PC Killer does not deserve a life sentence

sr4470 said:
Well, the states' own records show it:
Click to expand...

I knew about young veteran suicides, I meant murders. Hence the Rambo comment.

The article you linked to on the murder rate increasing in Minneapolis said nothing about soldiers.

Fox News said:
According to analysis by FOX News, the murder rate among vets is seven per 100,000. In the same age group, among civilians who live in the USA, it is 40 per 100,000. Therefore, the military murder rate is actually 82 percent lower than the civilian murder rate.
Click to expand...

I know it's Fox News, so probably biased, but it's the first result that came up.

Source: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,323773,00.html
 
Last edited:
Inquisitor said:
Expressing one's contempt for authority and society should not be illegal; it's called free speech.
Click to expand...

Talking about it and doing something about it are two very different things. Terrorism also springs to mind here.

Inquisitor said:
You seem to be suggesting that his sentence should be increased for the sake of some arbitrary sense of neatness?
Click to expand...

The defendant increased his offences from just shooting the police officer and injuring him to murder by then shooting him in the head "for the sake of some arbitrary sense of neatness". So yes I am.

After reading the judgement, it seems that it is unlawful for somebody to be detained for their whole life without any potential for release under the Human Rights Convention. There was also a disagreement to whether the murder was of "exceptionally high seriousness" or "particularly high seriousness". Therefore the sentence was reduced.

Burnsy
 
Burnsy2023 said:
Talking about it and doing something about it are two very different things. Terrorism also springs to mind here.
Click to expand...

Of course they are, and that's why he's being punished for it. The 'doing' part was the act of shooting someone, and that's what he should be (and has been) tried for, not the fact that he chose to express his contempt by shooting a police officer in particular.

His expression of contempt was in shooting a police officer; his acting on that was shooting a police officer. Do you see what I mean?

Burnsy2023 said:
The defendant increased his offences from just shooting the police officer and injuring him to murder by then shooting him in the head "for the sake of some arbitrary sense of neatness". So yes I am.
Click to expand...

You're misunderstanding me. I'm not disputing whether he deserves life or not (I'm undecided on this one), but rather highlighting that in your previous post, you seem to be implying that his sentence should be increased to life purely because "it's almost life anyway," rather than because he actually deserves life.
 
Inquisitor said:
Of course they are, and that's why he's being punished for it. The 'doing' part was the act of shooting someone, and that's what he should be (and has been) tried for, not the fact that he chose to express his contempt by shooting a police officer in particular.

His expression of contempt was in shooting a police officer; his acting on that was shooting a police officer. Do you see what I mean?
Click to expand...

I see what your saying, but I think that having contempt for society and authority as a motivator for another offence is inherently wrong if you know what I mean.

Inquisitor said:
You're misunderstanding me. I'm not disputing whether he deserves life or not (I'm undecided on this one), but rather highlighting that in your previous post, you seem to be implying that his sentence should be increased to life purely because "it's almost life anyway," rather than because he actually deserves life.
Click to expand...

I think that reading the facts of the event clearly show that he should not have been granted the right to appeal and have his sentence reduced. I was disagreeing with people saying that taking a few years off a life sentence is just as good. So I'm kinda saying the reverse :p

Burnsy
 
"There is one particular aggravating feature which is not allowed for in the fact that you killed a Police Officer in the course of his duty, and that aggravating feature is that you did not need to shoot him through the head. You had already disabled him and he was defenceless, you could have escaped then, but you chose to wait and fire a second shot at point blank range. It must be acknowledged that he might have died as a result of your first shot, but you made certain of his death."

"Two grounds of appeal are advanced. The first contends that the facts of this case did not justify the imposition of a whole life order. The second contends that a whole life order infringes Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights and, for this reason, should not have been imposed"

Did the murdered police officer have human rights when the gun was at his head?
 
If you keep reading the judgment, the human rights argument was dismissed and the sentence reduced on the sole basis that the facts did not justify a whole life sentence.
 
Rich_L said:
If you keep reading the judgment, the human rights argument was dismissed and the sentence reduced on the sole basis that the facts did not justify a whole life sentence.
Click to expand...

Like I said, the whole sentence hinged on whether the judge thought the murder was of "exceptionally high seriousness" or "particularly high seriousness". Personally, I think the original judge had the right interpretation.

Burnsy
 
Expressing one's contempt for authority and society should not be illegal, in fact it's protected by our rights to free speech. Hence, the only aspect of this crime that should be taken into consideration is the fact that he killed someone. That it was a police officer isn't really relevant.
Click to expand...

Police officers are more likely to be killed given the nature of their duties: as a consequence they should either be more protected and given more support with antagonists given harsher sentences to reflect that fact. The fact that it was a police officer is completely relevant as a harsher sentence could act as a deterrent.
 
Last edited:
I quite agree with Burnsy on this. Didn't the judge at the trial say that Bieber could have walked away after firing the first shot. However he decided to shoot the seriously injured police officer again to make sure he died. Apparently he probably would have died anyway but Bieber made certain of this and this is why the judge gave him a whole life tariff.

Hopefully someone with a connection to the case will fund some kind of appeal to the decision to cut his term.
 
The guy should be locked up and the key thrown away and let him starve to death, perhaps torture him, chop his fingers off, then his arms, pull his eyeballs out etc.. thats punishment.
 
In my opinion when its as clear cut cold blooded murder as this he should be killed.

Cost of life in prison or even 37 years = £a lot
Cost of lethal injection, a knife or a bullet = £next to nothing (didnt include electrocution due to the recent price increases)

and if were gonna make it a mastercard advert ill finish with

cost of justice being served = priceless.
 
I'm trying to imagine what it's like lining up the sights on a helpless man, begging, crying and probably peeing himself... shouting screaming at me not to kill him, telling me about his kids, or family (if he had any) and then being able to pull the trigger... or pull it anyway. I know what it's like to shoot guns and rifles (both personal and military training), I've killed animals when hunting and that's easy... but to look in the eyes of an innocent man, helpless and pleading - it takes a seriousuly ****ed up person to do that, or someone that shouldn't be in society... someone that has no concept of human interaction and living in society.

I don't know what punishments are fair in such incidents - but I can help but feeling angered at such events.
 
elitetrick said:
In my opinion when its as clear cut cold blooded murder as this he should be killed.

Cost of life in prison or even 37 years = £a lot
Cost of lethal injection, a knife or a bullet +appeals +20 or so years in jail while appeals are run = £several times more than life sentence

and if were gonna make it a mastercard advert ill finish with

cost of justice being served = priceless.
Click to expand...

Fixed
 
markyp23 said:
The cost of the death penalty is nigh on equal to the cost of a life imprisonment.
Click to expand...

not if it's done properly, all these lethal injections / chairs / gas in USA when there is a simple way, here is break down of cost -

Gun - Zero (use a existing one)
1 * 9mm round to back of head - 50p

if I was PM of this country things would be a lot different

edit: if thats not quick enough how about take a idea from cartoons, like a 1000 tons weight dropped from a height, instant death and you only have to hire a crane.
 
Last edited:
Flukester said:
not if it's done properly, all these lethal injections / chairs / gas in USA when there is a simple way, here is break down of cost -

Gun - Zero (use a existing one)
1 * 9mm round to back of head - 50p

if I was PM of this country things would be a lot different
Click to expand...

But you're forgetting the endless appeals retrials, and 20 or so years in prison before the execution.


As you can't just take a man and shoot him right after the trial, what if you where wrong?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom