U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > United Kingdom
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-19-2012, 04:14 PM
 
Location: London
1,068 posts, read 1,886,562 times
Reputation: 1021

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by ben86 View Post
My reasoning is that police/military have chosen to do a job which potentially puts themselves in harm's way for the sake of protecting the rest of us - an attack on them given what they represent seems a more anti-social act than attacking a random person. Just my personal opinion anyway.
The tragic deaths of the two young police officers on duty in Manchester in such socking circumstances is devastating news. But it isn't a uniquely dangerous occupation believe it or not. Building sites statistically are far more dangerous places than being a police officer rsponding to a call be it a different kind of threat level and danger.

More builders die on building sites a year than police officers on duty. They are very dangerous places at times and it is one of the most crucial, fundamental jobs there are. In fact more people died on building sites in 2011 than soldiers killed in action in Afghanistan. And without builders we'd have no homes, no police headquarters, no city of London, no construction industry and no economic growth so in my personal opinion it is an equally important vocation.

There are many dangerous jobs out there besides which the whole idea of placing the worth of one human life above another simply repulses me. The death of a child probably triggers the most outrage in the general public understanably but the death of a frail old pensioner or even a jobless man sleeping rough under a railway arch are equally repugnant in my personal view. And should be in the eys of the law too.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-20-2012, 12:34 AM
 
Location: England
3,266 posts, read 3,426,935 times
Reputation: 3243
Remember the four US police officers who were shot to death in a coffee shop in Lakewood Washington.
They were all armed
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-20-2012, 02:28 AM
 
Location: Yorkshire, England
5,599 posts, read 9,425,096 times
Reputation: 3095
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobman View Post
I understand that point, but it could be argued in return that choosing to do such a job is tantamount to putting yourself in danger.

Like choosing to stand in the middle of a road.

Choice is the key word.
Police choose to be police, soldiers choose to be soldiers.
they know the risks, they know it has potential dangers.

I'm not suggesting that the murder of them is in any way a lesser crime, but I don't think it's a greater crime.

they are no greater or lesser person than those who chose different careers, if they are murdered, they leave behind family and friends, the same as anyone else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fear&Whiskey View Post
The tragic deaths of the two young police officers on duty in Manchester in such socking circumstances is devastating news. But it isn't a uniquely dangerous occupation believe it or not. Building sites statistically are far more dangerous places than being a police officer rsponding to a call be it a different kind of threat level and danger.

More builders die on building sites a year than police officers on duty. They are very dangerous places at times and it is one of the most crucial, fundamental jobs there are. In fact more people died on building sites in 2011 than soldiers killed in action in Afghanistan. And without builders we'd have no homes, no police headquarters, no city of London, no construction industry and no economic growth so in my personal opinion it is an equally important vocation.

There are many dangerous jobs out there besides which the whole idea of placing the worth of one human life above another simply repulses me. The death of a child probably triggers the most outrage in the general public understanably but the death of a frail old pensioner or even a jobless man sleeping rough under a railway arch are equally repugnant in my personal view. And should be in the eys of the law too.
Interesting how nobody seems to agree with me. Being a police officer might not be as dangerous as working on a building site (or standing in the middle of the road for that matter!) but it's what that job represents (i.e. defence of law and order) that I think means it should deserve extra legal protection. You don't get idiots wanting to attack people (and by 'attack' I should mention that I didn't exclusively mean murder) because they work on building sites or hating builders just because of the job they do.

As far as I am aware schools give stricter punishments to somebody who hit a teacher than for somebody who hit another schoolkid, because hitting an authority figure is more of a taboo, and the position they are in demands a certain extra level of respect. You say the idea of placing more worth on some people's lives repulses you but sentencing already does work that way - if I killed somebody based on hatred against them being a certain race/religion/sexuality or whatever that would get me a harsher penalty, so how is it too big a jump to include hatred of the idea of them being in charge of keeping the country safe (no doubt the reason for the murders we're talking about) as an aggravating factor?

My views might not be so popular on here but a quick Google search shows they are not extreme at all in some countries (and I'm not talking North Korea either). Interestingly New Zealand, a country supposedly about as similar to ours as it gets and with a legal system originally based on ours has just introduced laws making attacking police, firefighters etc liable to harsher penalties - passed by 117 votes to four!
Harsher penalties for attacks on police, emergency staff - Story - NZ News - 3 News
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-20-2012, 05:35 AM
 
Location: London
1,068 posts, read 1,886,562 times
Reputation: 1021
Quote:
Originally Posted by ben86 View Post
Interesting how nobody seems to agree with me. Being a police officer might not be as dangerous as working on a building site (or standing in the middle of the road for that matter!) but it's what that job represents (i.e. defence of law and order) that I think means it should deserve extra legal protection. You don't get idiots wanting to attack people (and by 'attack' I should mention that I didn't exclusively mean murder) because they work on building sites or hating builders just because of the job they do.

As far as I am aware schools give stricter punishments to somebody who hit a teacher than for somebody who hit another schoolkid, because hitting an authority figure is more of a taboo, and the position they are in demands a certain extra level of respect. You say the idea of placing more worth on some people's lives repulses you but sentencing already does work that way - if I killed somebody based on hatred against them being a certain race/religion/sexuality or whatever that would get me a harsher penalty, so how is it too big a jump to include hatred of the idea of them being in charge of keeping the country safe (no doubt the reason for the murders we're talking about) as an aggravating factor?

My views might not be so popular on here but a quick Google search shows they are not extreme at all in some countries (and I'm not talking North Korea either). Interestingly New Zealand, a country supposedly about as similar to ours as it gets and with a legal system originally based on ours has just introduced laws making attacking police, firefighters etc liable to harsher penalties - passed by 117 votes to four!
Harsher penalties for attacks on police, emergency staff - Story - NZ News - 3 News
So if someone is killed because some fruit loop is envious of how attractive their partner is or pure random irritation at how they said "excuse me please" at a bus terminal then this would somehow be a less heinous crime than the killing of a police officer? To put this horrific attack into context it is extremely rare and most people who are victim of a murder do not tend to be figures of authority.

As for schools they have their own rules and criteria which are seperate to the rule of the land. If every student was allowed to flagrantly attack teachers then no-one would get any work done. Conflicts and fights between students however are if not tolerated generally seen as inevitable with school children but if that offence was to go beyond the parameters of your average schoolyard scuffle and a knife was involved the connatations of the law would be the same for attacking a teacher or pupil.

What's the scale you are drawing here and where do 'mere mortals' come on the justice scale as opposed police officers and other more 'esteemed' authority figures?

Last edited by Fear&Whiskey; 09-20-2012 at 05:44 AM..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-20-2012, 05:44 AM
 
Location: The cupboard under the sink
3,999 posts, read 8,279,325 times
Reputation: 8075
I said I disagree with valuing one life over another.

Not that it repulses me.

Told you a million times not to exaggerate......

Quote:
Originally Posted by ben86 View Post
You say the idea of placing more worth on some people's lives repulses you

People can contribute more to the world than others, but it doesn't atutomatically make their life more precious than any other.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-20-2012, 05:59 AM
 
Location: London
1,068 posts, read 1,886,562 times
Reputation: 1021
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobman View Post
I said I disagree with valuing one life over another.

Not that it repulses me.

Told you a million times not to exaggerate......




People can contribute more to the world than others, but it doesn't atutomatically make their life more precious than any other.
Actually it was me that said that in my post and I stand by it. You only have to look at the Hillsboro disater and the immediate aftermath of that disaster to see what kind of society you get when you start pigeonholing and segregating society into people of worth and "animals who need to be caged and herded like cattle".

I was a young child at a game a year before where the same thing nearly happened in the same ground. The general perception across society in those days was that football fans were lower class and therefore not entitled to any dignity, safety and could be treated as animals.

Only after years of campaigning has it come to light that the victims of Hillsboro were nothing of the sort and that the victims came from all social classes and backgrounds. Not that it shuld matter where they came from but sadly that was just one part of the Hillsboro inquiry that had to be reaffirmed time and again to garner a sympathetic ear from a very snobby and predominantly upper-class media.

Throughout history examples are everywhere and placing the life of one human being above another is a very slippery slope and goes against the grain of what it means to be living in a democratic, lawful and humane society.

It's this kind of attitude in America that legitimises gang killings and the kind of inverted prejudice of "Ah, it's only one thug killing another thug", "let them kill each other, they're not worth the same as us" ambivalence.

To be honest I believe the severity of killing even one member of law enforcement would ultimately draw a heavier sanction anyway but if some lunatic decides to chuck a grenade at an innocent couple coming home with a bag of shopping I would hope that the offender would receive the same penalty and that the defendants wouldn't receive a lighter sentence because by accident of aim they just happened to land two 'ordinary' civilians.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-20-2012, 06:58 AM
 
Location: The cupboard under the sink
3,999 posts, read 8,279,325 times
Reputation: 8075
Agree with this 100%.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fear&Whiskey View Post

Throughout history examples are everywhere and placing the life of one human being above another is a very slippery slope and goes against the grain of what it means to be living in a democratic, lawful and humane society.

It's this kind of attitude in America that legitimises gang killings and the kind of inverted prejudice of "Ah, it's only one thug killing another thug", "let them kill each other, they're not worth the same as us" ambivalence.

To be honest I believe the severity of killing even one member of law enforcement would ultimately draw a heavier sanction anyway but if some lunatic decides to chuck a grenade at an innocent couple coming home with a bag of shopping I would hope that the offender would receive the same penalty and that the defendants wouldn't receive a lighter sentence because by accident of aim they just happened to land two 'ordinary' civilians.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-20-2012, 10:35 AM
 
Location: Somewhere out there.
9,079 posts, read 4,934,736 times
Reputation: 5799
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fear&Whiskey View Post
Actually it was me that said that in my post and I stand by it. You only have to look at the Hillsboro disater and the immediate aftermath of that disaster to see what kind of society you get when you start pigeonholing and segregating society into people of worth and "animals who need to be caged and herded like cattle".

I was a young child at a game a year before where the same thing nearly happened in the same ground. The general perception across society in those days was that football fans were lower class and therefore not entitled to any dignity, safety and could be treated as animals.

Only after years of campaigning has it come to light that the victims of Hillsboro were nothing of the sort and that the victims came from all social classes and backgrounds. Not that it shuld matter where they came from but sadly that was just one part of the Hillsboro inquiry that had to be reaffirmed time and again to garner a sympathetic ear from a very snobby and predominantly upper-class media.

Throughout history examples are everywhere and placing the life of one human being above another is a very slippery slope and goes against the grain of what it means to be living in a democratic, lawful and humane society.

It's this kind of attitude in America that legitimises gang killings and the kind of inverted prejudice of "Ah, it's only one thug killing another thug", "let them kill each other, they're not worth the same as us" ambivalence.

To be honest I believe the severity of killing even one member of law enforcement would ultimately draw a heavier sanction anyway but if some lunatic decides to chuck a grenade at an innocent couple coming home with a bag of shopping I would hope that the offender would receive the same penalty and that the defendants wouldn't receive a lighter sentence because by accident of aim they just happened to land two 'ordinary' civilians.
Could not agree more.
While there are many great things about America, the one thing I will never be comfortable with is the attitude here towards gun laws and gun violence.
In the month after I moved here there was a shoot out very close to where I live. A gang opened fire on some guys standing about outside a store just after dark. In the incident a one year old boy was fatally shot in the head. You can read some of the comments about it on my local forum:
//www.city-data.com/forum/san-f...rous-city.html
The boy shot in the head is mentioned by a few in passing. Nobody comes across as being particularly shocked by the incident. The story briefly made local news for maybe a couple of days. Then as one poster puts it: "Yes crime has happened in a major American city... Next."

Can you imagine this happening in the UK? There would be a national outcry.

I have accepted that gun culture is very much ingrained here in America, and nothing can be done to change that. As has been pointed out to me many times, it is written in the constitution (the right to bear arms is written in stone by god himself apparently), but I would hate to see it going that way in the UK. The difference in attitude about bearing arms is the major fundamental difference that keeps gun crime in the UK a tiny fraction of what it is in America.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ben86 View Post
As far as I am aware schools give stricter punishments to somebody who hit a teacher than for somebody who hit another schoolkid, because hitting an authority figure is more of a taboo, and the position they are in demands a certain extra level of respect.
I can tell you having been a teacher that this is absolutely not the case. In a school where I worked in Blackpool, the headteacher permanently excluded a burly teenager for pushing a teacher through a door. The governing body thought this too harsh a punishment, went over his head and voted to have the kid reinstated. Whereas a teacher these days would likely face a sacking for this.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-20-2012, 12:13 PM
 
Location: The Silver State (from the UK)
4,663 posts, read 7,825,153 times
Reputation: 2862
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kentmum View Post
Could not agree more.
While there are many great things about America, the one thing I will never be comfortable with is the attitude here towards gun laws and gun violence.
In the month after I moved here there was a shoot out very close to where I live. A gang opened fire on some guys standing about outside a store just after dark. In the incident a one year old boy was fatally shot in the head. You can read some of the comments about it on my local forum:
//www.city-data.com/forum/san-f...rous-city.html
The boy shot in the head is mentioned by a few in passing. Nobody comes across as being particularly shocked by the incident. The story briefly made local news for maybe a couple of days. Then as one poster puts it: "Yes crime has happened in a major American city... Next."

Can you imagine this happening in the UK? There would be a national outcry.

I have accepted that gun culture is very much ingrained here in America, and nothing can be done to change that. As has been pointed out to me many times, it is written in the constitution (the right to bear arms is written in stone by god himself apparently), but I would hate to see it going that way in the UK. The difference in attitude about bearing arms is the major fundamental difference that keeps gun crime in the UK a tiny fraction of what it is in America.



I can tell you having been a teacher that this is absolutely not the case. In a school where I worked in Blackpool, the headteacher permanently excluded a burly teenager for pushing a teacher through a door. The governing body thought this too harsh a punishment, went over his head and voted to have the kid reinstated. Whereas a teacher these days would likely face a sacking for this.

I agree. I don't like the gun attitude here either - there are also many Americans that don't but the NRA is so obscenely powerful it will take a miracle to restrict the 2nd amendment. Somebody here said to me "when a European sees a gun they see a symbol of murder and destruction, but when an American sees a gun they see a symbol of freedom". I think to understand that is to accept that values and beliefs vary massively from culture to culture. Both the US and the UK have spent many years (and still do) pushing our values on other cultures without any respect of understanding of the fundamentals of the differences between cultures.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-20-2012, 12:34 PM
 
Location: Somewhere out there.
9,079 posts, read 4,934,736 times
Reputation: 5799
Quote:
Originally Posted by ian6479 View Post
I agree. I don't like the gun attitude here either - there are also many Americans that don't but the NRA is so obscenely powerful it will take a miracle to restrict the 2nd amendment. Somebody here said to me "when a European sees a gun they see a symbol of murder and destruction, but when an American sees a gun they see a symbol of freedom". I think to understand that is to accept that values and beliefs vary massively from culture to culture. Both the US and the UK have spent many years (and still do) pushing our values on other cultures without any respect of understanding of the fundamentals of the differences between cultures.
Never heard this before but it sums it up fabulously. I'll remember this one.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > United Kingdom
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:06 PM.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top