Michigan Proposes Death Penalty for Killing an Officer- Furthering Special Treatment for Police
IMFrankenmuth, MI– Senators in Michigan, the first state to ban capital punishment, have proposed a constitutional amendment allowing the death penalty for the first-degree murder of an on-duty police or corrections officer.The resolution is sponsored by Sen. Virgil Smith, a Democrat, but also has backing from the top two Republicans in the GOP-controlled Senate. The divisive bill would require a 2/3 majority vote in both chambers before it would be put on the statewide ballot.
“I feel like if you shoot a police officer, you’re probably the worst of the worst criminal we have out there,” said Sen. Virgil Smith.
“If you’re willing to go that far, there’s no telling what you’d be willing to do. So no mercy at that point.”
The mother of Trooper Paul Butterfield, Jr., who was killed in the line of duty in September of 2013 spoke to WNEM stating her mixed feelings on the matter.
When you’re talking about the murder of a police officer, many times those are spur of the moment things that happen, you’re caught in a situation, you don’t have time to think I may go to prison, or I may be sent to the death penalty,” Butterfield said.
Butterfield does not believe that the threat of capital punishment would have deterred her son’s killer, who was sentenced to life in prison without parole, but ended up hanging himself in his cell last spring.
Republican Senator Rick Jones, who spent 30 years working in a County Sheriff’s Office, was shot at twice during his time with the department and is adamantly against the proposal.
“I opposed it because occasionally the system makes a mistake,” Jones told MLive, noting that a Lansing man was convicted for killing a community college professor in 2005 but was later exonerated when new evidence was discovered.
“We cannot dig a man up and say, ‘Sorry, we made a mistake,’” said Jones. “We could release an innocent man from prison.”
There has never been any evidence that capital punishment deters crime. In the heat of the moment crimes, there is rarely time to sit down and weigh your pros and cons.
Another facet to consider is the ramification of no-knock raids.
In Texas, where the death penalty is legal, there were two nearly identical cases of SWAT officers being killed within a six-month-time frame. Both men fired on the officers, who had allegedly not identified themselves as police, believing they were acting in self-defense against intruders.
One of the men was cleared of any wrongdoing after it was decided he acted in self-defense, the other is currently facing the death penalty. The cases are nearly identical in nature, even down to the time of the morning that they occurred. The only difference being the man facing execution is black.
In a system as corrupt and as damaged as ours, should we really put human lives even deeper into the hands of our crooked state?
As of 11 pm on Friday, February 6, KilledByPolice.net has logged 110 people killed by police since the first of the year.
The Officer Down Memorial Page lists zero officers killed by suspects.
With numbers like those, it is truly astonishing witnessing the audacity of these senators who are trying to grant further special treatment to these men and women who can already kill with impunity.
Police lives matter? You don’t have to tell us, we can see that. It would be nice if everyone else’s lives mattered, too.
Read more at TheFreeThoughtProject
Lets consider a closer look at what this law would imply. Meaning if an individual were protecting their life in defense of an out of control police dog, and you hurt or killed this dog you would be sentenced to death. The fine print of this law indicates ANY OFFICER. Police dogs are allocated officers so therefore you killed an officer. Various people have been sentenced to large amounts of time behind bars or life in prison over defending their lives against out of control police dogs. So being they are classified an officer and you kill or harm the dog, you will be put to death. Can you imagine this logic? We can’t. A dogs life if worth more than a humans. A Police Dog is a tool and it is the responsibility of the controlling officer to control his tool or weapon. A dogs reaction to a situation is directly related to the trainer. Therefore the trainer knowing the risks of using that tool should be obligated directly. Its no different than a man on a skyscraper using a hammer, the hammer falls onto a person, the person is harmed and the hammer is broken. Should we convict the person for being in the way for the damage to the hammer? Of course not. Dogs are both a weapon and a tool thus the responsibility of the trainer/owner. You as a dog owner are responsible for your pet, why is it any different with the police? Unjust laws and illogical concepts seem to be the rule within the judicial system now days.
Lets consider this: A man signs up to be a law enforcement officer. He is informed of the risks involved in the occupation. Knowing all the risks involved he still consents to put himself forward in defense of the public. When something dangerous happens to this officer he then puts the onus onto the person who may or may not have been responsible for his injuries or harm. The officer reaps the benefits of monetary compensation for those risks. That is the perk to the occupation, protection by compensation or death benefits to his family. We the tax payers assure an officer who is injured or dies are compensated for the risk. Why then do we now request payment in an eye for an eye conclusion. We have seen many instances where people are only defending themselves from the over reach of brutality by the police. In defense of ones life against that brutality. Should we convict this person to an automatic death sentence?
Now lets consider this: You son signs up to serve in a war zone. Knowing all the risks involved he still consents to put himself forward in defense of his country. When something dangerous happens to him the onus is put onto the taxpayers to pick up the monetary compensation for the injuries of life and limb. It is well documented your son will most likely fight and scratch for every benefit in order to at least try to regain a relatively normal life again. If the law stands in defense of the police to hold the perpetrator of the incident accountable then should we not hold those who place our sons/daughters in harms way accountable in the same regard. If the people call for the crime to be paid in death, then why are we not holding the commanders accountable? The commanders and politicians are the ones who are directly responsible for the injury. Order are orders and your sons and daughters are merely tools/weapons. No different than the Police Dog, however the dog is recognized with more respect.