Murdering Police Should be a Federal Capital Offense

[Cow Poke]

I've gone through all the posts, I think, and it's not clear to me why making murder of police a federal capital offense would be better than the present policy we have now.

What present policy do we have now?

[stfoskey15]

Why not?

Because I don't support capital punishment except in extreme cases (resulting in at least dozens of deaths).

[mikewhitney]

I hope my identification of the US laws with their associated granted privileges made sense. The basic point is that the only valid US laws are ones tied to specific permissions granted to the US government. Even in amendment 10 the powers not given to the US Government are reserved to the States or to the people.

Nevertheless Congress often does approve bills that are unconstitutional. I think however that the criminal laws are more carefully enacted since the constitutionality could too easily be contested in a court of law.

Does this make sense?

[Joel]

Why not?

If I rant about wanting to kill blacks or homosexuals, that's "hate speech", and the Feds will come down on me.

But groups who call for the death of police... we just need to make excuses for them and try harder to 'understand them'.

It's already a capital offense in some states to kill a police officer.

At the very minimum, that should be a federal offense.Murdering a police officer should be a federal crime.

I think it shouldn't be a federal offense. Murder in general is not a federal matter, and as a general principle, I lean towards keeping things at the lowest level of government possible. As well as mikewhitney's points about constitutionality. I think the ideal for a federal government is to be restricted to foreign policy and preventing the lower levels of government from violating the rights of the citizens.

I'm also wary of treating murder of police officers differently from other murders. It reinforces the appearance that the state is more interested in its own welfare than in protecting and serving the people.

(And I'm opposed to "hate speech" laws. And simple advocacy of violence and even advocacy of the overthrow of the government is generally protected speech in the U.S.)

[Cow Poke]

I think it shouldn't be a federal offense. Murder in general is not a federal matter, and as a general principle, I lean towards keeping things at the lowest level of government possible. As well as mikewhitney's points about constitutionality. I think the ideal for a federal government is to be restricted to foreign policy and preventing the lower levels of government from violating the rights of the citizens.

I'm also wary of treating murder of police officers differently from other murders. It reinforces the appearance that the state is more interested in its own welfare than in protecting and serving the people.

(And I'm opposed to "hate speech" laws. And simple advocacy of violence and even advocacy of the overthrow of the government is generally protected speech in the U.S.)

Well put. I'll chew on it.

[Truthseeker]

. . as a general principle, I lean towards keeping things at the lowest level of government possible.

How can we determine what level is the lowest possible? Why do you reject the ideal of a world that follows the NAP?

[Joel]

How can we determine what level is the lowest possible? Why do you reject the ideal of a world that follows the NAP?

As for the first question, assuming we are talking about the existing system, there's no reason murder can't be handled at the municipal or county level.

As for your second question, I don't know what you're talking about. Nothing I said implies that. Or are you talking about a one-world-government?

[Leonhard]

As for the first question, assuming we are talking about the existing system, there's no reason murder can't be handled at the municipal or county level.

As for your second question, I don't know what you're talking about. Nothing I said implies that. Or are you talking about a one-world-government?

Truthseeker is talking about some nebulous libertarian ideal of 'no government', being as he argues that you can't prove that it couldn't be worse than what the government does.

[Truthseeker]

Truthseeker is talking about some nebulous libertarian ideal of 'no government', being as he argues that you can't prove that it couldn't be worse than what the government does.

1)Inability to conceive a world of no government is not evidence that it would be better than what we have now. You need to give this subject a little more thought.

2) You got it wrong. I am asking people to try to prove that a world that has governments or states in itself is usually better (if not always) than what the world without government or state would be if everybody acts in accordance with the NAP.

[Sparko]

1)Inability to conceive a world of no government is not evidence that it would be better than what we have now. You need to give this subject a little more thought.

2) You got it wrong. I am asking people to try to prove that a world that has governments or states in itself is usually better (if not always) than what the world without government or state would be if everybody acts in accordance with the NAP.

Just watch how people act when government breaks down because of a natural disaster, like a hurricane. Looting, fights, stealing, complete chaos.

[Truthseeker]

Just watch how people act when government breaks down because of a natural disaster, like a hurricane. Looting, fights, stealing, complete chaos.

It's evident you don't watch the government people! Or not as much as you watch people coping with disruptive wide-area disasters. Where was the FEMA people? Quoth Democratic Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut:source: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/...05-fema_09-09/
That is actually somewhat typical of the performance of FEMA and other government agencies even recently. Of course you may read the article linked above.

Your tendency to assume the worst of the world without government is obvious. Now, I will concede that nobody can possibly predict how the world would evolve, with and without government, but must you consistently, without any reason, assume that the world without government--something that may never exist for comparison--would be always worse than the world under government?

I have more to say, but let that be a start.

[Sparko]

It's evident you don't watch the government people! Or not as much as you watch people coping with disruptive wide-area disasters. Where was the FEMA people? Quoth Democratic Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut:source: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/...05-fema_09-09/
That is actually somewhat typical of the performance of FEMA and other government agencies even recently. Of course you may read the article linked above.

Your tendency to assume the worst of the world without government is obvious. Now, I will concede that nobody can possibly predict how the world would evolve, with and without government, but must you consistently, without any reason, assume that the world without government--something that may never exist for comparison--would be always worse than the world under government?

I have more to say, but let that be a start.

you made my point. without the government there, things went to hell. because of people's sin nature. your idea is unworkable.

[Joel]

. . as a general principle, I lean towards keeping things at the lowest level of government possible.

...Why do you reject the ideal of a world that follows the NAP?

I don't know what you're talking about. Nothing I said implies that. Or are you talking about a one-world-government?

Truthseeker is talking about some nebulous libertarian ideal of 'no government', being as he argues that you can't prove that it couldn't be worse than what the government does.

Truthseeker, that isn't incompatible with what I said. Suppose the lowest level were the individual, for example. Or private security organizations, or whatever it is you are imagining (but not saying clearly).

[The Thinker]

Why not?

Why shouldn't murdering anyone be a capitol offense if you think execution is morally right? Why is the life of a police officer worth more than mine?

If I rant about wanting to kill blacks or homosexuals, that's "hate speech", and the Feds will come down on me.

It is still legal to rant about killing black people and homosexuals. Conservatards are doing it every day on the internet.

[Cow Poke]

Why shouldn't murdering anyone be a capitol offense if you think execution is morally right?

There are degrees of murder, and not all killing is "murder".

Why is the life of a police officer worth more than mine?

Because they actually have a useful purpose.

It is still legal to rant about killing black people and homosexuals.

I'm certainly against advocating the murder of any person "just because".

Conservatards are doing it every day on the internet.

I know this may come as an extreme shock to you, but there are MILLIONS of people ranting about all kinds of things on the internet. If only Al Gore hadn't invented it!