College & High School Shootings: What Now

[ThisYouWillDo]

Ok - I have the wrong impression about American cops - I get it from the way your film makers portray them.

I don't see why my argument was extreme. Why is the killing of an unarmed woman who disturbs you during the commission of a crime, in the heat of the moment less bad than killing an armed cop who does the same thing? To my mind, if either is worse than the other (which I do not believe) then it is the killing of the unarmed woman which deserves harsher punishment.

If a man is a threat to society, because he is likely to kill anyone and everyone who gets in his way, he must be taken out of society: I would prefer that to be permanently gaoled.

If a man only kills policemen, he would appear to be obsessive and in need of psychiatric treatment rather than execution.

And what if a policeman's wife kills him during a domestic dispute?

Finally, as lawyers are as important a part of the legal system as police officers are, why should their murders not be treated in exactly the same way.

Osme: Please tell me, are cars designed to kill, or do they have another purpose? What about guns? Maybe you can hold them by the barrel and use them as hammers?

It would be interesting to compare the number of car deaths per car owner with gun deaths per gun owner too.

Also, how many gun victims were shot by automatics?

BTW, you might be amused to know that in all the years' driving experience I have had - too many to want to think about - I had never had an accident until I got an automatic a few years ago. I have had two minor accidents since: I rear ended someone, and I took out a traffic sign. So I'm on your side in that regard )

TYWD

[mkemse]

Ok - I have the wrong impression about American cops - I get it from the way your film makers portray them.

I don't see why my argument was extreme. Why is the killing of an unarmed woman who disturbs you during the commission of a crime, in the heat of the moment less bad than killing an armed cop who does the same thing? To my mind, if either is worse than the other (which I do not believe) then it is the killing of the unarmed woman which deserves harsher punishment.

If a man is a threat to society, because he is likely to kill anyone and everyone who gets in his way, he must be taken out of society: I would prefer that to be permanently gaoled.

If a man only kills policemen, he would appear to be obsessive and in need of psychiatric treatment rather than execution.

And what if a policeman's wife kills him during a domestic dispute?

Finally, as lawyers are as important a part of the legal system as police officers are, why should their murders not be treated in exactly the same way.

Osme: Please tell me, are cars designed to kill, or do they have another purpose? What about guns? Maybe you can hold them by the barrel and use them as hammers?

It would be interesting to compare the number of car deaths per car owner with gun deaths per gun owner too.

Also, how many gun victims were shot by automatics?

BTW, you might be amused to know that in all the years' driving experience I have had - too many to want to think about - I had never had an accident until I got an automatic a few years ago. I have had two minor accidents since: I rear ended someone, and I took out a traffic sign. So I'm on your side in that regard )

TYWD

our film maker and movie studios sebsationlizeeverything, but in reality the Gunman at NIU had a Master in Pyscology, and more in portent passed EVERY bck ground check required inthis country to puchase a gun, he had a 2 day wait to check on his mental stability he passed, everytning he did to obtain his guns was legal, they talked to the gun dealer who sold them and the dealer said and has paper work yo back it up, he wentt hrough all the legal steps required by law, back groundcheck, mental health histiry ect and the gun man came up clean on all tests, what next??

[Thorne]

Ok - I have the wrong impression about American cops - I get it from the way your film makers portray them.

Yeah, I guess that would be equivalent to my getting my impressions of English bobbies from watching Benny Hill. Not necessarily the best source.

Why is the killing of an unarmed woman who disturbs you during the commission of a crime, in the heat of the moment less bad than killing an armed cop who does the same thing?

Obviously, if the criminal kills the unarmed woman then he is, at least by my definition, a threat to society. He has and will kill indiscriminately. Even if he doesn't try to kill the cops when they approach him, he is a threat. But when he deliberately attacks an armed policeman he is either suicidal (in which case, take shoot the bastard and don't spare the bullets) or he's an even bigger threat to society (same result.) Obviously, anyone who is not afraid to attack an armed police officer isn't going to worry about killing anyone else.

If a man is a threat to society, because he is likely to kill anyone and everyone who gets in his way, he must be taken out of society: I would prefer that to be permanently gaoled.

I don't know about the UK, but in the US I'm not sure there is any such thing as permanently jailed. Far too many violent criminals manage to either escape or snow a parole board into letting them out.

And what if a policeman's wife kills him during a domestic dispute?

Again, each case has to be judged independently. In this case she's probably not killing him because he's a policeman, but because he's a bad husband, or for some other domestic reason. Chances are she's no threat to anyone else.

Finally, as lawyers are as important a part of the legal system as police officers are, why should their murders not be treated in exactly the same way.

It might come to that. If we reach a stage where criminals are killing the lawyers and judges who are prosecuting them, then obviously they are as much of a danger as if they were killing policemen.

It's obvious that you have a higher regard for the "sanctity" of human life than I do. I just feel like there are some people in this world who have proven by their own actions that they do not deserve to live with the rest of us. Jails don't always work with these kinds of people, and history has shown that penal colonies don't work well either. For the safety of law abiding citizens I think the death penalty is SOMETIMES the only solution.

[Ozme52]

Why is the killing of an unarmed woman who disturbs you during the commission of a crime, in the heat of the moment less bad than killing an armed cop who does the same thing? To my mind, if either is worse than the other (which I do not believe) then it is the killing of the unarmed woman which deserves harsher punishment.

You're absolutely right TY. There is no difference per se. Both acts are equally reprehensible.

But this country debates the death penalty... and places where they are loathe to try criminals with the death penalty 'on the table' for political reasons, have shown their true desire by approving the death penalty for the killing of law officers.

I'm not saying yea or nay, regarding the death penalty... but that's the way it is... kill a cop, you die. Kill someone else...

It's just an excuse... if you're willing to kill a cop, we don't want to give you a chance to do it again.

It goes to the very core of that issue.