Posted on 01/06/2015 7:07:10 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Emotions are running high, not only in New York City but across the nation, in the wake of the assassination of two Big Apple police officers. (And now the shooting of two more during a robbery.) This is completely understandable, and the nation is right to be concerned about the ongoing waves of anti-cop activism. But the police unions in New York are taking an unusual step this week which will not, in my opinion, be productive.
In the wake of the murder of two New York City police officers and a national debate about policing, the National Fraternal Order of Police is asking for the Congressional hate crimes statute to be expanded to include crimes against police officers. The union has more than 300,000 members.
Violence against police officers that is motivated by anti-police bias should be prosecuted as a hate crime, the nation’s largest police union is arguing in a letter to President Barack Obama and Congressional leaders this week.
“Right now, it’s a hate crime if you attack someone solely because of the color of their skin, but it ought to be a hate crime if you attack someone solely because of the color of their uniform as well,” said Jim Pasco, the executive director of the National Fraternal Order of Police.
On a purely emotional level I can completely understand Mr. Pasco’s feelings on this. It’s a natural response and one which I can readily see being embraced by the majority of Americans. Unfortunately, it is not a rational response under the law. I’ve written about my feelings regarding so called “hate crime” laws many times, and as much as I support the police, this situation is not an excuse to alter those views. These laws would be held as unconstitutional in any court not poisoned by political correctness, and they serve only to further divide the nation along demographic lines, seeking to push unequal enforcement and protection under the law.
But that doesn’t mean that the murder of police officers can’t be treated more harshly, and it already is in most instances. While the life of a single police officer is not worth more or less than any other citizen – just as each life has the same worth regardless of skin color, gender, sexual orientation or religion – we can assign additional penalties to persons who attack democracy and our system of justice. When you kill a police officer, you are not just murdering one man or woman; you are tearing down the fabric of civilization. That is a crime unto itself, and it can be handled under federal law.
For just one example, New York did away with the death penalty entirely at one point, and the liberal elites who control the state remain opposed to it today. But when the monstrous cop killer Ronell Wilson had his day in court for the slaughter of two undercover officers in New York, he was still given the death penalty under federal law. The one thing which could improve the situation in New York and other similar states who oppose the death penalty would be to provide exceptions for the murder of police and elected officials as a separate charge to secure the continuation of civil society. Allowing this at the state level could remove the need for handling such cases separately in the federal courts.
There is already more than sufficient precedent for treating some crimes differently in court, particularly in the sentencing phase, for extraordinary circumstances. This is frequently seen when the offender is shown to have acted with particular malice or a wanton disregard for human life. There is no reason that this can’t be additionally codified to include the murder of law enforcement officers or governmental representatives of the people. And, again, this is not because the life they have taken is worth more on an individual basis, but based on the additional damage they have carelessly inflicted on the fabric of civilized society. Murder a police officer in the line of duty? Automatic death penalty… no exceptions. We put you in a dark cell and after your appeals run out we execute you. (While we’re at it, let’s bring back the firing squad so others considering such actions know we’re serious.) We’re very sorry if you had a “troubled childhood” or are mentally ill, but you’ve also demonstrated that you are too dangerous for us to tolerate your continued existence in civilized society.
Calling such laws a “hate crime” or citing the “color of their uniform” as the reason for treating them differently, though, sends entirely the wrong message. It reinforces the idea that some lives are worth more than others and that unequal protection under the law is acceptable. The police unions should abandon this approach and instead seek to enlist support for more specific application of the death penalty in cases such as this. And while we’re at it, let’s take this opportunity to review the existing “hate crimes” on the books and do away with them.
Some pigs are more equal than others?
I hate the whole idea of “hate crimes”. It implies that for reasons of religion, skin color, sexual orientation etc...one violent crime is somehow worse than another.
If someone is beaten half to death, they are beaten half to death. It shouldn’t matter if the reason was “I hate black people” or “You were hitting on my girlfriend”.
Would someone who got beaten up because he was hitting on a guy’s girlfrend be the victim of a “like” crime? A “love” crime?
Stop it.
I have NUMEROUS law enforcement people in my family including a son, brother, grandson and many nieces and nephews. NONE of them deserves to be shot and in particular for doing their job. Shooting a “cop” for wearing his uniform, even if you know him/her or not, to me is a “HATE CRIME”. You do that and I will hunt you down and end your days and YES, that would be considered a hate crime.
Maybe they should get bodyguards too?
Although I agree with you in principle, and I hope and pray that NO cop is targeted just for being a cop, and that in practice that would be a "hate crime" (targeting someone for what they are, not who they are), the systemic damage of setting in law that any citizen is somehow better than the rest of us is in the longer run lethal to a democracy.
P.S. tracking down the miscreant and 'ending his days' wouldn't be a hate crime in my book.
You said it for me!
The crime is the crime, regardless of the class of the victim.
I would suggest that many of the ‘knock out game’ types of violence against whites was not motivated by feelings of affection.
They say that its a hate crime to attack someone on the basis of their skin color, yet blacks are hardly ever charged for hate crimes despite the overwhelming number of attacks they do against whites.
I’m surprised that the law hasn’t been challenged based on its lack of equal protection violating the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment as well as the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The parts that troubled me was the assertion that, like "regular" hate crimes, this be elevated to a Federal crime.
It seems to be a argument for more Federal control/power. Is there any doubt that "hate crimes" themselves were coined in order to start the movement towards more Federal control?
PRECISELY!
Now I understand your original comment - just needed some context to get the right interpretation.
I try to be very concise, sometimes I’m a bit too concise...
Terse is good (vs. the BOR "pithy") but I find many of my one-liners require a look into my brain if they are to be understood. If nothing else, it does give us opportunities to "further the discussion".
Yes, and the conversation is often worthwhile, even for the originator of the too short comment, it allows a golden oportunity to think through and articulate the original concept and a better chance of catching of the less obvious implications.
Why not make it a hate crime? All murder should be a hate crime.
“I hope and pray that NO cop is targeted just for being a cop, and that in practice that would be a “hate crime” (targeting someone for what they are, not who they are)”......
I see that you do understand my point.
“I hope and pray that NO cop is targeted just for being a cop, and that in practice that would be a “hate crime” (targeting someone for what they are, not who they are)”......
I see that you do understand my point.
Read Lone Star Planet by H. Beam Piper.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.