You continue to post under the fantasy that those reading this are not going back and looking at the context of the original quote. "If you think", has nothing to do with this and neither does your "challenge." You are an apologist for law enforcement because you are one of "them." You post very long responses filled with terminology and quoting procedure. You think your challenge is worth anything to me?
Congratulations. You've managed to both say nothing and engage in
ad hominem (that means personal insult - I wouldn't want to overwhelm you with "terminology") at the same time. You can take pride in the fact that you've doubled the size of my ignore list, though.
Good point, but I must also point out that preventing crimes is exactly what police forces espouse. How do you reconcile this discreptancy?
By pointing out that the police shouldn't take on the task of preventing crimes. Nowhere have I claimed that the job of the police is to prevent crimes, because that's impossible. All I've been saying is that you can't prevent police from committing crimes any more than you can prevent anyone else from committing crimes. In fact, as you quoted me saying above: "It would be the first system in the history of the world that managed to stop crime.
Normally, the best we can do is catch and punish criminals after the fact." Crimes committed by police are no different in this regard.
Police used to keep the peace, then they enforced the laws, now they prevent crime. Crime prevention. Banning firearms from public ownership, in various ways, is crime prevention. A felon not allowed to own a firearm is another example of policy of crime prevention.
This policy is ethically bankrupt. As I have stated
several other times, I am entirely in favor of every adult - including felons - being able to own guns. I'm
against policies to pre-empt terrorism,
against curfews to fight gangs, I've posted ringing
indictments of the system. I've even gotten into marathon arguments with centac arguing that
the criminal justice system is inherently prone to abuse.
The point here is that this event is not a problem with the system until the victim has been denied justice by the system. So far, all we've got is a crime. Crimes happen. The fact that crimes happen does not mean the system is inherently corrupt - if that's the standard to which we hold the criminal justice system, then we're all in for a very depressing existence.
By that token, it is hypocritical to suggest that crime prevention works on civilians, but not officers of the law. Yet this is exactly what you write.
That is not at all what I write, and I challenge you to point out where I said anything of the sort. All I've said is that crime prevention doesn't work on officers of the law, any more than it does for other citizens.
(Incidentally, drawing a distinction between "officers of the law" and "civilians" is a mistake. Police are just as much civilians as you and I are.)
