Our Police State

[Not Insane]

Originally Posted by Pio1980

I believe in effective civilian oversight and accountability for standardized strictly enforced standards and practices.
Law enforcement should be a profession, not a fraternity.

On that we strongly agree. However, in our current culture I actually have very little respect for anyone that would aspire to be a police officer. I see them as either thugs or hopelessly naive. Or it's the only job they can find that pays very well.

People think I support what the cops did to George. I don't. My problem is that I actually see NO good guys in this case. And the key point for me is that the protesters are being absurdly reckless, going off half cocked on partial information. I know they "have their reasons", but EVERYONE has their reasons for acting badly. Ask any guy with a bad temper that, after the fact, justifies his "blowing off steam" by punching his wife for burning dinner. That's how I see the protesters.

The wheels of justice were moving without the protests. But it is possible that the protests gave us another Zimmerman/Martin case. That is, if they result in over charging, these cops could go free. And if they were obeying their department's policy and the autopsy shows the cause of death was something other than the knee to neck, well, these cops are gonna walk.

That is worth pondering.

[Pio1980]

Originally Posted by Not Insane

On that we strongly agree. However, in our current culture I actually have very little respect for anyone that would aspire to be a police officer. I see them as either thugs or hopelessly naive. Or it's the only job they can find that pays very well.

People think I support what the cops did to George. I don't. My problem is that I actually see NO good guys in this case. And the key point for me is that the protesters are being absurdly reckless, going off half cocked on partial information. I know they "have their reasons", but EVERYONE has their reasons for acting badly. Ask any guy with a bad temper that, after the fact, justifies his "blowing off steam" by punching his wife for burning dinner. That's how I see the protesters.

The wheels of justice were moving without the protests. But it is possible that the protests gave us another Zimmerman/Martin case. That is, if they result in over charging, these cops could go free. And if they were obeying their department's policy and the autopsy shows the cause of death was something other than the knee to neck, well, these cops are gonna walk.

That is worth pondering.

Martin was complicit in his own demise, but Zimmerman instigated and escalated the confrontation, and as the "adult" in the matter, should have acted responsibly. I see him as the only guilty party because of that.

[Not Insane]

Originally Posted by Pio1980

Martin was complicit in his own demise, but Zimmerman instigated and escalated the confrontation, and as the "adult" in the matter, should have acted responsibly. I see him as the only guilty party because of that.

I'm not comfortable arguing the details of the Martin/Zimmerman thing, but I'll throw out this generic perspective: The law is quite aware that just because someone's 18th birth day is the day after the crime, doesn't mean they see the person, when they committed the crime, as a "child". i.e. if Zimmerman had been 11 years old, I'd agree with you.

[Pio1980]

Originally Posted by Not Insane

I'm not comfortable arguing the details of the Martin/Zimmerman thing, but I'll throw out this generic perspective: The law is quite aware that just because someone's 18th birth day is the day after the crime, doesn't mean they see the person, when they committed the crime, as a "child". i.e. if Zimmerman had been 11 years old, I'd agree with you.

Martin certainly wasn't a child in many respect, but Zimmerman was the more life-experienced and assumed mature elder with the judgement and impulse control that entails. He had the adult duty to disengage before needlessly inciting Martins aggressive defence.
Martin should not have responded aggressively, but he was not the adult in the confrontation.

[Not Insane]

Originally Posted by Pio1980

Martin certainly wasn't a child in many respect, but Zimmerman was the more life-experienced and assumed mature elder with the judgement and impulse control that entails. He had the adult duty to disengage before needlessly inciting Martins aggressive defence.
Martin should not have responded aggressively, but he was not the adult in the confrontation.

Absolutely. But that would be true if Martin was 18. Neither one of them was very old. For me, it is an irrelevance. It's about what someone "should have done", but there is always that aspect whenever something like this happens. Unfortunately, they don't get the luxury of hindsight like we do. They were both two young adults (I consider under 30 to be a young adult) making stupid decisions, which is what young adults actually spend a lot of time doing.