I'm sorry, but currently police routinely commit extrajudicial executions against Black people, indigenous people, disabled people, and just about anyone (this last number is the largest). If your job is to maintain public safety and you are a threat to public safely, the law needs to come down hard on you. Police absolutely should be held to higher standards than other citizens. This is especially true since the vast majority of extrajudicial killings go unremarked, and the vast majority of police officers who come within spitting distance of an indictment at best get a slap on the wrist.
She wasn’t on trial for any of this. She committed a crime, while off duty, and was found guilty of it.
Her profession should not have played any role in it just like the ethnicity of an individual shouldn’t play a role in it.
She literally was on trial, and that's how she was found guilty. Being a police officer is not an ethnicity, it's a job that tends to attract certain types of people. And, she invoked her job in her defense and used her issued firearm to murder the man whose apartment it was. Her department went hard to defend her as well. Her profession was extremely appropriate.
So, this story that we're talking about here. From what I gather a police officer entered another persons home, shot them in the confusion, and then tried to claim innocence? It certainly seems to be a tragic mistake, but ordinary people go to jail for tragic mistakes they are responsible for. Police officers shouldn't be any different.
Well, she got ten years, 18 less than prosecutors were asking for, so it's hard to say she wasn't granted extreme leniency in the end. Who knows how much of that will actually be served (my guess would be about 75% of it).
One of the family members (who made it clear he wasn't speaking for the whole family) said he forgave her and didn't want her to go to prison. Nice yes, but families don't make these decisions. The father of a friend I had in high school drove drunk one night and the ensuing accident killed his best friend in the passenger seat. The family of the deceased was adamant they didn't want him to serve time. He was still given a year.
In the end, she is getting manslaughter punishment for a murder which is what most people here wanted so, I guess they'll be happy with the outcome.
The overall point that I was trying to make, and I believe others as well, is that it is fundamentally unjust to hand down a harsher sentence upon person A to compensate for how a totally unrelated person B's crime is handled.
There's no doubt that Police Officers are being given WAY too much leniency for the killings they commit. That there has been an obvious miscarriage of justice in those cases does not mean she should be punished more harshly to "even the scales".
The overall point that I was trying to make, and I believe others as well, is that it is fundamentally unjust to hand down a harsher sentence upon person A to compensate for how a totally unrelated person B's crime is handled.
There's no doubt that Police Officers are being given WAY too much leniency for the killings they commit. That there has been an obvious miscarriage of justice in those cases does not mean she should be punished more harshly to "even the scales".
I do have sympathy with the view that everyone should be treated equally by the justice system, but I'm not sure it's correct to characterize this as an attempt to even the scales. The law currently provides for stricter penalties in lots of different situations, e.g. repeat offences, terrorism, racist crimes etc. Part of the reason for such penalties is to deter particular types of offences. In the case of police misconduct though I think harsher penalties would be more to do with deterring criminal behavior by those in a much better position than typical citizens to both commit and get away with crimes.
Well, she got ten years, 18 less than prosecutors were asking for, so it's hard to say she wasn't granted extreme leniency in the end. Who knows how much of that will actually be served (my guess would be about 75% of it).
One of the family members (who made it clear he wasn't speaking for the whole family) said he forgave her and didn't want her to go to prison. Nice yes, but families don't make these decisions. The father of a friend I had in high school drove drunk one night and the ensuing accident killed his best friend in the passenger seat. The family of the deceased was adamant they didn't want him to serve time. He was still given a year.
In the end, she is getting manslaughter punishment for a murder which is what most people here wanted so, I guess they'll be happy with the outcome.
10 years seems just about right to me. It's a pretty life ruining sentence, even if it only ends up as few as five years incarcerated. The evidence of the case seems to point to her recklessness killing a man. Not cold blooded calculation. And not some pattern of violent criminality in her.
I'll concede that it's possible her version of events was an extreme fabrication, and perhaps there was some strange cold-blooded murder here, but there simply wasn't evidence to support that theory.
I'm not sure I would classify this as police misconduct. Legally speaking, and morally speaking in my opinion, police misconduct only occurs when an officer is claiming to be acting in an official capacity. This was an event that happened on her off duty hours as a private citizen, at least as far as I am aware.
The overall point that I was trying to make, and I believe others as well, is that it is fundamentally unjust to hand down a harsher sentence upon person A to compensate for how a totally unrelated person B's crime is handled.
There's no doubt that Police Officers are being given WAY too much leniency for the killings they commit. That there has been an obvious miscarriage of justice in those cases does not mean she should be punished more harshly to "even the scales".
I do have sympathy with the view that everyone should be treated equally by the justice system, but I'm not sure it's correct to characterize this as an attempt to even the scales. The law currently provides for stricter penalties in lots of different situations, e.g. repeat offences, terrorism, racist crimes etc. Part of the reason for such penalties is to deter particular types of offences. In the case of police misconduct though I think harsher penalties would be more to do with deterring criminal behavior by those in a much better position than typical citizens to both commit and get away with crimes.
I'm not sure this logic really holds. For one, nothing she did was as a police officer. Yes, she fired her service weapon, but that's a fact that could be just as relevant to a security guard or any job that has a gun.
Again, it's one thing to put more media focus on this story than a similar story not involving a police officer. It's one thing to be quicker in firing her from the job than you would someone else. It's entirely different to say that the criminal justice system is going to treat individuals differently because of some fact that has zero relevance to the crime in question.
Recklessly shooting a man is just as wrong if a security guard does it as when a cop does it as when a doctor does it. And, I think it's dangerous precedent to say certain people in society deserve to have their rights taken away for longer periods of time than other people. That is the logical consequence of what you're saying. Who determines what kind of people are going to deserve more punishment? There are plenty of jobs besides just police officer where you can recklessly endanger other lives, plenty of ways to slice up the population and see what groups disproportionately commit and get away with crime. Not sure we want to start using data like that in sentencing arguments, since that's going to have hideous consequences if followed to its logical conclusions.
Not to mention it's a straight up example of the ecological fallacy. Just because an individual can be grouped in a certain class, whether profession or anything else, does not mean the individual will exhibit the tendencies that the group exhibits.
Also to add: Past criminal behavior, terrorism, hate crimes are not comparable to belonging to a certain profession. All of the first three things are relevant facts about the individual defendant. Moreover terrorism and hate crimes are, in many US states, separate charges. Criminal history is absolutely relevant, which is the biggest reason this woman got a lenient sentence. It makes perfect sense that if we know an individual has been convicted for multiple assaults, for example, and then later commits a murder, that the individual is more likely to commit violent crime in the future than a murder defendant without past violent convictions.
There's not great evidence that's the case among police officers, relative to the general population. *But even if it was true* it wouldn't matter, because you cannot infer the characteristics of an individual because of the tendencies of a group to which they belong.
I don't think anyone even suggested her punishment or sentence should be harsher based on her profession. No one said that. What we're arguing is that her profession was used as a core part of her defense AND they attempted to help her institutionally. Any other person who admitted to shooting someone in the wrong apartment would have been arrested that night. She wasn't brought up on charges for 3 days. While the slain man's family was planning a funeral, the cops were executing search warrants hoping to find drugs at his apartment to criminalize him after the fact (as if that would have made a lick of material difference even if he had been shooting black tar heroin when she walked in). A Texas Ranger was brought in pre-trial to attempt to push the theory she reasonably thought she was in actual danger (the judge wouldn't allow him in front of the jury). Every one of these incidents is the law enforcement apparatus showing more interest in doing everything they can to get a fellow cop off the hook rather than seek justice for an obvious innocent victim. THAT is what the problem is, and why the idea that "her being a cop is immaterial" is nonsense. It was VERY material to how this transpired.
In the case of police misconduct though I think harsher penalties would be more to do with deterring criminal behavior by those in a much better position than typical citizens to both commit and get away with crimes.
@DinoDin: @Grond0 was commenting on the hypothetical possibility that someone else might advocate it and wondering aloud what the possible rationale was; not advocating it himself. I've not seen anyone suggest it just yet; I've only heard arguments against it.
I haven't heard anyone outside this forum advocating it, either, so I think it really is just a strawman.
Well, she got ten years, 18 less than prosecutors were asking for, so it's hard to say she wasn't granted extreme leniency in the end. Who knows how much of that will actually be served (my guess would be about 75% of it).
One of the family members (who made it clear he wasn't speaking for the whole family) said he forgave her and didn't want her to go to prison. Nice yes, but families don't make these decisions. The father of a friend I had in high school drove drunk one night and the ensuing accident killed his best friend in the passenger seat. The family of the deceased was adamant they didn't want him to serve time. He was still given a year.
In the end, she is getting manslaughter punishment for a murder which is what most people here wanted so, I guess they'll be happy with the outcome.
10 years seems just about right to me. It's a pretty life ruining sentence, even if it only ends up as few as five years incarcerated. The evidence of the case seems to point to her recklessness killing a man. Not cold blooded calculation. And not some pattern of violent criminality in her.
I'll concede that it's possible her version of events was an extreme fabrication, and perhaps there was some strange cold-blooded murder here, but there simply wasn't evidence to support that theory.
You think her life is ruined by 5 years in prison how about the guy that's dead.
Well, she got ten years, 18 less than prosecutors were asking for, so it's hard to say she wasn't granted extreme leniency in the end. Who knows how much of that will actually be served (my guess would be about 75% of it).
One of the family members (who made it clear he wasn't speaking for the whole family) said he forgave her and didn't want her to go to prison. Nice yes, but families don't make these decisions. The father of a friend I had in high school drove drunk one night and the ensuing accident killed his best friend in the passenger seat. The family of the deceased was adamant they didn't want him to serve time. He was still given a year.
In the end, she is getting manslaughter punishment for a murder which is what most people here wanted so, I guess they'll be happy with the outcome.
10 years seems just about right to me. It's a pretty life ruining sentence, even if it only ends up as few as five years incarcerated. The evidence of the case seems to point to her recklessness killing a man. Not cold blooded calculation. And not some pattern of violent criminality in her.
I'll concede that it's possible her version of events was an extreme fabrication, and perhaps there was some strange cold-blooded murder here, but there simply wasn't evidence to support that theory.
You think her life is ruined by 5 years in prison how about the guy that's dead.
Not something that changes with a longer sentence.
@DinoDin: @Grond0 was commenting on the hypothetical possibility that someone else might advocate it and wondering aloud what the possible rationale was; not advocating it himself. I've not seen anyone suggest it just yet; I've only heard arguments against it.
I haven't heard anyone outside this forum advocating it, either, so I think it really is just a strawman.
I'm sorry, but currently police routinely commit extrajudicial executions against Black people, indigenous people, disabled people, and just about anyone (this last number is the largest). If your job is to maintain public safety and you are a threat to public safely, the law needs to come down hard on you. Police absolutely should be held to higher standards than other citizens. This is especially true since the vast majority of extrajudicial killings go unremarked, and the vast majority of police officers who come within spitting distance of an indictment at best get a slap on the wrist. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
She literally was on trial, and that's how she was found guilty. Being a police officer is not an ethnicity, it's a job that tends to attract certain types of people. And, she invoked her job in her defense and used her issued firearm to murder the man whose apartment it was. Her department went hard to defend her as well. Her profession was extremely appropriate.
The off duty part of this is important, so I sympathize with this sentiment. But I disagree for two reasons where I think her profession still matters and needs to be taken into account:
She used her service weapon, a weapon that she was issues and is licensed to use because of her profession. By using it she make her job part of the situation.
Given that she is a trained professional, the decision to go in alone & without backup or confirming the situation was even worse. She should have known better, which can't be said about a panicked random person.
To give an analogy for the 2nd point: usually, you can't be held to account if you try to help an injured person but make the situation worse by mistake & ignorance. OTH if you are a medical doctor who has the training to avoid the same mistake, you should be called to account.
EDIT:
Also, I just wanted to add that certain professions serving the state/community require high ethical standards which do not stop when they go off work. Police officers, politicians, attorneys are all examples. So it is reasonable to me that a violations of these standards should carry a harsher penalty.
Not that it has any specific relevance in regards to this case, but assuming she gets out in 5 for good behavior (which she is eligible for), she is going to serve the same sentence in the same state for murder as the woman who mistakenly filled out a provisional ballot while on parole. I guarantee there are scores of people doing WAY more time for simple drug possession.
5 or 10 years is appropriate for this type of crime. It's extremely destructive and painful, but not so long as to render the life not worth living. A different type of murder, premeditated or without even the possibility of thinking the act was self-defense, would warrant more. I don't have much sympathy for the killer, but I am also generally opposed to lengthy prison sentences. Past a certain point, a longer prison sentence is only useful for criminals who are so dangerous the cost of their imprisonment is outweighed by the danger of their freedom.
@DinoDin: I'm not really convinced--the quotes don't specify harsher criminal penalties for officers; only vague statements of "higher standards." The only one of them that even obliquely references actual criminal penalties for officers only applies to on-duty breaches of the law. On top of this, one person (not among your quotes) even suggested that this was only relevant for officers who attempted to use their positions to decrease the risk of a criminal penalty--in which case the argument is not "officers should get harsher penalties," but "officers shouldn't get weaker penalties."
This is a very narrow definition of "higher standards," and it's distinct from the hypothetical proposal that officers get extra jail time simply for having the same profession as other police officers. That is the idea that has received criticism, and that is not the idea that other forumites have advocated.
This might seem like a semantic quibble, but we do kinda need to be very specific about what people who disagree with us really believe.
In general, if an idea seems incredibly silly, that's an indication that it's not a common viewpoint. Silly ideas are easy to confuse with real ones, though, because it only takes a slight distortion to turn a real position into a straw one.
For example, I can rewrite the previous paragraph and completely warp its meaning with only minor changes:
In general, common viewpoints aren't silly. Silly ideas look like real ones, though, because there's only a slight difference between a real one and a fake one.
By rewording that paragraph just slightly, I turn the claim from "Straw arguments can look like real ones to those who disagree with them" to "Majority viewpoints are sensible, but they're almost the same as silly viewpoints." It only takes a minor misinterpretation to turn something reasonable into something nonsensical.
I'll never understand this argument. That "rich Democrats and Hollywood types" want to tax everyone into oblivion. You do realize that they are voting and advocating to tax THEMSELVES right?? If someone worth a million plus believes they and those like them should be doing more, how is that a negative character trait?? And yet being rich and believing you should pay LESS is somehow more virtuous?? Upside-down world. This is right on the level of "if you've ever flown in a plane you can't be worried about climate change".
I'll never understand this argument. That "rich Democrats and Hollywood types" want to tax everyone into oblivion. You do realize that they are voting and advocating to tax THEMSELVES right?? If someone worth a million plus believes they and those like them should be doing more, how is that a negative character trait?? And yet being rich and believing you should pay LESS is somehow more virtuous?? Upside-down world. This is right on the level of "if you've ever flown in a plane you can't be worried about climate change".
There's the rub, they will never tax anyone. Smoke and Mirrors my friend.
@DinoDin: I'm not really convinced--the quotes don't specify harsher criminal penalties for officers; only vague statements of "higher standards." The only one of them that even obliquely references actual criminal penalties for officers only applies to on-duty breaches of the law. On top of this, one person (not among your quotes) even suggested that this was only relevant for officers who attempted to use their positions to decrease the risk of a criminal penalty--in which case the argument is not "officers should get harsher penalties," but "officers shouldn't get weaker penalties."
I dunno what to say really, except to express some frustration here. I've cited the evidence of people saying that she's police ought to factor into the criminal sentencing, a position at least one poster on here has repeated explicitly in multiple posts. Multiple other posters have interpreted these statements that way. And you're accusing me of strawmanning, but don't really have the quotes to back it up, instead opting for a lengthy hypothetical that doesn't really advance the discussion on what was previously said.
I mean, this is just one quote, from the poster Ammar: "Also, I just wanted to add that certain professions serving the state/community require high ethical standards which do not stop when they go off work. Police officers, politicians, attorneys are all examples. So it is reasonable to me that a violations of these standards should carry a harsher penalty."
How can anyone, after having this quoted to them reasonably say: "The only one of them that even obliquely references actual criminal penalties for officers only applies to on-duty breaches of the law"? I dunno. With respect, there are multiple of us interpreting this the same way. Just you saying otherwise, so far. Accusing us of strawmanning here doesn't seem like a fair reading to me.
Bernie is not rich. At all. If he has 50 million dollars that's not rich.
Look at Billionaires like Trump or the Koch Brothers or Jeff Bezos. They laugh at mere millionaires while a million dollars seems like an impossibly large amount of money to normal people it's nothing to a billionaire. Bezos' fortune has been increasing by roughly $231,000 per minute. If he gave away a million dollars a day it would take 408 years or something to deplete his fortune.
If you doubt Bernie that's because you've bought the propaganda by the real elites and are voting against your own interests.
BOTTOM LINE UP FRONT: The republicans are the party of the elites top 10 richest families in America:
1. Walton – Republican — The family owns the Walmart corporation. The Walton family fortune is estimated to be about $145.3 billion.
2. Koch – Republican — Businessmen, owners of Koch Industries, a manufacturing company. Koch brothers have a net worth of about $41 billion each ($82 billion together).
3. Mars – Republican — Own the Mars candy company. The three children of founder Forrest Mars are worth about $11 billion each ($33 billion together).
4. Cargill-MacMillan – Republican — The Cargill-MacMillan family owns 90 percent of the largest privately-owned corporation in the U.S. The family, as a whole, is worth about $49 billion.
5. Johnson (Fidelity) – Republican — Overseers at Fidelity, ensuring the cash of millions of Americans. The family has a combined net worth of $28.5 billion.
6. Hearst – Republican — The Hearst family owns one of America’s largest media companies. The family is valued at $28 billion.
7. Cox – Democrat — The Cox family owns a number of auto consumer sites and services (Kelley Blue Book, AutoTrader.com, etc.). They have an estimated net worth of $41 billion.
8. Pritzker – Both — Founders of Hyatt. The family has a combined value of $29 billion in 2017.
9. Johnson (S.C. Johnson) – Republican — The Johnson family is known for their cleaning products and hygiene products. They are valued at $30 billion.
10. Duncan – Republican — The Duncan family works mostly with oil and pipelines. The family is valued at about $21.5 billion.
Not American so won't be voting for Sanders. Not American so I don't buy into American propaganda.
$50 mill is not rich? Is that what The Democrats brainwashed ya''ll into believing now?
To add, he would not raise taxes on the Super Rich or Super Rich businesses cause they would just pick up and leave. Empty their American accounts and go bye-bye.
The only thing Bernie Sanders would increase is Israel's aid packages.
@DinoDin: I did have some specific things to cite, and I could repeat or clarify some previous points, but asserting an interpretation is not my goal here to begin with--I'm trying not to draw other people into a minor semantic debate.
At root, I just didn't like the idea of an uncharitable interpretation of other forumites' words, so I offered a more charitable interpretation for any forumites who might not swing by the thread again until many pages later. The idea is to discourage judgment of folks who aren't around right now.
@DinoDin: I'm not really convinced--the quotes don't specify harsher criminal penalties for officers; only vague statements of "higher standards." The only one of them that even obliquely references actual criminal penalties for officers only applies to on-duty breaches of the law. On top of this, one person (not among your quotes) even suggested that this was only relevant for officers who attempted to use their positions to decrease the risk of a criminal penalty--in which case the argument is not "officers should get harsher penalties," but "officers shouldn't get weaker penalties."
I dunno what to say really, except to express some frustration here. I've cited the evidence of people saying that she's police ought to factor into the criminal sentencing, a position at least one poster on here has repeated explicitly in multiple posts. Multiple other posters have interpreted these statements that way. And you're accusing me of strawmanning, but don't really have the quotes to back it up, instead opting for a lengthy hypothetical that doesn't really advance the discussion on what was previously said.
I mean, this is just one quote, from the poster Ammar: "Also, I just wanted to add that certain professions serving the state/community require high ethical standards which do not stop when they go off work. Police officers, politicians, attorneys are all examples. So it is reasonable to me that a violations of these standards should carry a harsher penalty."
How can anyone, after having this quoted to them reasonably say: "The only one of them that even obliquely references actual criminal penalties for officers only applies to on-duty breaches of the law"? I dunno. With respect, there are multiple of us interpreting this the same way. Just you saying otherwise, so far. Accusing us of strawmanning here doesn't seem like a fair reading to me.
@DinoDin I said in my previous post that I agree with the general principle that the justice system should treat people equally, although that's not always actually done at the moment. I think part of your frustration though is because there are 2 slightly different arguments being used.
- the first relates not to the punishment, but whether something is a particular crime or not.
- the second relates to the punishment for a particular crime.
I think the arguments you referred to were mainly about the first, but you're interpreting them as all about the second. For instance @Ammar gave the example of when a doctor would be held to a higher standard and convicted of a crime where members of the general public would not. This is not a specific thing relating to doctors, but a general principle used in our legal systems. The same principle could be used to hold security officers to a higher standard if they were involved in a shooting, or, indeed, police. Thus a member of the public would be more likely than a police officer to successfully claim self-defense on the grounds they panicked - or to claim manslaughter rather than murder on the grounds they didn't know what degree of force would be appropriate. I haven't looked at the facts of this case, but as I understand it the judge specifically allowed the jury to consider verdicts of both murder and manslaughter. I would be very surprised if the fact that they decided on murder had nothing to do with her profession.
Having said the above, I did have in mind the second argument when I made my post - although I don't advocate it, I can understand why the legal system might deliberately treat different people in different ways, to reflect a desire in society to single out a specific type of crime or criminal. To give a couple more examples of that possibility:
- a trustee or solicitor embezzling from their clients might be given a greater penalty than when the same crime is committed by someone who is not in the same position of trust.
- a teacher might get a harsher punishment for having sex with someone under-age.
Comments
She literally was on trial, and that's how she was found guilty. Being a police officer is not an ethnicity, it's a job that tends to attract certain types of people. And, she invoked her job in her defense and used her issued firearm to murder the man whose apartment it was. Her department went hard to defend her as well. Her profession was extremely appropriate.
One of the family members (who made it clear he wasn't speaking for the whole family) said he forgave her and didn't want her to go to prison. Nice yes, but families don't make these decisions. The father of a friend I had in high school drove drunk one night and the ensuing accident killed his best friend in the passenger seat. The family of the deceased was adamant they didn't want him to serve time. He was still given a year.
In the end, she is getting manslaughter punishment for a murder which is what most people here wanted so, I guess they'll be happy with the outcome.
There's no doubt that Police Officers are being given WAY too much leniency for the killings they commit. That there has been an obvious miscarriage of justice in those cases does not mean she should be punished more harshly to "even the scales".
I do have sympathy with the view that everyone should be treated equally by the justice system, but I'm not sure it's correct to characterize this as an attempt to even the scales. The law currently provides for stricter penalties in lots of different situations, e.g. repeat offences, terrorism, racist crimes etc. Part of the reason for such penalties is to deter particular types of offences. In the case of police misconduct though I think harsher penalties would be more to do with deterring criminal behavior by those in a much better position than typical citizens to both commit and get away with crimes.
10 years seems just about right to me. It's a pretty life ruining sentence, even if it only ends up as few as five years incarcerated. The evidence of the case seems to point to her recklessness killing a man. Not cold blooded calculation. And not some pattern of violent criminality in her.
I'll concede that it's possible her version of events was an extreme fabrication, and perhaps there was some strange cold-blooded murder here, but there simply wasn't evidence to support that theory.
I'm not sure this logic really holds. For one, nothing she did was as a police officer. Yes, she fired her service weapon, but that's a fact that could be just as relevant to a security guard or any job that has a gun.
Again, it's one thing to put more media focus on this story than a similar story not involving a police officer. It's one thing to be quicker in firing her from the job than you would someone else. It's entirely different to say that the criminal justice system is going to treat individuals differently because of some fact that has zero relevance to the crime in question.
Recklessly shooting a man is just as wrong if a security guard does it as when a cop does it as when a doctor does it. And, I think it's dangerous precedent to say certain people in society deserve to have their rights taken away for longer periods of time than other people. That is the logical consequence of what you're saying. Who determines what kind of people are going to deserve more punishment? There are plenty of jobs besides just police officer where you can recklessly endanger other lives, plenty of ways to slice up the population and see what groups disproportionately commit and get away with crime. Not sure we want to start using data like that in sentencing arguments, since that's going to have hideous consequences if followed to its logical conclusions.
Not to mention it's a straight up example of the ecological fallacy. Just because an individual can be grouped in a certain class, whether profession or anything else, does not mean the individual will exhibit the tendencies that the group exhibits.
There's not great evidence that's the case among police officers, relative to the general population. *But even if it was true* it wouldn't matter, because you cannot infer the characteristics of an individual because of the tendencies of a group to which they belong.
I haven't heard anyone outside this forum advocating it, either, so I think it really is just a strawman.
You think her life is ruined by 5 years in prison how about the guy that's dead.
Not something that changes with a longer sentence.
Looks like Americans won't be feeling the "Bern" or his ridiculous "Upper Upper Class" taxation laws.
Since he's Upper Class himself ya know.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/02/politics/bernie-sanders-artery-blockage-2020/index.html
This is a very narrow definition of "higher standards," and it's distinct from the hypothetical proposal that officers get extra jail time simply for having the same profession as other police officers. That is the idea that has received criticism, and that is not the idea that other forumites have advocated.
This might seem like a semantic quibble, but we do kinda need to be very specific about what people who disagree with us really believe.
In general, if an idea seems incredibly silly, that's an indication that it's not a common viewpoint. Silly ideas are easy to confuse with real ones, though, because it only takes a slight distortion to turn a real position into a straw one.
For example, I can rewrite the previous paragraph and completely warp its meaning with only minor changes:
In general, common viewpoints aren't silly. Silly ideas look like real ones, though, because there's only a slight difference between a real one and a fake one.
By rewording that paragraph just slightly, I turn the claim from "Straw arguments can look like real ones to those who disagree with them" to "Majority viewpoints are sensible, but they're almost the same as silly viewpoints." It only takes a minor misinterpretation to turn something reasonable into something nonsensical.
I'll never understand this argument. That "rich Democrats and Hollywood types" want to tax everyone into oblivion. You do realize that they are voting and advocating to tax THEMSELVES right?? If someone worth a million plus believes they and those like them should be doing more, how is that a negative character trait?? And yet being rich and believing you should pay LESS is somehow more virtuous?? Upside-down world. This is right on the level of "if you've ever flown in a plane you can't be worried about climate change".
There's the rub, they will never tax anyone. Smoke and Mirrors my friend.
Also, Virtue and Honor died out with our Ancestors. Todays humans are a degenerate mess. No one does what's right for others, only for themselves.
I dunno what to say really, except to express some frustration here. I've cited the evidence of people saying that she's police ought to factor into the criminal sentencing, a position at least one poster on here has repeated explicitly in multiple posts. Multiple other posters have interpreted these statements that way. And you're accusing me of strawmanning, but don't really have the quotes to back it up, instead opting for a lengthy hypothetical that doesn't really advance the discussion on what was previously said.
I mean, this is just one quote, from the poster Ammar: "Also, I just wanted to add that certain professions serving the state/community require high ethical standards which do not stop when they go off work. Police officers, politicians, attorneys are all examples. So it is reasonable to me that a violations of these standards should carry a harsher penalty."
How can anyone, after having this quoted to them reasonably say: "The only one of them that even obliquely references actual criminal penalties for officers only applies to on-duty breaches of the law"? I dunno. With respect, there are multiple of us interpreting this the same way. Just you saying otherwise, so far. Accusing us of strawmanning here doesn't seem like a fair reading to me.
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/apr/14/bernie-sanders/bernie-sanders-says-hes-one-poorer-members-united-/
Yes, he would raise taxes on the rich.
Bernie is not rich. At all. If he has 50 million dollars that's not rich.
Look at Billionaires like Trump or the Koch Brothers or Jeff Bezos. They laugh at mere millionaires while a million dollars seems like an impossibly large amount of money to normal people it's nothing to a billionaire. Bezos' fortune has been increasing by roughly $231,000 per minute. If he gave away a million dollars a day it would take 408 years or something to deplete his fortune.
If you doubt Bernie that's because you've bought the propaganda by the real elites and are voting against your own interests.
top 10 richest families in America:
1. Walton – Republican — The family owns the Walmart corporation. The Walton family fortune is estimated to be about $145.3 billion.
2. Koch – Republican — Businessmen, owners of Koch Industries, a manufacturing company. Koch brothers have a net worth of about $41 billion each ($82 billion together).
3. Mars – Republican — Own the Mars candy company. The three children of founder Forrest Mars are worth about $11 billion each ($33 billion together).
4. Cargill-MacMillan – Republican — The Cargill-MacMillan family owns 90 percent of the largest privately-owned corporation in the U.S. The family, as a whole, is worth about $49 billion.
5. Johnson (Fidelity) – Republican — Overseers at Fidelity, ensuring the cash of millions of Americans. The family has a combined net worth of $28.5 billion.
6. Hearst – Republican — The Hearst family owns one of America’s largest media companies. The family is valued at $28 billion.
7. Cox – Democrat — The Cox family owns a number of auto consumer sites and services (Kelley Blue Book, AutoTrader.com, etc.). They have an estimated net worth of $41 billion.
8. Pritzker – Both — Founders of Hyatt. The family has a combined value of $29 billion in 2017.
9. Johnson (S.C. Johnson) – Republican — The Johnson family is known for their cleaning products and hygiene products. They are valued at $30 billion.
10. Duncan – Republican — The Duncan family works mostly with oil and pipelines. The family is valued at about $21.5 billion.
$50 mill is not rich? Is that what The Democrats brainwashed ya''ll into believing now?
To add, he would not raise taxes on the Super Rich or Super Rich businesses cause they would just pick up and leave. Empty their American accounts and go bye-bye.
The only thing Bernie Sanders would increase is Israel's aid packages.
At root, I just didn't like the idea of an uncharitable interpretation of other forumites' words, so I offered a more charitable interpretation for any forumites who might not swing by the thread again until many pages later. The idea is to discourage judgment of folks who aren't around right now.
@DinoDin I said in my previous post that I agree with the general principle that the justice system should treat people equally, although that's not always actually done at the moment. I think part of your frustration though is because there are 2 slightly different arguments being used.
- the first relates not to the punishment, but whether something is a particular crime or not.
- the second relates to the punishment for a particular crime.
I think the arguments you referred to were mainly about the first, but you're interpreting them as all about the second. For instance @Ammar gave the example of when a doctor would be held to a higher standard and convicted of a crime where members of the general public would not. This is not a specific thing relating to doctors, but a general principle used in our legal systems. The same principle could be used to hold security officers to a higher standard if they were involved in a shooting, or, indeed, police. Thus a member of the public would be more likely than a police officer to successfully claim self-defense on the grounds they panicked - or to claim manslaughter rather than murder on the grounds they didn't know what degree of force would be appropriate. I haven't looked at the facts of this case, but as I understand it the judge specifically allowed the jury to consider verdicts of both murder and manslaughter. I would be very surprised if the fact that they decided on murder had nothing to do with her profession.
Having said the above, I did have in mind the second argument when I made my post - although I don't advocate it, I can understand why the legal system might deliberately treat different people in different ways, to reflect a desire in society to single out a specific type of crime or criminal. To give a couple more examples of that possibility:
- a trustee or solicitor embezzling from their clients might be given a greater penalty than when the same crime is committed by someone who is not in the same position of trust.
- a teacher might get a harsher punishment for having sex with someone under-age.