[thearmedrebel]

Here's the thing about LEO deaths

In 2003 there were 45 police officers shot and killed in the line of duty. There were 49 that died in vehicle accidents in that same year. In this day and age, police officers are more likely to die by their own hand than by someone else's.

I believe that all murderers should be put to death for their crimes. For certain crimes, and certain criminals, that is the only solution.

As for Pataki, well he's a politician trying to make an issue out of a non issue, but isn't that usually the case? Isn't that what they are doing when they start grandstanding about the evils of firearms? In 2001 there were a total of 29,573 people who died as a result of gunfire. 802 were "unintentional" 231 were "undetermined" and 16,869 were suicide. of that total, 11,671 were homicides. By comparison, about 17,500 (of the approximately 43,000 total automobile fatalities) people are killed every year by drunk drivers. Yet when someone gets drunk and kills a family of four, people excuse if to some degree (not all, but many). "It was an accident" is all too often the excuse, because it's "obvious" he didn't mean to kill those people.

Sorry to venture off topic, but I was trying to prove a point. We've been through out "drunk drivers are bad" phase, but "we" can't seem to get away from our "guns are bad" phase. Why? (BTW, by "we" and "our" I mean Americans in general, politicians, "celebrities" and the media in particular.

My 2¢

Robert

 

[thearmedrebel]

Now gentlemen do try to behave

We do need police officers, and affording their murderers an automatic "go to death row" is as good a place to start as any.

It should also be noted that it was the governor of New York that started all of this, not a police officer. It is a political stunt, meant to grab attention and divide the people so that the politicians can do what they want. Don't fall for their trick and start bickering amongst ourselves.

Robert

 

[thearmedrebel]

Sorry to dissagree, but I have to on this one

What I AM saying is that the United States is on its way there, hence the term I used: "borderline police state".

The United States is the freest Nation in the world. Period. Is it as free as it possibly could be? I don't think so, but the freest nonetheless.

Just for fun, here's the definition of a police state, according to The American Heritage Dictionary:

police state
n.
A state in which the government exercises rigid and repressive controls over the social, economic, and political life of the people, especially by means of a secret police force.

Last time I checked, we weren't "on our way" there. If anything, we are currently moving away from that standard, as referenced by the fact that the most infringing aspects of the PATRIOT Act will expire in a few weeks, and their reinstatement is questionable.

As for the murder versus self defense thing, I am assuming a fair trial, and appeals (all death sentences go to automatic appeal, BTW)

Robert