Re: Man gets life in prison for spitting [on a cop]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Friday 04 July 2003 03:42, Daniel Cassidy wrote:
> I don't see how the fact that the man victim was a public servant makes any
> difference. 

as a private citizen going about our private duties we have choice as to where 
we go and when and what we do once we get there. we do have the law to 
protect us when a crime is committed against us.

as a public servant, you don't have a choice: society has said you will do 
<whatever it is>. they are given by society the responsibility of upholding 
our societally agreed upon rules and regulations. (the previous sentence is a 
bit "utopian", but i'm sure you can fill in the details where the simplicity 
leaves spaces) as such they are given special priveleges in order to be able 
to carry out this duty effectively. 

for instance, you or i can't just put someone in handcuffs, read them their 
rights, and chuck 'em in the nearest jail cell. even just putting handcuffs 
on someone would be a crime on our part. we don't have the same rights to 
weaponry on the open streets (at least here in Canada =) that the police do. 
we aren't allowed to use certain radio frequencies. we can't take people's 
children from them or demand to be let into their house to investigate the 
state of their children's wellbeing. etc, etc, etc... all these allowances 
enable effective action on their part.

when it comes to protection of such public servants, they are not only a prime 
target for abuse but they are routinely put in dangerous situations. they are 
therefore due extra protection. without such protection it would make it 
harder for them to do their job. 

it's sort of like how in many sports there are special rules for special 
players (in American football the kicker and quarterback both have special 
protection, in real football the has several special rules, in hockey the 
goaly has special protection, etc)

the other side of the coin is when public servants are given TOO MUCH 
protection. this can, and does, result in a loss of acountability, encourages 
abuses of power, and/or doesn't enable them to do their duties better in any 
way, shape or form.

there's also the issue, that you noted, about which public servants are 
protected in which ways. uniform protection probably makes as little sense as 
uniform allowances does.

ballance and reasonability. like life itself, i guess. =)

- -- 
Aaron J. Seigo
GPG Fingerprint: 8B8B 2209 0C6F 7C47 B1EA  EE75 D6B7 2EB1 A7F1 DB43

KDE: The 'K' is for 'kick ass'
http://www.kde.org       http://promo.kde.org/3.1/feature_guide.php
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2-rc1-SuSE (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/Bgti1rcusafx20MRAnvmAJ9D4GA1lii92t6PfoT66YErF8M6YACgppJK
ExRFO81fLMtGGVUVmISks4c=
=+0Vj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Kde-cafe mailing list - [email protected]
http://ofb.biz/lists/listinfo.cgi/kde-cafe

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed on this mailinglist are the personal
opinions of the author and do not represent OfB.biz: Open for Business, KDE or the author's employer.