EEllis wrote:Among other things the statement about police officers being less vulnerable is weak logic. It's like saying someone in a open Jeep in the US is more vulnerable than solders in a armored Humvee would be in a war zone. Additionally you assume that the additional penalty indicates that they have some superior right when historically the extra penalty was because of the Public not the individual officer. It is the public that is additional harmed by being deprived of the service of the public servant, we who bare the additional cost when they are injured.VMI77 wrote: Well, if we really believed in what the Constitution says in the equal protection clause, then laws punishing one group more severely than some privileged group would be unconstitutional. Our rights are supposed to be individual rights, not collective rights, so a police officer's right to life should not be superior to mine. Elevating the lives of police officers above the lives of those they are supposed to protect is a product of collectivism, and as you suggest, it also makes no logical sense, since the average police office is less vulnerable to violence than the average citizen.
You seem to be conflating vulnerability and exposure, but even so, you don't have much of a case. I would call your analogy bogus but it doesn't make sense. Your sentence about the additional penalty is so convoluted I'm not sure what you're saying. However, the history of whatever law you're talking about is completely irrelevant to my statement, as is whatever justification supported it. I made a general statement about treating police officers and citizens unequally under the law. Your last sentence is just, well, for lack of a better word: sophistry. Collectivism seems to be the kernel of whatever argument you're attempting to make: it appears you would subordinate the rights of an individual to some supposed benefit of the collective. The logic of collectivism justifies any depredation, including mass murder. Sorry, but this country was founded based on individual rights, not the rights of any supposed collective.