Stiffer Penalties for LEO's?

[banded_mallard]

The defund the police movement has decimated the moral and effectiveness of the police force already In many of the blue cities the police force is already in a stand down mode. That means no arrest and slow response times. I dont like it when i am on the receiving end of tickets and such but if i get a speeding ticket guess what i was most likely speeding. If not i can always go to court. If you dont like the cops who you gonna call? Some say they can protect them selves but no they cant, the police cant either as they cant even protect themselves from being assinated on the street. Even if you could protect yourself who is going to investigate the crimes committed. As an individual your do not have the resources.

I’ll argue some of the policy’s need to be changed to stand down. Just last night I saw a police show episode, were they were chasing a guy at 130 mph against traffic on a 4 lane hwy. He was originally blue lighted for no tag. He decided to run. Why on earth would you not let that guy just go. I could see it if it were Jeffery Dahmer but I mean 130 mph against traffic for no tag. That doesn’t seem reasonable to me. Btw they ended up standing down after an hour because they couldn’t catch him.

I don’t say that in response to agree with something like defund the police. I think that is asinine. However I don’t think the should be militarized like they have been over the last 20 years.

[centurian]

here is what you get when you don't support the police and the rule of law

https://www.foxnews.com/media/portla...sses-flee-city

[Timber Ghost]

I’ll argue some of the policy’s need to be changed to stand down. Just last night I saw a police show episode, were they were chasing a guy at 130 mph against traffic on a 4 lane hwy. He was originally blue lighted for no tag. He decided to run. Why on earth would you not let that guy just go. I could see it if it were Jeffery Dahmer but I mean 130 mph against traffic for no tag. That doesn’t seem reasonable to me. Btw they ended up standing down after an hour because they couldn’t catch him.

I don’t say that in response to agree with something like defund the police. I think that is asinine. However I don’t think the should be militarized like they have been over the last 20 years.

What do you call militarized?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[centurian]

I wouldn't want to paint with to wide a brush. LE are just like the population they serve. Some are good guys, some are ass holes, some care what they are doe and there are those who could care less. I have not been burned by bad cops like some say so i have a different opinion not to say i haven't had a few run ins but straightened it out in court, not on the side of the roadway. Still when shit goes wrong who you gonna call.

[ecu1984]

I've never had a cop fuck with me when I wasn't breaking the law.
So at least I have that going for me

[scatter shot]

Back to the OP's original question, "Should those who commit crimes while in uniform and/or use their uniform for personal gain be dealt with more harshly than civilians?"

The short answer is no. They should be treated according to the law.
The Long answer below-
I reckon if it's an intentional act that amounts to a Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law, then yes, their actions can result in them being additionally charged as defined by existing law quoted below.

https://www.justice.gov/crt/deprivat...nder-color-law
DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW
SUMMARY:
Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.
For the purpose of Section 242, acts under "color of law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official's lawful authority, if the acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials. It is not necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the victim.

The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term, or the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances of the crime, and the resulting injury, if any.

TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.



But other than as described above, no I don't think an LEO should be charged more harshly than a civilian for an alleged, criminal violation of the law.
My statement above pertains solely to the guilt or innocence phase of the trial.


But if a person is found guilty of the applicable charges (LEO or civilian) then the sentencing phase of the trial starts. This is where the guilty person (LEO or civilian) could be exposed to a harsher sentence dependent on the presence of aggravating or mitigating circumstances.


https://www.justia.com/criminal/aggr...ating-factors/

Aggravating and Mitigating Factors in Criminal Sentencing
Overview of Aggravating and Mitigating Factors
If a judge or jury finds a defendant guilty at the end of a criminal trial, the court must determine the defendant’s punishment. State and federal criminal statutes often set maximum penalties based on the offense classification, with felonies having the most serious possible punishments. Judges have some discretion with regard to sentencing, and a sentencing hearing allows both prosecutors and defendants the chance to present evidence for the court to consider.

Key Fact
Aggravating factors may increase a sentence, while mitigating factors may decrease a sentence.

Aggravating Factors
Prosecutors can offer evidence of aggravating factors that would merit a harsh sentence during trial. Criminal statutes often identify specific factors that should result in harsher punishments. A common aggravating factor is a prior record of similar convictions. Other aggravating factors typically relate to the circumstances of the offense itself, such as the use of a weapon or the severity of the injuries suffered by a victim. With the exception of prior convictions, a court may not use aggravating factors to impose a harsher sentence than usual unless the jury found those factors to be true beyond a reasonable doubt. Cunningham v. California, 549 U.S. 270 (2007).

Repeat Offenses: A court may impose a harsher penalty on a defendant with multiple prior convictions. In states that have a “three strikes” law, such as California, a relatively minor offense may result in a lengthy jail or prison term if the defendant has two or more prior convictions.

Vulnerability of Victim: In some jurisdictions, court may impose a harsher sentence if the victim is found to be vulnerable, either according to an objective standard or in relation to the defendant. Vulnerability based on age, such as a crime of violence against a child or a fraudulent scheme targeting the elderly, may be an aggravating factor. Other factors may include physical or mental disability, illness or injury, and incapacitation.

Leadership Role: If the defendant played a prominent role in a criminal scheme, such as a leadership or managerial role, some jurisdictions allow courts to consider that as an aggravating factor. This is particularly true if the defendant influenced or controlled others involved in the offense.

Hate Crimes: Some states have enacted laws that allow sentencing enhancements if the state proves that the defendant was motivated by bias or animus based on a group characteristic. Most hate crime statutes include categories like race, religion, and national origin. Some states include categories like sexual orientation and gender identity as well.

Mandatory Minimum Sentencing: For certain offenses, the circumstances of the case may trigger laws that remove a court’s discretion to adjust a sentence downward. Mandatory minimum sentencing laws are still common for many drug-related offenses. The penalties for offense involving crack cocaine, for example, used to vary widely from the penalties for offenses involving cocaine in powder form, due to mandatory minimum laws targeting crack. The Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 sought to eliminate the disparity, but other laws still have a similar effect.

How to Raise Aggravating and Mitigating Factors
Aggravating and mitigating factors in a criminal case may be raised in the probation officer’s presentence report, prosecution and defense arguments, witness testimony, the defendant’s direct address to the judge, and crime victim statements.

Mitigating Factors
The defense may put on evidence of mitigating factors that would support leniency in sentencing. Criminal statutes devote far less attention to factors that might mitigate a defendant’s punishment, but courts have held that evidence relating to a defendant’s character may be introduced provided that it is relevant to the sentencing process. See Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586 (1978). Common mitigating factors include:

Lack of a prior criminal record
Minor role in the offense;
Culpability of the victim;
Past circumstances, such as abuse that resulted in criminal activity;
Circumstances at the time of the offense, such as provocation, stress, or emotional problems that might not excuse the crime but might offer an explanation;
Mental or physical illness; and
Genuine remorse.
Last reviewed October 2022

[scatter shot]

I apologize for the long post but I couldn't help myself.
I find the subject very interesting.

[Timber Ghost]

I apologize for the long post but I couldn't help myself.
I find the subject very interesting.

Don’t forget that a misconduct charge turns a misdemeanor into a felony. So in some instances, LEO is dealt with more harshly


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[scatter shot]

I appreciate and respect your feedback and responses in these type threads. I'm pretty sure you have a better knowledge on the subject than I do.
I got my law degree from the Shithouse and Crapper home study course so it's only worth the paper that you wipe your butt with.

I probably should have just stuck with my short answer above, " The short answer is no. They should be treated according to the law"

[Timber Ghost]

I could complain or I could educate. I have thick skin so I’m not bothered by these type of threads. Honestly, most opinions are formed due to a true lack of knowledge. When I retire in 5 years, I’ll do a ‘Ask a retired LEO anything” thread


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Black Bart]

Hope this thread doesn't offend you, as that was not my intent.

[BigBrother]

When I retire in 5 years, I’ll do a ‘Ask a retired LEO anything” thread

Hey, I got a ticket in Florence last week...hook a brotha up.

[w33kender]

A deputy let me off with a warning after doing 76 in a 55 on Hwy 17 near Winnabow a year ago. Huge favor he did me, especially provided that he had been following me for "a minute" blue lights going, etc. I look an old dirt bag, but he was sympathetic about why I was on the highway so early on a Sunday morning [parent with alzheimers], a true story about why I was distracted. I assured him I would never deliberately defy a policeman in this sorry age we live in, etc. I was polite, sincere, and truthful and he showed me mercy I didn't even ask for.

I had been listening to Pink Floyd's "Comfortably Numb" and remembering better days with my mother. Finally looked in my rear view and saw a black vehicle with blue lights, etc, and said, "Oh, fuuuuuuuudge."

[CofC Waterfowler]

End qualified immunity period.

Better get ready for your taxes to go up if they do.

[CofC Waterfowler]

I've represented a number of LEO's in front of the SCCJA over the last few years. There is no way I could be a LEO in this climate. The standard that the SCCJA is holding LEOS too in this climate is crazy. I represent criminal defendants too, so I see both sides of the spectrum.

[Timber Ghost]

Hope this thread doesn't offend you, as that was not my intent.

No worries. I don’t get my feathers ruffled


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Timber Ghost]

I've represented a number of LEO's in front of the SCCJA over the last few years. There is no way I could be a LEO in this climate. The standard that the SCCJA is holding LEOS too in this climate is crazy. I represent criminal defendants too, so I see both sides of the spectrum.

SCCJA has one goal…. Not to get sued. And it shows


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Silentweapon338]

My point is the media wants you focused on the 1% doing it wrong not the 99% doing it right. That way you have the negative mind set against LEO's. The same "defund the police" attitude BS.

This goes to the my thread from yesterday about the start of all the riots with Travon Martin, and it being a mind control experiment that Sidney Godlieb & then Jolly West perfected, and has now been weaponized and turned loose on the American public.

I think at the end of the day the goal is exactly what Obama wanted a federalized police force with the weapons and tactics of the military ran out of Washington. He called it 2 different things but if you listen to what he said that is the end result.

That would be a horrible idea.

There are issues with some policing tactics. But I would much rather have the power distributed to the local level, where you can vote the Sheriff out if you dont like him. The power is best left at that level than giving it to Washington. One look at the FBI will convince you of that. Imagine that on the mean streets of Sumter!! You talk about abuse, about abuse and fraud.

I'm with ECU, there are already laws on the books just enforce them equally.

And if the police pull you over or you happen to be in jail it's probably a great idea to act cordial, polite, and try and co-operate with all lawful orders! You will set your self apart from those who do need a little ass tap to keep in line.

Q the Chris Rock video!

[Timber Ghost]

I firmly believe that the entire defund movement and everything that follows is the beginning stage for a federal police force. And if that is going to happen, you better hope your i.p. address is hidden when you want to criticize them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk