Someone said if you slug a cop in tx its 5years. Civilian 1 year. How does this not violate equal protection clause?
Cops are there to protect and serve. A civilian is not.
No one notices if a civilian runs from danger, but if a cop on duty ran from danger..oh lawd. So there is a difference like there would be if you physically harmed the president, important people are important.
Granted i think anyone should beable to protect themselves from bodily harm from any officer or govt official providing they broke no law to provoke the attack, but to straight up attack one should deem higher sentence imo.
Because... Texas. They luvs their authority, despite taking on Libertopian trappings.
Because of liberals.
That goes against everything this country stands for like when blacks served way worse sentences statutorily than whites for same crime. Anyway I'm just wondering what the constitutional or unconstitutional basis they can justify one life is more important than another and deserves greater sentencing. We all know they do it. e.g. child rape vs adult rape.
When you slug a cop you're also attacking the system so its not just 1 person who got attacked.Someone said if you slug a cop in tx its 5years. Civilian 1 year. How does this not violate equal protection clause?