g that if your not a member of this group, your a lesser citizen and your life is not as important. Surely the law should be equally applied.? I agree. Whilst I agree that sometimes they put their life on the line..thats what they signed up for. We are all (supposedly)equal. Even though we are clearly not. Big uproar about that police fella who was killed with the family calling for murder. And whilst it was horrific it was manslaughter..and didnt they get quite hefty sentences?like 17 years.? I agree everyone should be equal when it comes to the trial of who they killed accidentally or not but 17 years for these guys is a joke if it’s true they intimidated the jury, they also showed no remorse and I’m sure they would do it again tomorrow given the chance, so let’s hope none of us are in their path in 17 years time. If they intimidated the jury that was the judges responsibility. I'm no expert but 17 years seems a long time for mansaluahgter. For me it depends on the manslaughter for the sentence given, pushing someone over who is trying to start a fight with you and they bang their head and die is kind of different than someone being caught in the act of committing a crime and then dragging the person who found them to their death, saying they didn’t know the police officer was there I think was complete bo**ocks. Agreed, their lawyers using the system to get them the lightest possible sentence and win the case." That's their job | |||
"I agree with the minimum. Also any assault on a "blue light" should result in a custodial sentence. How would you explain to a family of a civilian /non blue light worker that the culprit isn't getting a heavier sentence because he/she's life was not as important? It's the position. They are more vulnerable than let's say someone who sells icecream. Violence against someone in a vulnerable position should be prosecuted more harshly. People's jobs are not equal in society. Some carry more risk and carry more responsibility. Im tempted to include teachers as well. " Lots of them are armed..they carry batons etc. Very rarely they are alone. I wouldn't say they are vulnerable in the slightest. If someone was going to be attacked either a man alone on a ice cream van or 2 policeman in a van,I know who my money would be on. | |||
"I agree with the minimum. Also any assault on a "blue light" should result in a custodial sentence. How would you explain to a family of a civilian /non blue light worker that the culprit isn't getting a heavier sentence because he/she's life was not as important? It's the position. They are more vulnerable than let's say someone who sells icecream. Violence against someone in a vulnerable position should be prosecuted more harshly. People's jobs are not equal in society. Some carry more risk and carry more responsibility. Im tempted to include teachers as well. Lots of them are armed..they carry batons etc. Very rarely they are alone. I wouldn't say they are vulnerable in the slightest. If someone was going to be attacked either a man alone on a ice cream van or 2 policeman in a van,I know who my money would be on." Was PC Keith Palmer vulnerable in the “slightest” ? Was PC Jonathan Henry vulnerable in the “slightest”? Was PC Nicola Hughes and Fiona Bone Vulnerable in the “slightest”? What about the countless others who have been assaulted in the line of duty this weekend? Still not vulnerable in the slightest? | |||
"I agree with the minimum. Also any assault on a "blue light" should result in a custodial sentence. How would you explain to a family of a civilian /non blue light worker that the culprit isn't getting a heavier sentence because he/she's life was not as important? It's the position. They are more vulnerable than let's say someone who sells icecream. Violence against someone in a vulnerable position should be prosecuted more harshly. People's jobs are not equal in society. Some carry more risk and carry more responsibility. Im tempted to include teachers as well. Lots of them are armed..they carry batons etc. Very rarely they are alone. I wouldn't say they are vulnerable in the slightest. If someone was going to be attacked either a man alone on a ice cream van or 2 policeman in a van,I know who my money would be on. Was PC Keith Palmer vulnerable in the “slightest” ? Was PC Jonathan Henry vulnerable in the “slightest”? Was PC Nicola Hughes and Fiona Bone Vulnerable in the “slightest”? What about the countless others who have been assaulted in the line of duty this weekend? Still not vulnerable in the slightest? " Part of their job is to occasionally put themselves in dangerous situations. That is not the same as being vulnerable. What about the normal countless people who have been assaulted? Are they not vulnerable? | |||
"I agree with the minimum. Also any assault on a "blue light" should result in a custodial sentence. How would you explain to a family of a civilian /non blue light worker that the culprit isn't getting a heavier sentence because he/she's life was not as important? It's the position. They are more vulnerable than let's say someone who sells icecream. Violence against someone in a vulnerable position should be prosecuted more harshly. People's jobs are not equal in society. Some carry more risk and carry more responsibility. Im tempted to include teachers as well. Lots of them are armed..they carry batons etc. Very rarely they are alone. I wouldn't say they are vulnerable in the slightest. If someone was going to be attacked either a man alone on a ice cream van or 2 policeman in a van,I know who my money would be on. Was PC Keith Palmer vulnerable in the “slightest” ? Was PC Jonathan Henry vulnerable in the “slightest”? Was PC Nicola Hughes and Fiona Bone Vulnerable in the “slightest”? What about the countless others who have been assaulted in the line of duty this weekend? Still not vulnerable in the slightest? Part of their job is to occasionally put themselves in dangerous situations. That is not the same as being vulnerable. What about the normal countless people who have been assaulted? Are they not vulnerable?" Why is it not the same as being vulnerable. They are very vulnerable to harm in those situations yes stuff is done rightly so to mitigate it but they are vulnerable none the less. Can you honestly not see that? | |||
"I agree with the minimum. Also any assault on a "blue light" should result in a custodial sentence. How would you explain to a family of a civilian /non blue light worker that the culprit isn't getting a heavier sentence because he/she's life was not as important? It's the position. They are more vulnerable than let's say someone who sells icecream. Violence against someone in a vulnerable position should be prosecuted more harshly. People's jobs are not equal in society. Some carry more risk and carry more responsibility. Im tempted to include teachers as well. Lots of them are armed..they carry batons etc. Very rarely they are alone. I wouldn't say they are vulnerable in the slightest. If someone was going to be attacked either a man alone on a ice cream van or 2 policeman in a van,I know who my money would be on. Was PC Keith Palmer vulnerable in the “slightest” ? Was PC Jonathan Henry vulnerable in the “slightest”? Was PC Nicola Hughes and Fiona Bone Vulnerable in the “slightest”? What about the countless others who have been assaulted in the line of duty this weekend? Still not vulnerable in the slightest? Part of their job is to occasionally put themselves in dangerous situations. That is not the same as being vulnerable. What about the normal countless people who have been assaulted? Are they not vulnerable? Why is it not the same as being vulnerable. They are very vulnerable to harm in those situations yes stuff is done rightly so to mitigate it but they are vulnerable none the less. Can you honestly not see that? " Vulnerable to me is a woman walking alone at night. 2 big policeman in a van with all the training/back up/truncheons etc..no I wouldnt say they are vulnerable. Serious attacks on police are very rare which is why the recent story made so much news. Saying all that they do a very tough job and often put themselves in dangerous situations. | |||
| |||
| |||
"What about site security guards or store security guards...they often work alone. That is what I call vulnerable..but on shit pay. Kind of like the NHS workers and the zero hour contract carers...so where do we define on this as they do a similar job as blue light workers...but for shit money.." There must be 100s of muggings and attacks up and down the country so you could argue everyone is potentially vulnerable. | |||
"Luckily the emergency workers bill came in in 2018 and makes it all academic. I know a very sexy paramedic on here who has been assaulted countless times so I welcome the protection it adds to our brave workers. Vulnerability should be an aggravating factor I agree. And a lot of factors are taken into account anyway such as race and sexuality. I’m down for hammering all violent criminals and all racist bigots with the absolute maximum. " Who the fuck would attack a paramedic? Anyone who is guilty of a violent attack should face a stern sentence..no matter who they assault. However as alluded to earlier it should work both ways.There have been countless deaths in custody and very few face justice . What was that woman who was killed when police and immigration forces came to deport her?No one got done for that. | |||
"Luckily the emergency workers bill came in in 2018 and makes it all academic. I know a very sexy paramedic on here who has been assaulted countless times so I welcome the protection it adds to our brave workers. Vulnerability should be an aggravating factor I agree. And a lot of factors are taken into account anyway such as race and sexuality. I’m down for hammering all violent criminals and all racist bigots with the absolute maximum. Who the fuck would attack a paramedic? Anyone who is guilty of a violent attack should face a stern sentence..no matter who they assault. However as alluded to earlier it should work both ways.There have been countless deaths in custody and very few face justice . What was that woman who was killed when police and immigration forces came to deport her?No one got done for that." People whose rationality is affected by alcohol or drugs attack paramedics. | |||
"I agree with the minimum. Also any assault on a "blue light" should result in a custodial sentence. How would you explain to a family of a civilian /non blue light worker that the culprit isn't getting a heavier sentence because he/she's life was not as important? It's the position. They are more vulnerable than let's say someone who sells icecream. Violence against someone in a vulnerable position should be prosecuted more harshly. People's jobs are not equal in society. Some carry more risk and carry more responsibility. Im tempted to include teachers as well. Lots of them are armed..they carry batons etc. Very rarely they are alone. I wouldn't say they are vulnerable in the slightest. If someone was going to be attacked either a man alone on a ice cream van or 2 policeman in a van,I know who my money would be on. Was PC Keith Palmer vulnerable in the “slightest” ? Was PC Jonathan Henry vulnerable in the “slightest”? Was PC Nicola Hughes and Fiona Bone Vulnerable in the “slightest”? What about the countless others who have been assaulted in the line of duty this weekend? Still not vulnerable in the slightest? Part of their job is to occasionally put themselves in dangerous situations. That is not the same as being vulnerable. What about the normal countless people who have been assaulted? Are they not vulnerable? Why is it not the same as being vulnerable. They are very vulnerable to harm in those situations yes stuff is done rightly so to mitigate it but they are vulnerable none the less. Can you honestly not see that? " Police aren't as vulnerable. Hsve a look st their utility belts. Pockets for cs spray, tazers, handcuffs, and the trusty ole batton/truncheon, not to mention vests | |||
"I agree with the minimum. Also any assault on a "blue light" should result in a custodial sentence. How would you explain to a family of a civilian /non blue light worker that the culprit isn't getting a heavier sentence because he/she's life was not as important? It's the position. They are more vulnerable than let's say someone who sells icecream. Violence against someone in a vulnerable position should be prosecuted more harshly. People's jobs are not equal in society. Some carry more risk and carry more responsibility. Im tempted to include teachers as well. Lots of them are armed..they carry batons etc. Very rarely they are alone. I wouldn't say they are vulnerable in the slightest. If someone was going to be attacked either a man alone on a ice cream van or 2 policeman in a van,I know who my money would be on. Was PC Keith Palmer vulnerable in the “slightest” ? Was PC Jonathan Henry vulnerable in the “slightest”? Was PC Nicola Hughes and Fiona Bone Vulnerable in the “slightest”? What about the countless others who have been assaulted in the line of duty this weekend? Still not vulnerable in the slightest? Part of their job is to occasionally put themselves in dangerous situations. That is not the same as being vulnerable. What about the normal countless people who have been assaulted? Are they not vulnerable? Why is it not the same as being vulnerable. They are very vulnerable to harm in those situations yes stuff is done rightly so to mitigate it but they are vulnerable none the less. Can you honestly not see that? Police aren't as vulnerable. Hsve a look st their utility belts. Pockets for cs spray, tazers, handcuffs, and the trusty ole batton/truncheon, not to mention vests" See the bit I said about stuff done rightly so to mitigate harm and apply that logic. | |||
| |||
"I think some are missing the point. It does matter who is more vulnerable it’s the fact that those who represent what is good about any society are being attacked. That ranges from caters to policeman who appear less vulnerable. If we let the thugs think it’s ok as they don’t get punished then we are long termed fucked. In the 90s New York introduced what was close to a zero tolerance policy or broken windows as others called it. The increased police on the street and started at the lowest crimes like graffiti, vandalism and littering including fag buts from smokers. ( this is a lazy habit of most smokers which make places look dirty.) you know you do it! They reasoned that if people took care and were proud of where they lived then they would reject the minor crimes which eventually always lead to major crimes. The downside initially was more people went to prison but the upside was because the streets were safer and cleaner people wanted to be there and investment along with prosperity followed. So the tossers who hit anyone in authority should be swiftly locked up no nonsense. Otherwise all our lives are going to get worse and where we live will become decayed. " Ive bern a victim of crime a few times now, and found the police to be slow, disinterested and offering the usual "advice", most likely the crimes committed against me were too low level : vandalism and petty theft. Even though I knew who did it they shrugged off any protestations i had, only for the same scum to return later. If i stopped the scum yvhey could whinge to the police and i would then i would be in trouble. My point being, police attitude is breeding scum, that could attack the police not preventing it. | |||
| |||
"We are and should all remain equal under the law as victims. If you are driving carelessly and kill someone it’s manslaughter so you get and appropriate sentence . If you’re dragging a man along behind the car whilst I agree it may not be murder it is surely aggravated manslaughter based on your intent. Ie committing a crime intentionally. They should get heavy sentences and I think they deserve it. I thought it would be longer. I suspect many people did which is why the sentences are being reviewed. " the use of common sense in the forum . A very well done | |||
"Not keen on this idea, where 3rd time lucky.. Anyway, 20 years could be given to anyone accidentally killing blue light emergency workers via manslaughter . To me it seems Orwellian, e.g that if your not a member of this group, your a lesser citizen and your life is not as important. Surely the law should be equally applied.? Should be life. As it should be for all blue light workers, police, ambulance, fire, etc. It isn't really a deterrent, when the sentence is lenient. So if you want to imprison someone for life for unintentionally killing someone, what are you going to sentence someone who actually murders someone. A friends brother was out on the town and a guy hit him, he turned around and hit him back, guy fell, banged head on kerb and died. Mates brother went to prison for manslaughter, he served 5 or 6 years, by your statement he should have got life... I would say yes. The bloke he killed went be able to return to his family, he went be able to go to work. Why should your friends brother only get a slap on the wrist for it. Then go about his life as normal after the event, get working seeing his family and friends again. I have always been on the side of life sentence, for taking a persons life regardless of the instance." Does the same hold true for policemen who killed Christopher Alder ? | |||
"I feel just as threatened by the police as I am with the scum that harasses me. Im sorry to say that i wouldn't be surprised if those that killed the pc had gotten away with a slap on the wrist time and time again, making them more brazen and having more contempt for the police. " How do you feel threatened by the Police? | |||
| |||
"I feel just as threatened by the police as I am with the scum that harasses me. Im sorry to say that i wouldn't be surprised if those that killed the pc had gotten away with a slap on the wrist time and time again, making them more brazen and having more contempt for the police. How do you feel threatened by the Police? " By having veiled cautions that i could end up in trouble if I used unreasonable action if i caught youths doing the damage. Plus limiting me on mdasures such as using wire, carpet grip on top of fencing etc.. and could be brought up for that. Not the police per sey but the uk law. | |||
"I feel just as threatened by the police as I am with the scum that harasses me. Im sorry to say that i wouldn't be surprised if those that killed the pc had gotten away with a slap on the wrist time and time again, making them more brazen and having more contempt for the police. How do you feel threatened by the Police? By having veiled cautions that i could end up in trouble if I used unreasonable action if i caught youths doing the damage. Plus limiting me on mdasures such as using wire, carpet grip on top of fencing etc.. and could be brought up for that. Not the police per sey but the uk law." The clue is in the word unreasonable I suppose. | |||
"Not keen on this idea, where 3rd time lucky.. Anyway, 20 years could be given to anyone accidentally killing blue light emergency workers via manslaughter . To me it seems Orwellian, e.g that if your not a member of this group, your a lesser citizen and your life is not as important. Surely the law should be equally applied.? Should be life. As it should be for all blue light workers, police, ambulance, fire, etc. It isn't really a deterrent, when the sentence is lenient. So if you want to imprison someone for life for unintentionally killing someone, what are you going to sentence someone who actually murders someone. A friends brother was out on the town and a guy hit him, he turned around and hit him back, guy fell, banged head on kerb and died. Mates brother went to prison for manslaughter, he served 5 or 6 years, by your statement he should have got life... I would say yes. The bloke he killed went be able to return to his family, he went be able to go to work. Why should your friends brother only get a slap on the wrist for it. Then go about his life as normal after the event, get working seeing his family and friends again. I have always been on the side of life sentence, for taking a persons life regardless of the instance. Killing someone unintentionally is obviously serious, and sentencing should be appropriate. What I'm not happy with is that if a two tier sentencing system is introduced, then that's saying some people's lives are more important than others. " Nobody's life is worth more than somebody else's | |||
| |||
"I feel just as threatened by the police as I am with the scum that harasses me. Im sorry to say that i wouldn't be surprised if those that killed the pc had gotten away with a slap on the wrist time and time again, making them more brazen and having more contempt for the police. How do you feel threatened by the Police? By having veiled cautions that i could end up in trouble if I used unreasonable action if i caught youths doing the damage. Plus limiting me on mdasures such as using wire, carpet grip on top of fencing etc.. and could be brought up for that. Not the police per sey but the uk law. The clue is in the word unreasonable I suppose. " Oh that's a revelation!
Yobs can dance about on my car, yet if i put carpet grip on top of my fence, your all " ooo.. Unreasonable!" ... | |||
"Not keen on this idea, where 3rd time lucky.. Anyway, 20 years could be given to anyone accidentally killing blue light emergency workers via manslaughter . To me it seems Orwellian, e.g that if your not a member of this group, your a lesser citizen and your life is not as important. Surely the law should be equally applied.? Should be life. As it should be for all blue light workers, police, ambulance, fire, etc. It isn't really a deterrent, when the sentence is lenient. So if you want to imprison someone for life for unintentionally killing someone, what are you going to sentence someone who actually murders someone. A friends brother was out on the town and a guy hit him, he turned around and hit him back, guy fell, banged head on kerb and died. Mates brother went to prison for manslaughter, he served 5 or 6 years, by your statement he should have got life... I would say yes. The bloke he killed went be able to return to his family, he went be able to go to work. Why should your friends brother only get a slap on the wrist for it. Then go about his life as normal after the event, get working seeing his family and friends again. I have always been on the side of life sentence, for taking a persons life regardless of the instance. Killing someone unintentionally is obviously serious, and sentencing should be appropriate. What I'm not happy with is that if a two tier sentencing system is introduced, then that's saying some people's lives are more important than others. Nobody's life is worth more than somebody else's "But don't blue light workers risk their own lives for others on many occasions? Is it just "their job"? | |||
"I feel just as threatened by the police as I am with the scum that harasses me. Im sorry to say that i wouldn't be surprised if those that killed the pc had gotten away with a slap on the wrist time and time again, making them more brazen and having more contempt for the police. How do you feel threatened by the Police? By having veiled cautions that i could end up in trouble if I used unreasonable action if i caught youths doing the damage. Plus limiting me on mdasures such as using wire, carpet grip on top of fencing etc.. and could be brought up for that. Not the police per sey but the uk law. The clue is in the word unreasonable I suppose. Oh that's a revelation!
Yobs can dance about on my car, yet if i put carpet grip on top of my fence, your all " ooo.. Unreasonable!" ... "It’s also unreasonable to expect people to know the full story. Why would carpet grips on your fence stop people dancing on your car? | |||
"Not keen on this idea, where 3rd time lucky.. Anyway, 20 years could be given to anyone accidentally killing blue light emergency workers via manslaughter . To me it seems Orwellian, e.g that if your not a member of this group, your a lesser citizen and your life is not as important. Surely the law should be equally applied.? Should be life. As it should be for all blue light workers, police, ambulance, fire, etc. It isn't really a deterrent, when the sentence is lenient. So if you want to imprison someone for life for unintentionally killing someone, what are you going to sentence someone who actually murders someone. A friends brother was out on the town and a guy hit him, he turned around and hit him back, guy fell, banged head on kerb and died. Mates brother went to prison for manslaughter, he served 5 or 6 years, by your statement he should have got life... I would say yes. The bloke he killed went be able to return to his family, he went be able to go to work. Why should your friends brother only get a slap on the wrist for it. Then go about his life as normal after the event, get working seeing his family and friends again. I have always been on the side of life sentence, for taking a persons life regardless of the instance. Killing someone unintentionally is obviously serious, and sentencing should be appropriate. What I'm not happy with is that if a two tier sentencing system is introduced, then that's saying some people's lives are more important than others. Nobody's life is worth more than somebody else's
But don't blue light workers risk their own lives for others on many occasions? Is it just "their job"?"Police probably go into dangerous situations more but it's still quitey rare for a policeman to be seriously attacked. | |||
"Not keen on this idea, where 3rd time lucky.. Anyway, 20 years could be given to anyone accidentally killing blue light emergency workers via manslaughter . To me it seems Orwellian, e.g that if your not a member of this group, your a lesser citizen and your life is not as important. Surely the law should be equally applied.? Should be life. As it should be for all blue light workers, police, ambulance, fire, etc. It isn't really a deterrent, when the sentence is lenient. So if you want to imprison someone for life for unintentionally killing someone, what are you going to sentence someone who actually murders someone. A friends brother was out on the town and a guy hit him, he turned around and hit him back, guy fell, banged head on kerb and died. Mates brother went to prison for manslaughter, he served 5 or 6 years, by your statement he should have got life... I would say yes. The bloke he killed went be able to return to his family, he went be able to go to work. Why should your friends brother only get a slap on the wrist for it. Then go about his life as normal after the event, get working seeing his family and friends again. I have always been on the side of life sentence, for taking a persons life regardless of the instance. Killing someone unintentionally is obviously serious, and sentencing should be appropriate. What I'm not happy with is that if a two tier sentencing system is introduced, then that's saying some people's lives are more important than others. Nobody's life is worth more than somebody else's
But don't blue light workers risk their own lives for others on many occasions? Is it just "their job"?"I would argue yes, itvis their job. I was in the NHS and didn't demand any recognition , respect, i just got on with it | |||
"Not keen on this idea, where 3rd time lucky.. Anyway, 20 years could be given to anyone accidentally killing blue light emergency workers via manslaughter . To me it seems Orwellian, e.g that if your not a member of this group, your a lesser citizen and your life is not as important. Surely the law should be equally applied.? Should be life. As it should be for all blue light workers, police, ambulance, fire, etc. It isn't really a deterrent, when the sentence is lenient. So if you want to imprison someone for life for unintentionally killing someone, what are you going to sentence someone who actually murders someone. A friends brother was out on the town and a guy hit him, he turned around and hit him back, guy fell, banged head on kerb and died. Mates brother went to prison for manslaughter, he served 5 or 6 years, by your statement he should have got life... I would say yes. The bloke he killed went be able to return to his family, he went be able to go to work. Why should your friends brother only get a slap on the wrist for it. Then go about his life as normal after the event, get working seeing his family and friends again. I have always been on the side of life sentence, for taking a persons life regardless of the instance. Killing someone unintentionally is obviously serious, and sentencing should be appropriate. What I'm not happy with is that if a two tier sentencing system is introduced, then that's saying some people's lives are more important than others. Nobody's life is worth more than somebody else's
But don't blue light workers risk their own lives for others on many occasions? Is it just "their job"?"It is just their job, many people risk their lives doing jobs, they mostly know what the risks are when taking the job, so nobody7 life is worth more than another's. | |||
| |||
"you serve less for killing people d*unk behind the wheel." Looks that way. Judges sem to givw heavier sentences if there are police injuries | |||
| |||
"There is a absolutely no way that The shits making their getaway in the vehicle could not know something was wrong. How many times do people look behind themselves out of a window in a getaway situation and yes he was doing his job but that ended when his foot became entangled in the rope." That doesn't make it murder. | |||
"Not keen on this idea, where 3rd time lucky.. Anyway, 20 years could be given to anyone accidentally killing blue light emergency workers via manslaughter . To me it seems Orwellian, e.g that if your not a member of this group, your a lesser citizen and your life is not as important. Surely the law should be equally applied.? Should be life. As it should be for all blue light workers, police, ambulance, fire, etc. It isn't really a deterrent, when the sentence is lenient. So if you want to imprison someone for life for unintentionally killing someone, what are you going to sentence someone who actually murders someone. A friends brother was out on the town and a guy hit him, he turned around and hit him back, guy fell, banged head on kerb and died. Mates brother went to prison for manslaughter, he served 5 or 6 years, by your statement he should have got life... I would say yes. The bloke he killed went be able to return to his family, he went be able to go to work. Why should your friends brother only get a slap on the wrist for it. Then go about his life as normal after the event, get working seeing his family and friends again. I have always been on the side of life sentence, for taking a persons life regardless of the instance. Killing someone unintentionally is obviously serious, and sentencing should be appropriate. What I'm not happy with is that if a two tier sentencing system is introduced, then that's saying some people's lives are more important than others. Nobody's life is worth more than somebody else's
But don't blue light workers risk their own lives for others on many occasions? Is it just "their job"?
It is just their job, many people risk their lives doing jobs, they mostly know what the risks are when taking the job, so nobody7 life is worth more than another's. "I disagree. If somebody were to attempt to shoot Queen Elizabeth, should her bodyguard not shoot that person dead because their life is equal to hers? Was Martin Luther King's life worth the same as Hitler's? Or Ghandi and Jimi Savile? Or a dedicated surgeon and a mass murderer? | |||
"It is just their job, many people risk their lives doing jobs, they mostly know what the risks are when taking the job, so nobody's life is worth more than another's. I disagree. If somebody were to attempt to shoot Queen Elizabeth, should her bodyguard not shoot that person dead because their life is equal to hers? Was Martin Luther King's life worth the same as Hitler's? Or Ghandi and Jimi Savile? Or a dedicated surgeon and a mass murderer?" I disagree with that very simplistic argument. Certainly, some people have a greater talent, net financial worth, etc than others. However, their humanity, their right to life is worth no more than yours or mine. It's why civilised societies tend not to execute prisoners, even if the death penalty is available - and, indeed, has been passed. As to your examples: HMQ's bodyguard would act to protect her life, not their own - and killing a possible assassin would be done only if it were unavoidable; or, indeed, possible. The argument could accurately be made that, even today, there are Americans who feel that Martin Luther King's life was worth less than Hitler's, due to the colour of his skin. Certainly, his killer avoided a possible death sentence (by no means certain in Tennessee, in 1969) by pleading guilty and negating the need for a jury trial. Jimmy Savile was a despicable paedophile, whose crimes were never prosecuted - and who raised £40M for charity. Ghandi was a civil rights lawyer, frequently imprisoned by the same State, in a later era, that knighted Savile. Harold Shipman was a well regarded family doctor - and a mass murderer. He was sentenced to life imprisonment, without the possibility of release, for 15 murders; though the number of his victims was assessed at at least 215. Where does he fit into your argument? Bottom line; your life (and mine) are worth no more in the eyes of the law than a paedophile's or a murderer's. Annoying, for you and many others, I know - but true. | |||
"It is just their job, many people risk their lives doing jobs, they mostly know what the risks are when taking the job, so nobody's life is worth more than another's. I disagree. If somebody were to attempt to shoot Queen Elizabeth, should her bodyguard not shoot that person dead because their life is equal to hers? Was Martin Luther King's life worth the same as Hitler's? Or Ghandi and Jimi Savile? Or a dedicated surgeon and a mass murderer? I disagree with that very simplistic argument. Certainly, some people have a greater talent, net financial worth, etc than others. However, their humanity, their right to life is worth no more than yours or mine. It's why civilised societies tend not to execute prisoners, even if the death penalty is available - and, indeed, has been passed. As to your examples: HMQ's bodyguard would act to protect her life, not their own - and killing a possible assassin would be done only if it were unavoidable; or, indeed, possible. The argument could accurately be made that, even today, there are Americans who feel that Martin Luther King's life was worth less than Hitler's, due to the colour of his skin. Certainly, his killer avoided a possible death sentence (by no means certain in Tennessee, in 1969) by pleading guilty and negating the need for a jury trial. Jimmy Savile was a despicable paedophile, whose crimes were never prosecuted - and who raised £40M for charity. Ghandi was a civil rights lawyer, frequently imprisoned by the same State, in a later era, that knighted Savile. Harold Shipman was a well regarded family doctor - and a mass murderer. He was sentenced to life imprisonment, without the possibility of release, for 15 murders; though the number of his victims was assessed at at least 215. Where does he fit into your argument? Bottom line; your life (and mine) are worth no more in the eyes of the law than a paedophile's or a murderer's. Annoying, for you and many others, I know - but true." A very Western attitude. It must be quite soul-destroying for you to feel so worthless. | |||
"It is just their job, many people risk their lives doing jobs, they mostly know what the risks are when taking the job, so nobody's life is worth more than another's. I disagree. If somebody were to attempt to shoot Queen Elizabeth, should her bodyguard not shoot that person dead because their life is equal to hers? Was Martin Luther King's life worth the same as Hitler's? Or Ghandi and Jimi Savile? Or a dedicated surgeon and a mass murderer? I disagree with that very simplistic argument. Certainly, some people have a greater talent, net financial worth, etc than others. However, their humanity, their right to life is worth no more than yours or mine. It's why civilised societies tend not to execute prisoners, even if the death penalty is available - and, indeed, has been passed. As to your examples: HMQ's bodyguard would act to protect her life, not their own - and killing a possible assassin would be done only if it were unavoidable; or, indeed, possible. The argument could accurately be made that, even today, there are Americans who feel that Martin Luther King's life was worth less than Hitler's, due to the colour of his skin. Certainly, his killer avoided a possible death sentence (by no means certain in Tennessee, in 1969) by pleading guilty and negating the need for a jury trial. Jimmy Savile was a despicable paedophile, whose crimes were never prosecuted - and who raised £40M for charity. Ghandi was a civil rights lawyer, frequently imprisoned by the same State, in a later era, that knighted Savile. Harold Shipman was a well regarded family doctor - and a mass murderer. He was sentenced to life imprisonment, without the possibility of release, for 15 murders; though the number of his victims was assessed at at least 215. Where does he fit into your argument? Bottom line; your life (and mine) are worth no more in the eyes of the law than a paedophile's or a murderer's. Annoying, for you and many others, I know - but true. A very Western attitude. It must be quite soul-destroying for you to feel so worthless. " Worthless, or that everyone has similar worth? I think you misunderstand the concept. I like that my life is equal to the Queen's, in law. It's a good starting point for any civilised society. | |||
"There is a absolutely no way that The shits making their getaway in the vehicle could not know something was wrong. How many times do people look behind themselves out of a window in a getaway situation and yes he was doing his job but that ended when his foot became entangled in the rope. That doesn't make it murder." Only in the eyes if the jury | |||
"Not keen on this idea, where 3rd time lucky.. Anyway, 20 years could be given to anyone accidentally killing blue light emergency workers via manslaughter . To me it seems Orwellian, e.g that if your not a member of this group, your a lesser citizen and your life is not as important. Surely the law should be equally applied.? I agree. Whilst I agree that sometimes they put their life on the line..thats what they signed up for. We are all (supposedly)equal. Even though we are clearly not. Big uproar about that police fella who was killed with the family calling for murder. And whilst it was horrific it was manslaughter..and didnt they get quite hefty sentences?like 17 years.? I agree everyone should be equal when it comes to the trial of who they killed accidentally or not but 17 years for these guys is a joke if it’s true they intimidated the jury, they also showed no remorse and I’m sure they would do it again tomorrow given the chance, so let’s hope none of us are in their path in 17 years time. If they intimidated the jury that was the judges responsibility. I'm no expert but 17 years seems a long time for mansaluahgter." If you were a family member of the victim you may not think so. | |||
"Not keen on this idea, where 3rd time lucky.. Anyway, 20 years could be given to anyone accidentally killing blue light emergency workers via manslaughter . To me it seems Orwellian, e.g that if your not a member of this group, your a lesser citizen and your life is not as important. Surely the law should be equally applied.? I agree. Whilst I agree that sometimes they put their life on the line..thats what they signed up for. We are all (supposedly)equal. Even though we are clearly not. Big uproar about that police fella who was killed with the family calling for murder. And whilst it was horrific it was manslaughter..and didnt they get quite hefty sentences?like 17 years.? I agree everyone should be equal when it comes to the trial of who they killed accidentally or not but 17 years for these guys is a joke if it’s true they intimidated the jury, they also showed no remorse and I’m sure they would do it again tomorrow given the chance, so let’s hope none of us are in their path in 17 years time. If they intimidated the jury that was the judges responsibility. I'm no expert but 17 years seems a long time for mansaluahgter.If you were a family member of the victim you may not think so." That's why the law doesn't work like that. It's meant to be impartial | |||
| |||
