I suppose we can dig deeper into this can of worms by pointing out “hate crime” legislation. Penalties are worse if you kill someone because that person is “black/gay/Jewish/?” than if you do it for some other cause.

I’m not absolutely opposed to extenuating circumstances being introduced in the penalty phase of a trial. I am, however, opposed to automatically applying them across the board.

re. monopoly of force. A monopoly does not require the complete absence of competition. I should have qualified the definition by modifying force with “sanctioned”. The right to keep and bear arms, and engage in self-defence, which we enjoy here, in no way undermines the monopoly enjoyed by the various governments in existence here in the U.S.A. If you don’t believe that, then try forming a private police department, or even worse, a militia. Didn’t work in Arkansas.

Dead officers engaged in home invasion (no knock warrants) should just be considered a cost of doing business. If they want the costs to be lighter, they need to change their mode of operation.

But the fact that it is worse across the board is being used against the common citizen regularly. I have a collection of articles saved on my computer at work of cases where home invaders yell out “Police” or “FBI” as they kick down the door to ensure that the residents don’t do anything to stop them. I think the solution to this is that the police should not have some special blanket of protection when they’re effectively invading your home with one of their no-knock warrants.

I do know one thing. If someone bashes down my door, I don’t give a damn what they yell as they come in. I don’t break the law, so I find it perfectly reasonable for me to shoot first as they charge at me, regardless of what they claim to be.

Knowing you can do anything you want and most likely never suffer any legal consequences for the evil you do is a perfect recruitment enticement to the very people we would not want as agents of law enforcement. Unfortunately, we see this in action every day.

I don’t support most laws that elevate police officers above the common citizen. I’m uncomfortable with many aspects of qualified immunity, and have problems with the overuse of paramilitary police forces for routine, non-violent offenses. But I do think there’s a valid legal theory as to why crimes against law enforcement are treated more severely than other crimes, that don’t have much to do with the status of a particular officer. I would note that some of the provisions on this bill add law enforcement officer after “unborn child”, so it’s established that society recognizes certain types of crimes as more serious infractions than other types. For instance, does statutory rape laws make adolescents a special protected class of people? Forcible rape of a child is typically a more serious offense than forcible rape of someone who’s reached age of majority.

Now whether I support the particular bill in Pennsylvania is another thing, but I think the basic legal theory is valid.

There can be no peace when one segment of society even perceives it has a monopoly or near monopoly of force, let alone if it actually has it. In this instant, though the police do not have a monopoly of force, they believe and the law allows them overwhelming force by denying the citizen access to the same equipment. Thus, placing the law abiding citizen at the same target of disrespect by police as the criminal receives.

These special laws (and perqs) for law-enforcement are nothing more than a resurrection of the old doctrine that when one assaults a messenger of the King, one assaults the King.

When “order” entails state-sponsored harrasment by federal agents of decent people and business (see Ryan Horsely / Red’s Trading Post), and agents whose behavior amounts to armed thuggery (DEA, ATF, et. al. — we all know several cases), then I, for one, would welcome a whole lot less of it.

I think we do need to address the problem of raids. I’ll tell you what, I think you folks are making enough points to convince me that maybe this law ought not be supported until the problem of no-knock and paramilitary police techniques, and their inevitable abuses, are addressed.

Then again, I also support restricting them to a .38 revolver with no reloads. Again, encouraging them to resolve issues peacably, and to build support within the community so that they have decent armed backup when necessary.

Thugs on the street are not interested in resolving anything peacefully. The same argument could be used to restrict civilians to the same thing. I have absolutely no problem with the police having access to, and carrying weapons that are generally available to the civilian population.

We have reactions here to different scenarios. So, I will address the second one, too. We need a law that if a LEO gets killed in a no knock warrant raid, no liability, civil or criminal attaches to the killer. Then we would see a lot less death and suspicious Katherine Johnston style murders. I think we would all be amazed at much more effective the police would be and how much safer they and the public would be.

Reduce the penalties on shooting LEOs and INCREASE the penalties on their shooting non-LEOs. That would encourage the arrogant thugs with badges to NOT escalate incidents. In fact it would encourage them to work with the people in the community, not in opposition. Then again, I also support restricting them to a .38 revolver with no reloads. Again, encouraging them to resolve issues peacably, and to build support within the community so that they have decent armed backup when necessary.