37OHSSV

A conservative is a liberal who has been mugged. Until such time as the liberals in this thread are confronted by violence, they will continue to avoid the reality of the need for methods of self-defense.

Oh, and "Power is the ability to produce results without force?"

Then Pol Pot was powerless (I would have said Hitler, but there would immediately be a dozen posts saying "Godwin! I win! I win!"), as was Ho Chi Minh, Idi Amin, Genghis Khan, William Wallace, Abraham Lincoln ...

Willravel

...or
Conservatives are those who try to defend themselves from phantoms, allowing themselves to be distracted from true danger because they're too eager to fight.

What force did Gandhi use to eject the British from India? What force did Martin Luther King Jr. use?

I've had my fair share of violent encounters, but instead of allowing them to scare the reason and virtues out of me, I choose to see them as they really are.

Baraka_Guru

dksuddeth, I commend you for taking this further, and in a direction that makes sense.

I interpret this as your believing the system of law and order being corrupt. Although you have offered a couple of examples of what you would call lapses of judgement or illegalities, I am still uncertain of the extent of which these take place. Is it widespread? Do the numbers suggest a failure of the system? Abusive corruption? Is America headed toward a police state? You should quantify this because I really don't know how bad it is.

What are these interests, exactly? This is coming out of nowhere because you haven't yet discussed these self-interests in detail. Do you think these incidents are done intentionally? If so, to what end? Do you think judges simply let accused officers off the hook? Is there some kind of collaboration between those who enforce the law and those who interpret it? Are these the exceptions, or are they the rule?

Let's refrain from getting too emotional here. I agree with you, however, that we might have different perspectives if we were victimized by such injustices, but we cannot base such discussions on "what if" scenarios. It wouldn't make sense. Of course I would be more apt to agree with you if I were a victim, but I would likely be disagreeing with you if I were a member of the Toronto Police Services, or if I worked in the Ministry of the Attorney General. But the essential thing to know is that none of that should interfere with our evaluation of the situation. Just as these agencies have internal investigations and non-partisan, civil reviewers and auditors, we should be approaching this rationally and at arm's length.

Until you can provide wider evidence, I don't think we can discuss this much further. Just how big is the problem? Is it what you have observed, or have you uncovered other evidence?

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

analog

This reminds me of a Blazing Saddles quote...

...for two reasons:

1. It's rambling nonsense, and
2. it proposes that an angry, militant voice is courageous, and anything to the contrary is being a pussy liberal. Because that's pretty much your ongoing message.

I did no such thing.

I'm pro-gun, and do wish that people would take personal responsibility for their safety, including the education in keeping and, as safely as possible, using a firearm to that end. I just present my opinions in a non- confrontational/judgmental approach, rather than through relentless parroting of the same rhetoric as though the local militia union will take away my membership card if I don't.

And I love playing, so you're welcome.

Ourcrazymodern?

Confusion reigns.

The vast majority of law enforcement people take seriously the "protect and serve" idea. TGFT!

An occasional mistake is to be expected. The laws were made by us and are therefore fallible.

__________________
BE JUST AND FEAR NOT

Fire

For the record, ghandi was often quoted with regard to his statements that non violence only works if your opponent is able to be shamed- it worked on the brits because they thought themselves civil- in most societies in the world power is backed by violence- cops do not, according to the numbers, always or even often have to use force, but they always have that option handy- if one argues with the government, in china for instance or refuses to conform to its laws, in the U.S., for instance, they put you in jail, and will shoot you dead if you try to escape..... so while you may well be more powerful if you can convince someone to accept your authority without force, (in fact I tend to think you are) the backing of force is ALWAYS there when dealing with governments....

__________________
Thought the harder, Heart the bolder,
Mood the more as our might lessens