Australian Politics Forum
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl
Member Run Boards >> Hunting and Fishing >> Why shouldn't police be subject to the same laws..
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1451092762
Message started by Yadda on Dec 26th, 2015 at 11:19am

Title: Why shouldn't police be subject to the same laws..
Post by Yadda on Dec 26th, 2015 at 11:19am

Why shouldn't police be subject to the very same laws as other citizens ?



freediver wrote on Dec 26th, 2015 at 8:25am:

So what should our target be?

50% of gun crimes being committed by innocent people?

Greater use of registered firearms in gun crime?




freediver,

"So what should our target be? 50% of gun crimes being committed by innocent people?"

Firstly,         .....your argument is a contradictory nonsense,            .....because gun crimes are not committed by 'innocent' people.



And two questions;

QUESTION;
Tell me,       .....do you believe that the servants of the political state should be allowed to possess 'dangerous' prohibited weapons [when there is a general law which pertains to every other citizen, regrading such weapons] ?


QUESTION;
And why should servants of the political state NOT be subject to the same laws [pertaining to 'dangerous' prohibited weapons], which prohibits peaceful, law abiding citizens from possessing such weapons ?




IMAGE...




As per, my argument made here.

-------- >

Yadda said....
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1448737635/71#71

Quote:

.....my question is, that;

If firearms are so dangerous [AND THEY ARE!], then,     ....why are so many firearms seen on the hips of so many people who are walking on our streets ?

My argument is, that because firearms are very dangerous, all of these people, are a danger to themselves, and to other citizens.

And for the sake of public safety, these firearms should be removed from our community.






QUESTION;
Why shouldn't police officers be subject to the very same laws [as regard to the possession of 'dangerous' firearms] as other peaceful, law abiding citizens ?


QUESTION;
And why should laws in some Australian states, mandate goal time [i.e. a more serious sentence] for assaults against police officers,        .....BUT NOT mandate goal time, for the same type of assault, against an 'ordinary' citizen ?


QUESTION;
Should the lives and personal safety, of police officers be regarded as being worth more, than the lives and personal safety of other peaceful, law abiding citizens ?

And if yes, then why ?

PLEASE EXPLAIN, the reasoning.


QUESTION;
Are police officers to be regarded as being a 'special category' of citizen, a citizen who is deserving of different [better] protections in law, and [better] citizen privileges, to other [lower status] peaceful, law abiding citizens ?


QUESTION;
Should members of police agencies in Australia,       .....BE A LAW UNTO THEMSELVES       [i.e. not be subject to the very same laws as every other peaceful, law abiding citizen] ?

Title: Re: Why shouldn't police be subject to the same laws..
Post by Yadda on Dec 26th, 2015 at 11:43am



!!!!!!!!!!



Quote:

WA officer who shot dog one of three to fail[ed] drug test for methamphetamine
By David Weber

Updated 3 Dec 2015, 11:09am
Biggie the dog Photo: The officer who shot Biggie was cleared of any wrongdoing, but failed an unrelated drug test earlier this week. (Supplied: Facebook)
Map: Perth 6000

A WA police officer who fatally shot a dog in Perth last month is one of three officers to fail a drug test this week.

The Internal Affairs Unit conducted routine drug and alcohol tests at five stations on Monday.

Three officers showed signs of amphetamine use and have been stood down, Police Commissioner Karl O'Callaghan said.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-12-03/dog-shooter-cop-fails-drug-test-for-meth/6997988



QUESTION;
Our Australian governments are giving Glock pistols to police officers to persons who may be regularly taking methamphetamine,
.....AND THEN ALLOWING THESE PERSONS TO WALK AROUND OUR SUBURBAN STREETS !!!!!!! ??????

A.
Yes!

Its true!!!!




The police should all be disarmed, IMMEDIATELY !!!!!

It is just too dangerous !

All of these people, loose in our suburbs,      .....armed with dangerous firearms on their hips,         .....they are a danger to themselves, and to other citizens.



As per, my argument made here.

-------- >

Yadda said....
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1448737635/71#71

Quote:

.....my question is, that;

If firearms are so dangerous [AND THEY ARE!], then,     ....why are so many firearms seen on the hips of so many people who are walking on our streets ?

My argument is, that because firearms are very dangerous, all of these people, are a danger to themselves, and to other citizens.

And for the sake of public safety, these firearms should be removed from our community.

Title: Re: Why shouldn't police be subject to the same laws..
Post by Sir Bobby on Dec 29th, 2015 at 6:47am
A Victorian policeman was asked once why cops carry guns -
his answer:

We never know who we might meet on our travels.

Title: Re: Why shouldn't police be subject to the same laws..
Post by Yadda on Dec 29th, 2015 at 9:54am

Bobby. wrote on Dec 29th, 2015 at 6:47am:
A Victorian policeman was asked once why cops carry guns -
his answer:

We never know who we might meet on our travels.



bobby,

Australia, 2015.

We either all [both, the police, AND, every other citizen] live in a society where violent crime can occur at any time.

Or we don't all live in such a society [i.e. we all live in a society where violent crime is unlikely to occur.].

Which is it ?




Google
australia, rise in violent home invasions


bobby,

I have to presume, that Australia today, is perceived by police agencies, to be a society where violent crime and assault can occur at any time.

And, police officers are permitted [required?], to routinely have access to, and to carry Glock pistols - FOR THE SAKE OF ENHANCING THEIR PERSONAL SAFETY.

Whereas, all other peaceful, law abiding citizens are PROHIBITED [in law] from even possessing a firearm, any firearm,       .....for the purpose of personal defense [e.g. in the event of a violent home invasion, by criminals].



QUESTION;
Does this evident circumstance [stated above], establish the fact, that the lives of police officers must be being regarded [by governments, and police agencies] as being worth more, than the lives and personal safety of all other, peaceful, law abiding citizens ?


QUESTION;
Should the lives and personal safety, of police officers be regarded as being worth more, than the lives and personal safety of all other, peaceful, law abiding citizens ?

Is that a proper approach, to combating violence crime in our community ?

i.e.
To establish [in the laws governing police authority, over all 'other' citizens], that the lives and personal safety, of police officers are to be regarded as being worth more, than the lives and personal safety of all other, peaceful, law abiding citizens ?



bobby,

QUESTION;
Why shouldn't police officers be subject to the very same laws [as regard to the possession of 'dangerous' firearms] as other peaceful, law abiding citizens ?



QUESTION;
Why do police officers need ready and instant access to,      .....what have been deemed in law, to be prohibited and 'dangerous' firearms ?

Are these firearms really required, for their personal safety ?



QUESTION;
Couldn't police officers rely upon an alternative, and lawful means, for their personal self defense ?

For example, any carpenters hammer is legal, and a hammer is a lethal weapon.  [and a lot cheaper than a Glock pistol!]

QUESTION;
Why don't police agencies simply issue police officers with a hammer [with an appropriate holster], for their personal defense ???

That way, police officers could comply with our prohibited and 'dangerous' firearms laws.

i.e.
AS EVERY OTHER CITIZEN IS REQUIRED TO DO.


Or do police agencies believe that disarming police officers [of Glock pistols], WILL BE DETRIMENTAL TO POLICE OFFICERS ABILITY TO DEFEND THEMSELVES AGAINST VIOLENT ASSAULTS ???




http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1451092762/0#0

Quote:

QUESTION;
Why shouldn't police officers be subject to the very same laws [as regard to the possession of 'dangerous' firearms] as other peaceful, law abiding citizens ?


QUESTION;
And why should laws in some Australian states, mandate goal time [i.e. a more serious sentence] for assaults against police officers,        .....BUT NOT mandate goal time, for the same type of assault, against an 'ordinary' citizen ?


QUESTION;
Should the lives and personal safety, of police officers be regarded as being worth more, than the lives and personal safety of other peaceful, law abiding citizens ?

And if yes, then why ?

PLEASE EXPLAIN, the reasoning.


QUESTION;
Are police officers to be regarded as being a 'special category' of citizen, a citizen who is deserving of different [better] protections in law, and [better] citizen privileges, to other [lower status] peaceful, law abiding citizens ?


QUESTION;
Should members of police agencies in Australia,       .....BE A LAW UNTO THEMSELVES       [i.e. not be subject to the very same laws as every other peaceful, law abiding citizen] ?

Title: Re: Why shouldn't police be subject to the same laws..
Post by Sir Bobby on Dec 29th, 2015 at 3:45pm
Come on Yadda -
what if the cops meet a psycho killer with a gun?

I know what you mean e.g. in New Zealand & England the
cops don't normally carry guns.

I think the rules should be tightened on police gun use.
There are too many people being shot -
remember that Abbo woman in St Kilda who was shot 6 times by a cop because she
was damaging an outside bus seat with a knife or tomahawk?

Title: Re: Why shouldn't police be subject to the same laws..
Post by Yadda on Dec 29th, 2015 at 9:58pm

Bobby. wrote on Dec 29th, 2015 at 3:45pm:

Come on Yadda -
what if the cops meet a psycho killer with a gun?


OK bobby, i'll play.

What would happen ?

Title: Re: Why shouldn't police be subject to the same laws..
Post by Sir Bobby on Dec 29th, 2015 at 10:10pm

Yadda wrote on Dec 29th, 2015 at 9:58pm:

Bobby. wrote on Dec 29th, 2015 at 3:45pm:

Come on Yadda -
what if the cops meet a psycho killer with a gun?


OK bobby, i'll play.

What would happen ?




They would need their pistols for defense.

Title: Re: Why shouldn't police be subject to the same laws..
Post by Yadda on Dec 29th, 2015 at 10:15pm

Bobby. wrote on Dec 29th, 2015 at 3:45pm:

Come on Yadda -
what if the cops meet a psycho killer with a gun?



bobby,

What if i met a psycho cop 'loaded up' with methamphetamine, armed with his police issue  Glock pistol ?

What if he didn't like the colour of my eyes!!!!!

Would he shoot me down in the street, like a dog ?



.



For context to the scenario above, see the news report, cited.

----------- >

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1451092762/1#1

Title: Re: Why shouldn't police be subject to the same laws..
Post by Yadda on Dec 29th, 2015 at 10:20pm

Bobby. wrote on Dec 29th, 2015 at 10:10pm:

Yadda wrote on Dec 29th, 2015 at 9:58pm:

Bobby. wrote on Dec 29th, 2015 at 3:45pm:

Come on Yadda -
what if the cops meet a psycho killer with a gun?


OK bobby, i'll play.

What would happen ?




They would need their pistols for defense.



Would they ?



Why ?

bobby,

What would happen, what COULD happen, if the cops met a psycho killer with a gun, and they did not have their pistols with them ?

Come on.

Play it out.

:)

Australian Politics Forum » Powered by YaBB 2.5.2!
YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2026. All Rights Reserved.