I can see the argument that police, when on-duty, are representing the state and citizenry, and that assault on them is legitimately considered a special sort of attack against us all.
But should special penalties apply when a law enforcement officer is off duty? While I can imagine cases (as speculated upon by the legislators questioned) where crooks would go after off-duty cops, we do have laws against assault on all people. Are those not adequate? Is it a greater crime against society to assault an off-duty police officer than to assault a woman standing at a bus stop? Is the possibility that such a law might be abused worth consideration?
And if this is really a needed thing, why just assault? Why not vandalism, or burglary? A crook might do any number of unpleasant things for vengeance against the police; should any crime against them, or their families, or even their friends, be treated as a crime against the state?
When a person puts on the uniform, they are representing me and all of the people. When they take it off, they are no better (nor any worse) than any other citizen. I don't see a reason to somehow treat crimes against them, as civilians, as somehow more significant.
Bill signed into law will increase penalties for assaulting off-duty officer
OKLAHOMA CITY – Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin signed a bill into law that will increase the penalty for assaulting an off-duty law enforcement officer. Currently, anyone who commits assault or assa…
Conversely, should there be special laws for police officers who commit crimes?
I ran out of giving a damn when I started seeing one video after another of people being brutally assaulted by gang members for just crossing the street or looking at them funny. Oops, I didn’t mean gang members, I meant police. When a cop commits a crime, not only shouldn’t they get away with it because they are cops, they should be held to a higher standard. Part of that “representing us all” thing.
No special laws of protection should ever be given to the police that are not also granted to the citizens they are supposed to be protecting. To do so creates a police state, which are pretty much firmly in the grips of.
Also, police should be held to a higher standard and penalties than that of the citizens when they rape, murder, steal, and assault (on an alarmingly high daily basis) the people they are sworn to protect.
Conceptually, I think I support this. If you target off duty police for violence, you are creating a social issue, worse than normal violence. It implies intimidation, retaliation, or prejudice because of their role.
Burglary and vandalism are nuisances….so even if they are against officers, they don't threaten. If they di threaten, this law comes into play.
My only concern is if it's too broad in wording or implementation.
If you are assaulting a Government official because they are a government official then you are attacking the state. Conversely I do believe that such officials should be held to a higher standard within the area of their job – for example a prison officer who smuggles a mobile phone into prison should be dealt with more harshly- not necessarily different laws, but their profession being an aggravating factor.
With the example used, I can see the reasoning. It's very easy to get angry with a cop for giving you a ticket, and then waiting to kick his ass when he's out of of uniform. On the other hand, why not just make it a felony to assault anyone, regardless of whether they're a police officer or not?
+Marty Shaw That's the question, as is, as far as I know, illegal to assault anyone, whether they are a police officer, a housewife, a bank manager, a paper boy, or a tax collector.
+Greg Stockton I think it is a very short step from a special protection for off-duty cops from assault — using that line of reasoning — to any sort of offense, even "nuisance" offenses such as vandalism. "By spraying 'pig' on Officer Smith's private vehicle, the defendant created a climate of fear and terror, and the risk of further retaliation against Officer Smith and his family."
Further, the room for abuse is significant. If an off-duty cop gets into a fight at a bar, it's already more likely that he'll not face charges by being given a pass by his fellow officers ("Just go home and sleep it off, Charlie–we got this."). Now his erstwhile opponent could face even greater penalties for assaulting an off-duty cop.
(So flip side to this law: if you are going to give cops greater protection against hypothetical revenge assaults, they should face greater penalties if, off-duty [let alone on-duty] they commit crimes.)