[url]http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/ny-bc-ny--officerslain-sent0619jun19,0,122106.story?coll=ny-ap-regional-wire[/url]

June 19, 2003, 3:35 PM EDT


NEW YORK -- Two men were sentenced Thursday to 25 years to life in prison for the murder of Police Officer Michael Buczek, shot as he tried to question suspects 14{ years ago.

State Supreme Court Justice Michael Obus said as he sentenced Pablo Almonte and Jose Fernandez that [red]killing a police officer "during the performance of his duty is among the most serious crimes anyone can commit.
It is an attack on everyone."[/red]  

The slain officer's father, Ted Buczek, 76, read a victim's impact statement in which he said he worked and waited a long time for the killers to be caught. "I never gave up the pursuit of justice for the murder of my son," he said.

Almonte, 47, and Fernandez, 53, were convicted May 28 of second-degree murder as accomplices in Buczek's death. Both, extradited from the Dominican Republic after 13 years of pressure on government officials of that Caribbean island nation, maintained their innocence.

Both told Obus before he imposed the sentences that they were convicted by the false testimony of criminals who had made deals with prosecutors. Fernandez said he was in Queens when Buczek was killed, and Almonte claimed he was merely a witness.

Buczek, 24, was shot dead on a Washington Heights street on Oct. 18, 1988, around 9:30 p.m. after he and partner Joseph Barbato saw two suspicious men leave an apartment building. The officers followed the men onto 161st Street near Broadway to question them.

Assistant District Attorney David Drucker said the two men, Almonte and Daniel Mirambeaux, had just robbed a drug dealer.

When the men ignored the officers' order to stop, Buczek grabbed Almonte, and Mirambeaux fired a bullet into Buczek's chest. The prosecutor said Almonte slipped free of his coat and fled, but apparently Mirambeaux had shot him, too.

Fernandez had left minutes ahead of them. He was not present during the shooting but was convicted as part of the larger felony.

Within 24 hours, Drucker said, the three had found a doctor to treat Almonte and had fled to the Dominican Republic.

Drucker said Mirambeaux, arrested by Dominican police soon after he arrived on the island, died in custody in a mysterious fall in 1989 before police could send him back to the United States.

After years of negotiations and political pressure on Dominican officials, Almonte was returned to New York in March 2001, and Fernandez was returned in May 2002. Though neither was accused as the shooter, they were charged with murder as accomplices.

Buczek's widow, Christina Michie, told the court that while she was virtually consumed by grief, the defendants "lived normal lives, enjoying every new day with their loved ones."

"It's hard for me to find the words to express the rage that I have felt over the years, wondering where they (the defendants) were, and what they were doing," Michie said.

[size=5][green]Yes it's a lot more serious then killing a humble citizen,right?[/green][/size=5]

It was acommentary on MOTIVE. all killings have motive; anger, revenge, jealosy, personal gain, to avoid capture.

I took the judges comments to mean murder to avoid capture is a greater risk to a lawfull society than a crack head murdering his competitor for financial gain.

Dang, jrzy.  Don't you ever get tired of this stuff?

Surely you must have something [u]positive[/u] to talk about every once and a while.

The only thing I see wrong is why aren't they strapped in old sparky on low for a few hours instead of being kept at our expense for years to come.
Fry the fuckers !!!

Thank you SGB.  This was reply when I saw the original.  It's amazing how people twist words.

Why is killing a Police Officer any worse than killing anybody else?

Murder is murder, death penalty for all who murder.

Yeah kill the messegenger for saying the truth,
I guess your life is worth less then any police officer ,right?
That's all I am saying is that everyone's life is of the highest value and no one's life is more or less valuable ,period!

To say one persons life is worth more because he is a cop is pure elitism and that's what they are saying when they hand down a tougher sentence or are quoted like in this story.

How about before the regular death penalty was enacted in NY state, at first just for the killing a of a police officer.

Jrzy, is this what you were looking for the other day?


[beathorse]

I can see the blue wave coming, damn you guys are fucking predictable.

It is true that if someone kills a homeless crackhead, people wont get as upset, as if it were a cop.

That I agree with. Is is right? no.
Is it fair? no.


Lifes not fair.

And that my friend, is life.

I believe that if you carefully re-read my post I didn't say anything about "killng" anyone for saying the truth.



I agree with you on this statement.  Except for the killers.  Their life isn't worth much.



Did you read SGB's post?  He said, "Maybe you just didn't understand the "It is an attack on everyone." part?

Attacking and Killing an Officer in the line of Duty is the Same as Attacking Society as a Whole. The Officers being a representative of the society."

He is correct.  That is clearly what the judge was saying.

Do you disagree with that statement?

Do you realize you are saying the life of someone like Einstein or Mozart wasnt any more valuable than some crackhead from the ghetto?

Not all people are equal, not even close.

Another cop thread, jrzy?  I'm being serious here, not trying to start nothing.  I was just wondering (since in your last thread you mentioned having "some of the best stories from hanging out with your friends that are cops") when you were going to post something positive about cops.

Just curious.
CR

I'd venture to say he'll start in with the positive stuff as soon as the negative stuff dries up. [;D]

'scuse me while I toss this bucket of 91 octane on the fire.

I object to the notion that the slain officer is somehow more "representative of the society" than the society itself. Remember, the commonly used term by LEOs for non-LEOs is "citizen." This word, by definition, clearly denotes the ordinary person as the make-up of the social construct. The fallen officer was an employee of the civilian govenrment; he was not specifically chosen to represent the citizenry in the manner that a city councilman, mayor or president would be.

I agree that the killing of a police officer, especially under extreme circumstances, does somehow represent a more heinous crime than the killing of an innocent citizen. More heinous, because the criminal has killed the protector - the one who is supposed to stand between the criminal and the innocent. In the abstract sense that by killing the cop, the barrier between the criminal and the innocent has been compromised, and the citizenry stands to be at greater risk. I hope that this concept is what the judge had in mind, and not the more specious concept that by virtue of vocation, the police officer is granted a more valuable position in society. It is essential that we all remember that in America, the police and even the military are subservient to the civilian authority; they exist to serve and protect the citizenry.

That's probably true (but maybe not even then) - but the point was for someone to say earlier in the day that they have by far many more positive experiences than negative, I would have thought maybe we could hear at least ONE positive story.
CR

No ,that's the Judges view point and it's also how many of you would like to look at it,that don't make it right or lawful either.
If the judge had said "killing anyone that was an innocent person is the most serious of crimes" this topic would never have been posted.

The judge apparently chose his words carefully as he used the phrase "is among" to describe the crime.

[i]"State Supreme Court Justice Michael Obus said as he sentenced Pablo Almonte and Jose Fernandez that killing a police officer "during the performance of his duty [red]is among the most serious crimes anyone can commit[/red].  It is an attack on everyone."[/i]

I'd venture to guess that he would have also said, "Murdering a soccer mom while waiting to pick up the dog at the vet is among the most serious crimes...."

While I think I understand the judges sentiment, I disagree with him.  He is obviously carefully constructing a superiority to the life of a police officer.  However, not being a dumbass, he has given himself an "out" to downplay it....

I think, the point here is that murderers deserve the death penalty, but that this particular murderer, having killed the cop, could have killed many civilians as well, having removed the barrier between "we citizens" and "himself the criminal".
That is what makes this perhaps worse.

I am pro-cop. Why?
Because I realize that the threat to the local crackheads and bad guys is great enough from our local police, that by the time a bad guy decides to try to assault *me*, he is either deranged enough to make an easy target, or enough of a badass that no one will care when I get to shoot him.

I wave to our cops as they drive by, and offer witness assistance if I see a crime committed. ("They went that way, wearing whatever. Hope you nail em, guys.")

Here is a pro cop opinion:
I was taught to shoot in the Englewood Police Children's Gun Club at an early age.
Yes, COPS taught me how to fire my first gun.
I will be forever grateful.

they should have gotten the death penalty

Here is a cynical viewpoint:

Will you EVER see a young child taught by a Police Gun Club again in your lifetime?  It's not PC any more, so my $1M is on, "No."

How sad.  Huh?

I'm not chiming in for or against the topic, but I think its worth mentioning (as you most likely already know) that this is NOT by any stretch a new precedent.

Most judges are required to act within sentencing guidelines.  If you've ever heard anyone talk about the "grid" they are talking about the sentencing guidelines.  The law has already established that capital murder carries a stiffer sentence than non-capital.  Capital murder includes, murder of a law enforcement officer, murder of someone as a result of or as part of a kidnapping.  There are more that fall within this category, I'm sorry I can't list them right now.  This does in essance say that killing an identified LEO is worse than a drive-by shooting (both CAN result in death penalty) but it also says that the death of a person whom you have kidnapped is also worse than a so called crime of passion murder.

oh here we go again!

yes, so let me be the first to say:

IBTL! [BD]

Hypothetically, what if two HOMOSEXUAL cops are murdered, what's the penalty then?

Dang jrzy, you just love it here in the hotseat...

I do seem to be walking around on fire lately huh? LOL

If two homo cops were gunned down the proper punishment is the death penalty,their sexual preferences have nothing to do with them as human beings,they still enjoy most of the same rights as you and I (giving you the benefit of the doubt sex wise) LOL  

If the cops are not held in a higher regard by the law, then why is attacking a police dog on the same level as assaulting a cop, vice the attacking of someones pet dog?

A dog is a dog after all....

Go back and read my and SGB's posts.

SGB said, " "Maybe you just didn't understand the "It is an attack on everyone." part?

Attacking and Killing an Officer in the line of Duty is the Same as Attacking Society as a Whole. The Officers being a representative of the society."

The same is true of a police dog.  When on "duty", the dog is a representative of society and it's rule of law.  He is not just a dog, he is a representative of our society.  We are a nation of laws.  Different from the lawless and Godless other nations of the world.

A murder of ANYONE is an attack on society, why specifically address it with a LEO flavor?

"Murder is among the worst crimes you can commit against society." Is what the knucklehead should have said....

He qualified that murder of a LEO is special.  He qualified it as special by putting in the phrase about the LEO's.

He specifically expressed that this killing was worse because the killers killed a cop on duty.

Bend it the way you will, the words are there.

*golf clap*

good post

More like *Clap Trap!*

ALL Men are equal before God, as all SHOULD be under the law!! THAT, is one principle upon what used to be a bright beacon of freedom in the world, was Founded!

An American, is a Sovereign Freeman, NOT State Chattel. We HONOR you, by giving you, and our other "Public Servants", authority over your EQUALS. How dare you assume your life is more valuable than mine!! Most men would don a certain humility at the Honor we bestow upon you.

An Attack on Society as a whole?? HA!! Maybe the charge should be "Terrorism" eh!?? Sound far-fetched??  Isn't that what our Founders did??? What happens when "society", is effectively insane, and there's no redress in the courts??

Have any of you read John Locke, Fredrick Bastiat, or Our founding Documents??
You should be ashamed of yourselves...

liberty86, that is what i was trying to say although i couuld not have said it as well.
You stated what I was trying to convey but i am always to abrasive in my tone and sometimes the message gets lost in the grit of my words.

if all life is equally valuable than how do you justify killing in the defense of others?

No one has said that they would not kill to defend themself or others,I think when someone threatens your life or the life of someone else they lose their protection of equality.
They have now made you choose who's life is more valuable to you, their life or yours?
Self preservation takes over and the choice is made for you.

so the actions a person takes can change the value of that person's life ?

If I kill in defense of others, they will be innocents, and I will be killing agressors.

A far better Fate than Nirvana awaits me!! [snoopy]

[b]John 15:13  Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends[/b]

No the action [b][they[/b] take can make you choose between them or you,their life is still valuable but not as valuable as mine is to [b]me[/b] if you are trying to kill me.
There are some peoples lives who will always be more valuable to me then my own, my children and my wife's are perfect examples of values being subjective to who is making that decision.

It would also be your decision who's life is more valuable if someone was trying to kill you.
You are free to consider his life worth more at that moment then your own ,not to many would make that decision but it would be your call ,right?

my point is that apparently some people can decrease the value of their life, even in the eyes of got, by their actions




i don't agree with "any cop's life is worth more than any non-cop's life"

but i do think that some people are "worth" more than others

Where did the silly notion come from that God made all men equal!

Wasn't it God that supposably said of all the men that have suckled from womens breasts that a certain man(was it David?) shall be the greatest man or king born ?

Somebody show me where God made all men equal!

The first man may have been made in his image,but its been watered down a lot since then.

  Bob

When that person becomes the agressor against an innocent, they forfeit all Natural Rights as a Human Being !!!

In other words, Open Season, no bag limit!![;D]
Get it??? [:D]

so you're saying that aside from trying commit murder, all lives are equally valuable?

is the remaining life of a 91 year old innocent man as valuable as that of a 1 year old kid? if you were forced to pick one of them to be put to death which would you choose.

just trying to explain why i think that some peoples deaths may be more of a loss than than the deaths of others

example: i'd have zero bad feelings if the klintons both died in a plane crash--- hell, i'd be cheering and throwing a party. if i heard that Ron Paul died in the same crash, i'd probably feel sad.

i get it, trying to murder someone reduces the value of the criminal's life by 100% (to zero)

... but does being a welfare tit sucking crack ho reduce the value of a person's life by 50%?


this thread is about "equal before the law" though right? well, should it be more of a crime to say, assisnate the president during a time of war, then to murder your ex-wife? which one causes more harm and why?

Red_Beard I think we have struck it here,I think that the value of the lives of people around us is a personal decision that we must make for our selves.
Now as far as the law goes if you murder a one year old or a 70 year old the law treats them equal because they are innocents, if you ask the court who's life in worth more a one year old or a 70 year old burglar who broke into your home with the intent to rob and kill you then you can see the obvious answer.

So yes the values placed on human life do depend on certain actions of people to some degree.

Okey-Dokey...


[b]Acts: 10:34 ¶ Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
35  But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.[/b]

Howzzat??? [:D]

Red, please don't quote scripture to me, if ya don't know what you're talking about. Leviticus is Hebrew law, (funny seeing YOU quote it! [;D]), and is NOT applicable to anyone except the Hebrews. The New Testament never required Gentiles to follow the Levitical Law. If yer gonna quote from a source, at least read it, to establish context.

Hmm...are NY State Supreme Court judges elected, or appointed by the Gov?

cynic

Correctamundo..



Not before God, or the Law, (Theoretically).




Eh??? Why?? The penalty for each Murder, is death. What are you wanting to do, hang the presidential assassin twice???

Which cause's most "harm", is irrelevent. The offense is equal in magnatude. A life was taken. End of story.

Hmmm. Terribly close to contradicting your initial post.
[blue][size=1]Somebody mention the blue wall approaching?[/size=1][/blue]

Whats the matter ociffer no kids lemonade stands to bust tonight? LOL
The blue wall, LOL