[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by Yoko Takeo

You misunderstood me. If authorities know the man killed randomly, and they know he can do it again, then it's only fair that he receives the same punishment because he has already killed. I'm not saying someone should be thrown in jail because he is a potential danger, but he because he is in fact dangerous and has been proven to be so. I also apologize if I misunderstood you. If you always meant that the cop killed unintentionally, then the circumstances do change. I was referring to a case where the murder, while not premeditated, was intentional. I have only been referring to policemen who wrongly feel they are above the law because they represent it. If the murder was unintentional, it depends on the circumstances. If he admits what he's done and pleads guilty, death isn't warrented, but an extensive amount of time in jail is. If he hides the fact and pretends it never happened, it's the same as casting away the guilt and pretend that it meant nothing, in which case, the crime can't be forgiven by a mere 20 to 30 years in prison.

Yeah I think we're talking about too different things. Though I can sum up my position this way, if a cop shoots someone, the fact that they're a cop should not be used to treat them differently than a civilian. If it's murder if a civilian does it, it should be murder if a cop does it.

I did say people who can kill at random (and intentionally) are more dangerous.

It's very very rare that someone kills at random though. Even in the case of mass murders where someone goes someplace and shoots into a crowd, it's not completely random. They're usually trying to target specific people, or a specific type of person at least.

That is a case of self defense, it has nothing to do with what I was discussing. My argument was against those people who commit an act of murder, not an act of self-defense.

It does show that state of mind is considered in determining if a crime takes place and the severity of it. Though yeah I think we're talking about different things here.

It still wouldn't absolve him from the crime he's committed, that being to intentionally kill someone at random because he believes he has the right to. Of course, this was said for the sake of argument, nothing more.

Things like that are rather rare in developed nations though.