There are proposals to make a 20 year mandatory for shooting at a police officer. I don't think you have to hit or injure the officer. Just shooting.
I think it's a great idea. Our police shouldn't be targets when they are simply doing their very difficult job.
Not since the 1970s have there been as many police shootings in Philadelphia. Unfortunately, this is a nationwide trend.
The message has to be sent, shoot at police, go away for a very long time.
Any thoughts?
Bookmark/Search this post with:
Not sure
There could be some potential for abuse here, depending on the burden of proof, which could either be very light or very strenuous.
What are the current penalties for firing a gun at a police officer? I mean, that's attempted murder, right? Is there a need for an additional penalty?
Sometimes I just worry that in some of these cases, people aren't really deterrable. If you fire a gun at a police officer, not only are you risking capital murder, but if you don't hit or wound anyone, that officer is likely to use deadly force with you, and justifying in doing so. If the chance of being killed immediately doesn't deter you, why would a 20-year sentence?
--Tim
If you are talking about
If you are talking about deterrent effects, I don't think it will do anything. If you are willing to shoot at an officer, you are already willing to kill an officer, with life in prison or death as the consequence.
Mandatory sentance for shooting police is pointless
What is the point of this law? It seems extremely symbolic and does very little actually address the reasons why police officers are getting shot. It's nothing more than political grandstanding.
Do you really think someone who is shooting at a cop is going to stop and think, "Oh, well, I better not do this or I could face a long jail sentence!" If someone is firing a weapon at a law enforcement official, they've already thrown caution to the wind. Another law is not going to do anything.
We should not be focusing on what to do after a cop gets shot, but instead trying to figure out what we can do to prevent it from happening in the first place.
---
Check out my website!
I'm more interested in the
I'm more interested in the retribution angle, actually.
But, let's talk about what can be done, right now, without any new laws, to stop individuals from shooting at police officers? If we, like Ben, acccept the law as it is right now--what do we do?
How do we better protect our police?
I am working to elect Larry Farnese to the General Assembly. Unless otherwise expressly stated, this and every comment or blog I post on YPP and any action I take hereon is solely attributable to me and not Farnese or Friends of Farnese
How about less guns on the streets?
We obviously need stricter gun laws. However, there is a lot we can do without waiting for the legislature in Harrisburg to wake up to this problem.
Nutter should spearhead a massive effort to get people to turn in their guns. People in these neighborhoods are fed up with all the shootings and I think there would be a tremendous response to an initiative designed to get the weapons off the street. Yes, there are buy-back programs run by the police department, but I am talking by a very public effort led by the mayor. Why not get some celebrities involved? Let's send Bill Cosby, Jimmy Rollins, and John Runyan door to door.
---
Check out my website!
Ben, let's focus on a
Ben, let's focus on a "massive effort to get people to turn in their guns."
What is the carrot? What is the stick?
This week, there was an article in the Inky about the usage of guns being connected to an large increase in Philadelphia's drug trade and importance as a destination for drugs. What is the carrot for getting people involved in this business, who carry guns from protection and what is a very crude form of dispute resolution to give up their guns. Not one gun, but to disarm themselves entirely.
Mayor-elect Nutter's stop and frisk is a stick.
But, in your recomendation, there is neither carrot nor a stick.
The people who are fed up with the shootings likely do not own the guns and likely aren't doing the shootings.
We want illegal guns off the street. I think we can agree. Let's go after them.
But, what do we do right now about police officers being shot at?
I am working to elect Larry Farnese to the General Assembly. Unless otherwise expressly stated, this and every comment or blog I post on YPP and any action I take hereon is solely attributable to me and not Farnese or Friends of Farnese
In terms of law enforcement
In terms of law enforcement priorities, perhaps the Police and DA's office should prioritize gun crimes and violent crimes over non-violent, low level drug offenses. Clearly, we all know, possession of weed and selling weed is a crime. But, I'd rather see someone who owns an illegal firearm sitting in the can than a stoner.
What about that?
I am working to elect Larry Farnese to the General Assembly. Unless otherwise expressly stated, this and every comment or blog I post on YPP and any action I take hereon is solely attributable to me and not Farnese or Friends of Farnese
No question. The war on
No question. The war on drugs feeds a lot of this, and wastes all kinds of resources.
War on Drugs has been counterproductive
There has been a lot of attention in the media and other places to the burden placed on the budget by the pension fund for city employees and other obligations. However, very little has been said about the tremendous cost of locking up thousands of Philadelphians, mostly for non-violent crimes. This is the real black hole in the city budget.
Look, sending people to prison clearly does not reform most people. You only have to look at the high recidivism rates among ex-offenders to see that. We've got to completely overhaul our criminal justice system and focus on making prisons productive members of society. That means job training and access to education.
Check out my website!
Prisons/Shootings/and the Wire somehow
Actually a pretty good deal has been said about non-violent felons and incarceration/recidivism. Granted, it hasn't been in the news as much as pension and health benfits over the past two weeks, but its been a topic of discussion.
Its funny, every time a question like this comes up, I immediately think of The Wire. It is a cynical view, but in many respects it is entirely true. "Let's get the dope on the table", "Let's put the guns on the table".
In response to the larger arc of this conversation, I am always skeptical of gun buyback programs. As a gun owner, I have a slightly different perspective on this issue, one shared by a few others on this site (disclaimer: I AM NOT INTERESTED IN DEBATING THE SECOND AMMENDMENT, TO JEERLEADER ET AL). My perspective is that gun buy back programs target the wrong audience. While I won't dispute the fact that less guns on the street is largely a good thing, I question the effectiveness of offering cash for guns that have a questionable probability of being used in a murder.
Here are my thoughts: If a good amount of the murders in the city are committed by drug dealers, and drug dealers need guns to protect themselves from other drug dealers, how likely is it that the City offering cash will cause a drug dealer to relinquish his weapon? How likely is it that the murder rate will fall? Earlier this summer I recall a press conference with a table full of guns obtained through confiscations and the buy back program. Where are we in the body count in relation to last year?
Back to my Wire analogy: do we currently pursue gun dealers like we do drug dealers? Aren't they open to racketeering charges, or even murder charges? They must have some culpability. Couldn't this qualify as organized crime?
Gaetano, in response to your question about proactively reducing shootings on police, I'm not sure there is one. Retribution may be the only avenue we have. Police officers function as the arbiters of our society of laws; people so desperate or depraved to a attack them with a gun have no regard for society. The earlier point about drawing fire from Police is sound: if an individual is not scared to be justifiably killed by Police, would they have responded to incentives?
I think the only possible solutions involve increased employment opportunities and community policing. If the police are integrated into the community, maybe people will think twice before attacking their community. However, as far as a policy specifically targeting police shootings, I think you may be spitting in the wind.
I am somewhat distressed
I am somewhat distressed that Mayor Street opened his term with Operation Sunrise (I think) which entailed being tough on crime and now Michael Nutter, due to the rash of shootings, apparently has to open his administration with a show of being tough on crime.
At the same time, given the endemic poverty that exists throughout the city and the lack of jobs for African American men, John Street may be right in asserting pessimism about what can be done.
I don't know if anyone noticed, but Michael Nutter was being interviewed live on Channel 6 one point last night, as the local news stations were going into their hysterical mode. Nutter made a point that the shootings were not just about Philadelphia and that cities across PA were being affected. I guess the good things about Nutter's strategy was that he was a) communicating, b) setting the table for some coalition building in Harrisburg and c) explaining what he was going to do in the short term to have an immediate effect (possibly sue gun stores that sell to straw buyers). Each of these methods at least provide some hope to Philadelphia residents that violence is being tackled while not changing much in the larger perspective.
I'd like to see our elected officials try something creative--like providing all inmates with computers that have a) self-guided literacy software and b)some basic computer programming code to practice. Maybe there could also be some video games that train inmates to drive so they can get their commercial drivers license when they leave prison and don't have to turn to selling drugs to make a living.
--Mike
Weeds in the Sidewalk