# No more death penalty....



## CAOX3 (Apr 3, 2010)

http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-...r-includes-killers-of-Virginias-EMS-providers

*"In a move that is surprising and puzzling, the Virginia state Senate has decided that killing an EMS provider is not capital murder and therefore not eligible for the death penalty."*

Sad.

*The title of this thread should have been "No death penalty"


----------



## firecoins (Apr 3, 2010)

why is killing EMS not a capitol murder?  For what reason?


----------



## CAOX3 (Apr 3, 2010)

firecoins said:


> why is killing EMS not a capitol murder?  For what reason?



There wasnt much in the story but I agree its ridiculous.


----------



## lightsandsirens5 (Apr 3, 2010)

HOLY HECK!!!!!!! What, are we not people any more?\

Somebody step on the crumb that made that law.h34r:


----------



## Shishkabob (Apr 3, 2010)

It's one thing to not have EMS as capital murder... but taking it off once it's already on?


Who the hell lobbied for that?


----------



## bstone (Apr 4, 2010)

A profoundly bad change to the bill.


----------



## NERDulance (Apr 4, 2010)

You mean an EMT is no more important than John Q. Citizen? We should be glad about this. I mean, I disdain this idea of one life being worth more than another. I think it is arrogant.


----------



## FLEMTP (Apr 4, 2010)

NERDulance said:


> You mean an EMT is no more important than John Q. Citizen? We should be glad about this. I mean, I disdain this idea of one life being worth more than another. I think it is arrogant.



Its not that EMS providers are any more "important" that an average person, its the fact that a person killed a uniformed emergency services worker in the performance of their duty..and it should only be while in performance of their duties. If you are off duty and out of uniform, and the person has no knowledge that you are EMS (or fire or LEO even) then it should not be an elevated charge.

In florida battery is a simple misdemeanor, however, there is a law that states that battery of a person in a uniform is an elevated charge (elevated to a felony) due to the fact that they are an "authority figure" of sorts, and it shows a much more malicious intent on the behalf of the person committing the crime.. and the law is referred to as "battery LEO" but it covers LEO, Fire, EMS, uniformed security personnel, and emergency medical workers in the performance of their duties (ie: ER docs, ER nurses, ER techs, etc) but the catch is they have to be in a uniform or readily identifiable as whatever discipline they are, and in performance of their duties. 

You cant just yell out "im a paramedic" if someone goes to hit you and expect them to get charged with a felony if you're just walking down the street in regular clothing, shopping with the family for example

It should be the same deal with murder. If you murder someone on duty, in uniform or identifiable as public safety personnel, or if you murder them off duty specifically because you are aware they are public safety personnel, then you should be charged with a capitol offense. As I said, it shows a much more malicious intent from the person committing a crime, and it is a direct threat to public safety.

If you are murdered off duty and the person has no idea you're a public safety type person, and they didn't choose you as a victim because of this, then it should be regular 1st or 2nd degree murder.


----------



## NERDulance (Apr 4, 2010)

FLEMTP said:


> Its not that EMS providers are any more "important" that an average person, its the fact that a person killed a uniformed emergency services worker in the performance of their duty..and it should only be while in performance of their duties. If you are off duty and out of uniform, and the person has no knowledge that you are EMS (or fire or LEO even) then it should not be an elevated charge.





You still elevate the worth of the “uniformed” person above that of one of the lowly, less heroic and not-so-godly, commoner types. That’s crap.


----------



## Motojunkie (Apr 4, 2010)

Please elaborate on your argument because I'm failing to see how the lives of 2 gangbangers in a stolen Caprice are equal to 2 EMS professionals in an ambulance.


----------



## Shishkabob (Apr 4, 2010)

NERDulance said:


> You still elevate the worth of the “uniformed” person above that of one of the lowly, less heroic and not-so-godly, commoner types. That’s crap.



You failed to comprehend what he said, than.


An attack on a uniformed public servant is instantly more malicious than an attack on random Joe Schmo, because it's an attack on what the person stands for, not the person themself.


----------



## adamjh3 (Apr 4, 2010)

Motojunkie said:


> Please elaborate on your argument because I'm failing to see how the lives of 2 gangbangers in a stolen Caprice are equal to 2 EMS professionals in an ambulance.




Yeah, obviously everyone who isn't an EMS professional in an ambulance is a gangbanger in a stolen car. Duh.

We're way more important than the WWII veteran who died as a result of physical elder abuse. 

And the 2 year old whose mother drowned her in a bathtub.

And we're definitely much more important than the teenage couple that was murdered in a public park, enjoying their three month anniversary


----------



## FLEMTP (Apr 4, 2010)

Linuss said:


> You failed to comprehend what he said, than.
> 
> 
> An attack on a uniformed public servant is instantly more malicious than an attack on random Joe Schmo, because it's an attack on what the person stands for, not the person themself.



At least someone here gets it ! loll


----------



## NERDulance (Apr 4, 2010)

Linuss said:


> You failed to comprehend what he said, than.
> 
> 
> An attack on a uniformed public servant is instantly more malicious than an attack on random Joe Schmo, because it's an attack on what the person stands for, not the person themself.



Well why didn’t you say so?

Sorry Mr. Auto-mechanic and UPS delivery driver, though you wear a uniform and are a valuable and productive member of society, if someone kills you, we are going to punish them less. You see what our uniform indicates is that we are a more valuable societal asset. 



Semantics. Still rubbish.


----------



## Shishkabob (Apr 4, 2010)

You still don't get it.

It has nothing to do with the person.  It has nothing to do with the projected worth of the person to society.  


It has every thing to do with the attack on the state and authority.


That like saying treason is no worse than corporate espionage.  It's not the info, but the target.


----------



## NERDulance (Apr 4, 2010)

No I get it just fine, buddy. You will have to forgive me as I may not have been clear. The reference to the ’not-so-godly’ is actually a reference to the State and its agents. It is clear the state is supreme and offenses against it are held in higher regard than are others. I just choose to reject that idea. Though that is how society has been molded to think, I just go against that grain. 

In the end we are all people fulfilling various roles in society. Some roles are certainly more impacting upon society but that does not mean I am going to separate the role from the person. If you kill a man, irregardless of his position or so-called authority, you should be punished on that merit and not his role. To do otherwise creates a special class. A more protected class of the citizenry. 

I guess you and I will have to agree to disagree on it. I wont lose any sleep over it.


----------



## CAOX3 (Apr 4, 2010)

The law is in place to protect citizens who serve the public.  

We find ourself in defenseless situations at times and in some areas the only thing protecting us from the less desirables is they know they get a fast track to the needle if they decide to use us as target practise.

It has nothing to do with who s life is more valuable.  Its in place as a deterrent.  The UPS man or the auto mechanic isnt knocking on doors in the ghetto at 3 am.


----------



## firecoins (Apr 4, 2010)

Cops, firefighers, EMS personel and other emergency workers often have a LEGAL duty to respond.  Hence when you attack them it SHOULD be a more serious crime.

The UPS man does not have a LEGAL duty to deliver your package.  UPS can fire him but he doesn't have the legal obligation to enter scenes that could turn dangerous.


----------



## Scout (Apr 5, 2010)

NERDulance said:


> Semantics. Still rubbish.



What is being suggested is its an attack on an institution or an ideal rather than an instance.


For example if i burn an American flag it means something, as distinct from a plain team flag. It is the representation not the act.


----------



## firecoins (Apr 5, 2010)

Scout said:


> What is being suggested is its an attack on an institution or an ideal rather than an instance.
> 
> 
> For example if i burn an American flag it means something, as distinct from a plain team flag. It is the representation not the act.



I am against the burning of a plain white flag. B)


----------



## Scout (Apr 5, 2010)

firecoins said:


> I am against the burning of a plain white flag. B)



Well if you want to be smart, its a team flag, it could be blue, and its degrees not on off, i'm sure if i burned your team flag you would disagree but most people would't be offended.


----------



## EMS_rabbit (Apr 5, 2010)

HOLY CRAP well guess this means I'm bringing my vest to work now!


----------



## armywifeemt (Apr 5, 2010)

No, my life is no more valuable than any other just by virtue of being an EMT... but the point at which I put on that uniform and go out and deal with chaos, death, and things that most people would wretch at the sight of... in that moment, there is a difference between killing me and killing the teenage couple in the park celebrating their third anniversary. It is not that those teenagers are not important. It is not that the pregnant woman (pregnant women tend to be targeted for crimes more often) is not important. They are all incredibly important.. I am trying to keep them alive when people do horrible things to them because they are important to me, even if I do not know them. No one should be murdered....

But there is something that is more intrinsically wrong about killing someone who is trying to save people's lives than killing someone who is minding their own business. It is not that my life holds more value... it is that the crime is somehow more depraved. It isn't that killing a teenager isn't horrific... it is that killing someone who is actively trying to protect other people is somehow more horrific. 

Personally I believe capital punishment is underused. We should just execute anyone who kills another person in cold blood. Then we wont have to have this debate.

_Edited for grammatical consistency._


----------



## adamjh3 (Apr 6, 2010)

armywifeemt said:


> *Personally I believe capital punishment is underused. We should just execute anyone who kills another person in cold blood. Then we wont have to have this debate.*




That pretty much sums it up.


----------



## Scout (Apr 6, 2010)

armywifeemt said:


> We should just execute anyone who kills another person in cold blood. Then we wont have to have this debate.




and what happens when you make a mistake? Death is rather final,


----------



## armywifeemt (Apr 6, 2010)

I don't think this thread was intended to debate the merits and disadvantages of the death penalty, and I would strongly advise against a heated argument which will likely end in this thread being closed.

Since my previously stated opinion on the matter has been challenged, and I feel the need to defend it. This is in spite of the fact that as my opinion it does not need defense since I do not present it as anything more than a personal belief. 

However, clarification can't possibly be a bad thing, and I do not intend this to be argumentative so much as to elaborate on what I've already said. 

I believe the death penalty is underused. I believe it should be used in all cases of cold blooded murder. That said, I understand that all cases cannot be backed up with irrefutable evidence. Unless the evidence is irrefutable (multiple creditable witnesses, DNA, etc etc etc) yes, death is a little too final and irrevocable for my comfort. However, in those cases where the evidence is irrefutable, I think that they should be given fewer appeals and that the execution should be carried out quickly, and without mercy. 

There are many things to be said against the death penalty, not the least of which is the fact that mistakes have been made in the past, and the wrong person has been executed for a crime they did not commit. 

Zero tolerance societies seem to have a lot less murder in the first place, though. Why not strive to get a little closer to utopia?


----------



## JPINFV (Apr 6, 2010)

armywifeemt said:


> Zero tolerance societies seem to have a lot less murder in the first place, though. Why not strive to get a little closer to utopia?



Which countries are these utopias? 

Which appeals should be cut off? If a new technology becomes available (example would be when DNA testing first starting taking off), should an appeal be denied because it's too late?


----------



## JPINFV (Apr 6, 2010)

firecoins said:


> Cops, firefighers, EMS personel and other emergency workers often have a LEGAL duty to respond.  Hence when you attack them it SHOULD be a more serious crime.



Actually, there's ample case law stating that police do not have a duty to respond. See Balistreri v Pacifica Police Department, Gonzales v City of Castle Rock, and Warren v District of Columbia.


----------



## Veneficus (Apr 6, 2010)

*perspective as always*



NERDulance said:


> To do otherwise creates a special class. A more protected class of the citizenry



I hate to be the one to point this out, but there is such an abundance of special classes in US society (or any society for that matter) that attempting to eliminate it is a fools errand. In Fact I think it was the rally cry of communism, which didn't really eliminate a special class, just rearranged who was special. 

Entertainment celebrities, politicians, sports figures, and a host of others are all protected classes.  The tirck is to get into one of these protected species, not be Joe Average. 

Having said that, and addressing the Police, EMS, Fire, Doctor, Nurse class, since the original tribal medicine men, medical persons and by extension healthcare workers have been considered a special class. It has not been until recently (the last 100 or so years) that the status of a "healer" has been diminished. Even then only in certain societies, not as a general rule. 

As well, "An attack on the King's soldiers represents an attack on the King." While humans have largely moved on from monarchy and feudalism, a functionng society (which is important if Joe Average hopes to survive to reporduce) requires that the enforcers of sociological rules and values have the ability to police such. Otherwise a population degrades into anarchy. Which most average people would not survive in. The inefficency and often impossibility of "everyman for himself" is what lead to family units and by extension, communities and nations and our very modern values.

Without rules of society, there are no womens rights, racial equality, some semblence of social equality, or anything of the sort. The only right becomes "might is right." I know you don't want to live in such an environment. If you do, Somalia, Pakistan, or Afghanistan (and a few other places) may suit you better. 

Having gone through this explanation, an attack on a uniformed officer (of any kind) is a direct assault to the order of society (notice I didn't say rules, which are more like guidlines  ) It is a threat to not only public safety, but our very way of life. In most nations, the state hasmonopoly control on violence. In the US, great pains are taken to resist this monopoly in such measures as indiidual right to bear arms, castle laws, duty to not retreat, etc. It empowers Joe Average to defend himself on a primal level prior to or in the event law enforcement cannot respond in time. It doesn't provide protection, it simply maintains your ability to use violence against violence so you or those in your circle might survive to reproduce. When you look at armed insurrection around the world and through history, you can see why governments (aka protected class) fear not controlling the violence monopoly. 

If you are willing to knowingly attack those who make it possible for people to live without constant threat, the response needs to be harsher than a crime of opportunity. Otherwise there is nothing that stops the strong from preying on the weak. Basically the unity of society backs the will to maintain it in the form of civil authorities. 

A crime against a healthcare worker, in many places is considered a greater offense, perhaps legally, but often more morally and socially, because such is an attack on the very survival of the species as well as survival of the at risk or compromised individual.

A person willing to sacrifice their own very peace or survival for their impulsive urges or greed is a threat to all of humanity.


----------



## armywifeemt (Apr 6, 2010)

JPINFV said:


> Which countries are these utopias?
> 
> Which appeals should be cut off? If a new technology becomes available (example would be when DNA testing first starting taking off), should an appeal be denied because it's too late?



My mother quite enjoyed living in Saudi Arabia during her childhood. That is one of those societies... 

Now, that said, I am not saying we should adopt the strict religious laws that many of these countries have.. But certainly zero tolerance for violence can't be a bad thing.


----------



## JPINFV (Apr 6, 2010)

I agree that violence isn't acceptable, but the problem I have with zero tolerance [anything] is that zero tolerance often goes along with zero thought. I understand, for example, why there's a difference between 1st degree murder, 2nd degree murder, special circumstances, manslaughter, etc. Premeditated murder and involuntary vehicular homicide shouldn't have the same punishment, however if a true zero tolerance philosophy is adopted, then it is. Take schools for example. Ok, children shouldn't be taking guns to school (and even then, it really depends as students get older depending on location. For example, rural schools during hunting season is a different situation than suburbeia), however should we really be considering suspending 4th graders for bring a 2 inch LEGO gun to school?

Another example. Sex offender registries. Ok... keep pedos away from schools (even though most sexual abuse is not from strangers). However when you start finding 18 year olds on the list for having relations with his 17 y/o girl friend or someone else for public urination on the list, then there's a problem. However any politician who tries to reform laws like the sex offender list are going to be branded as pedo loving politicians who are soft on crime even if the reform has nothing to do with real sexual predators. 

Once you start going down the zero tolerance path, there is no way to back up and it gets harder and harder to put the breaks on.


----------



## armywifeemt (Apr 6, 2010)

We all know that different crimes have extenuating circumstances. 

If a woman kills a man because the man has been abusing her for years, that isn't cold blooded murder. If a man kills a woman because she has been abusing him for years, the same goes. 

Any situation that causes rational thought to go out the window (crimes of passion) the person cannot be held *FULLY* accountable for their actions. No, you can't execute those people. Those people should be imprisoned... I have been angry beyond rational thinking before, and I haven't snapped to the point of killing someone... We can't have loose cannons running around endangering anyone who does something they might perceive as mistreatment. 

There is also this... there is a difference between killing someone and murdering someone. Murder is the wrongful killing of someone. The simple fact that we have two different words shows that we as a society are able to distinguish between the two. 

Cold-blooded is the key to what I said. Without cause or mitigating circumstance, someone kills someone else. That is the key to it.


----------



## TransportJockey (Apr 6, 2010)

I think it sucks, cause damned right my life is more valuable than everyone elses


----------



## Shishkabob (Apr 6, 2010)

armywifeemt said:


> If a woman kills a man because the man has been abusing her for years, that isn't cold blooded murder.



Actually, unless he is actively in the process of beating her, yes, it still is 1st degree murder.


----------



## atropine (Apr 7, 2010)

Does it really matter, unless your swore in by the mayor, your are just a regular joe like everyone else at least where I work it's that way.


----------



## Veneficus (Apr 7, 2010)

Linuss said:


> Actually, unless he is actively in the process of beating her, yes, it still is 1st degree murder.



I think this may depend on the state. Ohio has several victim protection laws regarding this. 

I am not a legal expert so I can only say from what I understand if there is a pattern or prolonged abuse if the victim kills the abuser in order to escape the abuse, even if the abuser is prone, they may not face charges at all or a much reduced one.


----------

