Harper's law: we need a Duggan's law

[Pickman's model]

We've all heard of Harper's law ‘Harper’s law’: killing emergency workers to bring life sentence

But we need a law to protect the public from the actions of the police, prison officers, immigration officials and those acting in those or similar roles in privatised prisons etc. Call it Duggan's law, where officers found to have unlawfully killed or injured members of the public have their status treated as an aggravating factor, and where killing a member of the public would attract an automatic life tariff. We are shown on a daily basis that police officers cannot be trusted by the number convicted, let alone accused or charged, of the most heinous offences. And so consideration should be given by the courts to the weight they give officers' evidence. Until the police, prison officers etc are held to genuine accountability who can have any faith in them bar the naive and gullible?

 

[Thaw]

Would that apply to doctors and nurses who kill, or just the police?

 

[Pickman's model]

Would that apply to doctors and nurses who kill, or just the police?

Yes - one need only think of Crippen and Shipman

 

[platinumsage]

I got to “where killing a member of the public would attract an automatic life tariff” and stopped. You outsource your violence to the police, but yet then demand a murder sentence for resulting deaths that aren’t murder. Pretty cowardly really - equivalent, if the police aren’t doing the dirty work, to an automatic life sentence for any member of the public who commits manslaughter in self-defence.

 

[two sheds]

When I saw the headline I though 'yes of course we need that' to protect ambulance drivers, NHS staff, firefighters and the like from the fuckwits who lob bricks on them when they're responding to an emergency. Police is a bit different though they way some of them will happily beat the shit out of people who are 'resisting arrest'.

 

[Petcha]

It's a bonkers law. I don't see how a cop's life is worth more than anyone else's.

 

[Epona]

We've all heard of Harper's law ‘Harper’s law’: killing emergency workers to bring life sentence

But we need a law to protect the public from the actions of the police, prison officers, immigration officials and those acting in those or similar roles in privatised prisons etc. Call it Duggan's law, where officers found to have unlawfully killed or injured members of the public have their status treated as an aggravating factor, and where killing a member of the public would attract an automatic life tariff. We are shown on a daily basis that police officers cannot be trusted by the number convicted, let alone accused or charged, of the most heinous offences. And so consideration should be given by the courts to the weight they give officers' evidence. Until the police, prison officers etc are held to genuine accountability who can have any faith in them bar the naive and gullible?

Pretty much the essence of what I was yelling at the telly this morning. My yelling wasn't quite as eloquent and tended towards higher proportion of expletives to coherent sentences mind you.

 

[CNT36]

I got to “where killing a member of the public would attract an automatic life tariff” and stopped. You outsource your violence to the police, but yet then demand a murder sentence for resulting deaths that aren’t murder. Pretty cowardly really - equivalent, if the police aren’t doing the dirty work, to an automatic life sentence for any member of the public who commits manslaughter in self-defence.

Outsource your violence to the police. What Newspeak is this?

 

[platinumsage]

Outsource your violence to the police. What Newspeak is this?

That's what the public do when they ask the police to shoot terrorists or chase after moped theives or whatever, instead of undertaking those duties themselves.

 

[Pickman's model]

That's what the public do when they ask the police to shoot terrorists or chase after moped theives or whatever, instead of undertaking those duties themselves.

Chasing moped thieves shouldn't involve violence should it?

 

[platinumsage]

Chasing moped thieves shouldn't involve violence should it?

You'd ask them nicely if they would be so kind as to stay still for you? Good luck with that.

 

[Pickman's model]

I got to “where killing a member of the public would attract an automatic life tariff” and stopped. You outsource your violence to the police, but yet then demand a murder sentence for resulting deaths that aren’t murder. Pretty cowardly really - equivalent, if the police aren’t doing the dirty work, to an automatic life sentence for any member of the public who commits manslaughter in self-defence.

Cops are given a special position within our society and should be held to high standards in the discharge of their powers. Where they undermine that trust, abuse their position, or harm the people they affect to serve they should receive a higher sentence to reflect that.

 

[platinumsage]

Cops are given a special position within our society and should be held to high standards in the discharge of their powers. Where they undermine that trust, abuse their position, or harm the people they affect to serve they should receive a higher sentence to reflect that.

Yes, they should receive sentences that reflect the crime and their position. This would include harsher sentences for some crimes, but reduced sentences for others, depending on the circumstances. Mandatory life sentences aren't this.

 

[Pickman's model]

You'd ask them nicely if they would be so kind as to stay still for you? Good luck with that.

you're not demonstrating the necessity of violence in a chase and i have to assume that you don't actually have a definition of violence

 

[Pickman's model]

Yes, they should receive sentences that reflect the crime and their position. This would include harsher sentences for some crimes, but reduced sentences for others, depending on the circumstances. Mandatory life sentences aren't this

you clearly haven't read about harper's law via the link cunningly hidden in the op or you'd know it means mandatory life sentences for killing a cop or nurse etc while they're on duty - be that manslaughter or murder. so you're really saying it's fine for members of the public to be given mandatory life sentences but it's out of order for cops to receive the same.

 

[platinumsage]

you clearly haven't read about harper's law via the link cunningly hidden in the op or you'd know it means mandatory life sentences for killing a cop or nurse etc while they're on duty - be that manslaughter or murder. so you're really saying it's fine for members of the public to be given mandatory life sentences but it's out of order for cops to receive the same.

Yes, we ask police to be violent on our behalf so should recognise that sometimes that will go wrong. Pretty sure we don't ask thieves to make off from police reckless as to whether they're dragging a cop behind their vehicle.

 

[platinumsage]

I'm not in favour of mandatory sentence generally, they shouldn't be necessary if non-mandatory sentences are given appropriately.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

We've all heard of Harper's law ‘Harper’s law’: killing emergency workers to bring life sentence

But we need a law to protect the public from the actions of the police, prison officers, immigration officials and those acting in those or similar roles in privatised prisons etc. Call it Duggan's law, where officers found to have unlawfully killed or injured members of the public have their status treated as an aggravating factor, and where killing a member of the public would attract an automatic life tariff. We are shown on a daily basis that police officers cannot be trusted by the number convicted, let alone accused or charged, of the most heinous offences. And so consideration should be given by the courts to the weight they give officers' evidence. Until the police, prison officers etc are held to genuine accountability who can have any faith in them bar the naive and gullible?

It's a good idea, but let down by this: where officers found to have unlawfully killed or injured members of the public

Their killings are always judged to be lawful, "honestly held belief" etc.

 

[Pickman's model]

It's a good idea, but let down by this: where officers found to have unlawfully killed or injured members of the public

Their killings are always judged to be lawful, "honestly held belief" etc.

addressed subtly by courts reconsidering the weight given to their evidence.

 

[Pickman's model]

Yes, we ask police to be violent on our behalf so should recognise that sometimes that will go wrong. Pretty sure we don't ask thieves to make off from police reckless as to whether they're dragging a cop behind their vehicle.

'we' don't ask cops to act recklessly
we don't ask cops to shoot people down when they're obeying police instructions
we don't ask cops to kill newspaper vendors
we don't ask cops to shoot unarmed men
we don't ask cops to beat people to death in police cells - and we definitely don't ask them to do that and then frame other prisoners

there are, it seems to me, two problems here - first, that there are a number of loopholes which allow cops to evade responsibility for their actions which any reasonable polity would close (Bahnhof Strasse's post above) and that where they are convicted, they are often given sentences which in no way reflect the crime committed: i seek merely to redress the balance.

 

[8ball]

there are, it seems to me, two problems here - first, that there are a number of loopholes which allow cops to evade responsibility for their actions which any reasonable polity would close (Bahnhof Strasse's post above) and that where they are convicted, they are often given sentences which in no way reflect the crime committed: i seek merely to redress the balance.

On that last point, it seems easy to argue ex-urbana* that if killing a policeman is to carry a special status meaning there is a heavier penalty to kill them, then coppers that kill should receive a commensurately more severe penalty.


* - outside urban, to normies

 

[CNT36]

That's what the public do when they ask the police to shoot terrorists or chase after moped theives or whatever, instead of undertaking those duties themselves.

I don't ask them to do that or to hassle me while I chase down terrorists on a stolen moped.

 

[SpookyFrank]

I got to “where killing a member of the public would attract an automatic life tariff” and stopped. You outsource your violence to the police, but yet then demand a murder sentence for resulting deaths that aren’t murder. Pretty cowardly really - equivalent, if the police aren’t doing the dirty work, to an automatic life sentence for any member of the public who commits manslaughter in self-defence.

Killing innocent people isn't work.

Considering how high the bar is for a filth to get convicted of murder (see the killing of Dalian Atkinson who was kicked in the head while already unconscious from multiple taser shots and that still somehow wasn't murder) I'm not too worried about innocent filth getting done for killing an actually dangerous person in actual self defence.

 

[Rob Ray]

Yes, we ask police to be violent on our behalf so should recognise that sometimes that will go wrong..

Who's this "we" you speak of? The only thing I've ever asked the cops for is an insurance claim number (as though they'd actually go out and look for the stuff I'd had stolen lol), and I've never once been asked for my consent, or even my view, on their right to beat people up in my name.

If it were up to me, even within capitalism, on a basis of reform, the entire system would be torn down to the root and totally rethought. The people we're giving this monopoly of violence to, how they're hired, trained, the powers they're given, the situations they're employed to deal with and the people given oversight on their actions are all, to varying degrees, incompetent, corrupt and systemically lopsided in favour of elite interests.

In order to let someone loose to save lives as a doctor we demand they train for five years, and if they make a mistake they can be sued for criminal negligence and banned from further practice. To give somebody decision-making powers on beating up their fellow citizens we demand they train for one year, and the last time an officer got done for a death in custody was 1969. Most of them, if they're one of the many, many officers who've done something heinous like misusing their privileges to stalk people on the national police database, just quit for a while and quietly rejoin again. Or just don't get fired even after they're convicted. That's how seriously we don't take this shit as a society.