Should policing be regarded as a civil right?

[Empiricist-Bruno]

Thanks for this longer post Lucylu,

I was attempting to analyse and debunk the ideas in your post.

Thanks for trying to debunk my bunk in this more detailed post. My bunk can be hard to debunk. I can't debunk my own bunk. I think it takes someone who has seen the light in order to be able to debunk my bunk, and I suspect you have. It looks like we are having a case of Plato's caves here. I know of shadows only and can't see some of what you are talking about.

Thanks also for applauding my idealism,

I applaud your idealism, but…

although I'm not sure just how sincere this compliment was.

Some of the bunk that you have debunked was apparently of unknown origin:

I don't think that we will have to go in to full on nuclear war before seeing the light, as you do.

I have not made the statement here which you appear to believe that I have made.

....to think that we can independently act as judge and jury is very dangerous.

Great debunking here, but… I haven't stated that either.

… but neither am I in denial of their reality.

Has anyone ever claimed that you were denying the existence of WMD? If you think I have made that claim, please show me where. If you don’t think I have made this claim then who are you debunking here?

One of your statements is hard for me to figure:

...creation of nuclear bombs. Even though we still have them now...

Who are we? I don't have any nuclear bomb. Who is the partner(s) with whom you own nuclear bombs, if I may ask? Certainly this is an important question. Now I expect that the answer to that question will be quite opaque.

It will take time... before WMDs are no longer needed.

Weapons of Mass Destruction are now needed? It is your statement here that suggests to me that you may have seen the light and that we are obviously not on the same page and are unlikely to ever be.

I am not 'fine' with living with nuclear weapons... (what sane person would be?)

Are you suggesting here that you are insane? You do think they are needed. I am fine with what I need. Isn’t a sane person fine with what he/she needs? Isn’t it the the insane that is not fine with he/she needs? I think we need policing to become a civil right.

The ideal is obvious to all of us, but in my view we have to go through the process before we reach our goal. We cant just wish it to be true and click our heels together… They will fall away naturally, not by force.

Great! You have a vision of a world without WMD! I certainly approve of that. This vision seems pretty blurred though. I agree with you that we can’t just wish it to be true. But how do WMD fall away naturally? Can you please explain this in more details? I want to know because if I understand the process, then I will try to help it. If I don’t understand this process, then I’m afraid I might unknowingly impede it! In the past, social progress has been the achievement of activists or even the result of a war. Is it not a civil war that ended slavery in the US? Is it not leaders in the women’s movement that brought them their right to vote? How do you reconcile your view of the natural progress toward a more idealistic society given our knowledge of how other social ideals were achieved in the past, if I may ask?

Traumas like 9/11 and the London bombings…

I know about 9/11. What London bombings are you referring to? Are you going back to WW2?

In the rest of your post, you simply argue that the police is something we need. Again, you are debunking an argument that I have not made. You defend police work. You are saying that you are pro-police. I'm pro-police too. I just think we need first and foremost integrity in the police and I don't see eye to eye with you regarding the method you use to identify what we both call the police.

You seem unaware that your worst enemies are often not those you are fighting in front of you but those who are behind you encouraging to keep up the fight. For one Christmas early during WW1, the soldiers had established a truce in the front lines which seemed to hold on for too long. The Military Police and higher authorities then started to threaten those who kept this truce going and so the fight started again and millions more died. Do not be fooled by war mongering politicians and their media who claim to have your best interest in mind. They often don't. They simply realize that if they are fighting something, the population will presume that they are fighting for them and rally behind them; those who do not support them will be marginalized as people who simply don't care for the country. (This is also why shrewd politicians often favor culls of wild animals that aren't ecologically justified. I know this from my experience as an activist in that field.)

When the Germans Soldiers surrendered near the end of WW2 they all seemed to believed that New York had been reduced to pieces by their own countries' fighter planes. Please, do not think that manipulative media lies are no longer going around today. And political lies are made possible by groups of bed bugs with public deceptions skills which prop up the politicians, who in fact form an arm of the bed bug organization.

Be a good cop yourself, Lucylu, or try to please. I can see potential in you.

In my next post on this thread, I think I'll discuss interactions with those who want others to think that are the police. I have recently been sexually assaulted by one of them.

[Lucylu]

I have not quoted very well, so have just put my responses in colour to make it simpler. I'm glad that you enjoyed the word debunk so much by the way! Had you not heard it before?

Thanks also for applauding my idealism,

I applaud your idealism, but…

although I'm not sure just how sincere this compliment was.

I wasn't being sarcastic.

Some of the bunk that you have debunked was apparently of unknown origin:

I don't think that we will have to go in to full on nuclear war before seeing the light, as you do.

I have not made the statement here which you appear to believe that I have made.

I was referring to this statement, you made previously: "I have in mind widespread systemic changes. But I really think that this can only start when there is a common desire from many people to take responsibility for ones' own security. That perhaps is where I'm going off line. There just hasn't been enough nuclear accidents/wars yet to make this desire grow. Maybe, in a few thousands of years, someone will have more convincing arguments than I do".

....to think that we can independently act as judge and jury is very dangerous.

Great debunking here, but… I haven't stated that either.

What I mean is, that I don't understand how everyone can have the right to police others. In practice, how would you rule out vigilantism? And, how would there be enough room in prisons?

… but neither am I in denial of their reality.

Has anyone ever claimed that you were denying the existence of WMD? If you think I have made that claim, please show me where. If you don’t think I have made this claim then who are you debunking here?

I didn't mean that you were denying their existence. I was referring to the reality of the need for the police, and for weapons.
One of your statements is hard for me to figure:

...creation of nuclear bombs. Even though we still have them now...

Who are we? I don't have any nuclear bomb. Who is the partner(s) with whom you own nuclear bombs, if I may ask? Certainly this is an important question. Now I expect that the answer to that question will be quite opaque.

'We', as in human beings. Here, I was referring to the reality of the existence of nuclear weapons.

I'm obviously not making myself clear at all. Or maybe I'm just thinking out loud, as always.

It will take time... before WMDs are no longer needed.

Weapons of Mass Destruction are now needed? It is your statement here that suggests to me that you may have seen the light and that we are obviously not on the same page and are unlikely to ever be.

Seen the light? Its debatable whether we needed them to win WW2. At the time it obviously seemed so but hindsight is 20/20. Its very hard to put the genie back in the bottle though isn't it?

I just tend to think that we don't want WMDs but its more a case that we're scared to be defenceless within the current political climate. When we have a more stable energy source, like when we can use hydrogen in power stations to create an infinite supply, we may be able to solve many of our human problems and improve education and living conditions worldwide. Then, we would all naturally become more peaceful and think that WMDs need to be abolished. Its just very difficult (nigh on impossible) to abolish them now, isn't it? What if some sneaky psychopath with a crazy moustache decides to take over the world and we're all defenceless? Likewise, it is difficult not to lock our doors at night, 'just in case'.

I am not 'fine' with living with nuclear weapons... (what sane person would be?)

Are you suggesting here that you are insane?

Clearly not, no. At least that's what my psychiatrist tells me!

The ideal is obvious to all of us, but in my view we have to go through the process before we reach our goal. We cant just wish it to be true and click our heels together… They will fall away naturally, not by force.

Great! You have a vision of a world without WMD! I certainly approve of that. This vision seems pretty blurred though. I agree with you that we can’t just wish it to be true. But how do WMD fall away naturally? Can you please explain this in more details? I want to know because if I understand the process, then I will try to help it. If I don’t understand this process, then I’m afraid I might unknowingly impede it!
Yes, I suppose I do tend to look at things from a distance, as that makes things easier. But you're right, evolution isn't a smooth process. It does take activists. Maybe I just don't really see policing, and WMD's as something that I can possibly fight. It seems beyond my scope. I don't really like confrontation, but obviously everyone's different. We have to pick our battles. There are subjects like gay rights or euthanasia or paliative care which resonate with me more and which I feel that I could support in my own small way. Policing though, I don't necessarily see as 'men's work' but I fall to pieces when faced with real violence and agression.

I got caught up in an angry protest a couple of years ago, really by accident (I was just trying to get to the train station). I had to hide in a door way with some others, while it passed. But the way the young men were so angry and pushing the police, trying to start a fight, I just started shaking and crying. Id be a terrible police officer!

In the past, social progress has been the achievement of activists or even the result of a war. Is it not a civil war that ended slavery in the US? Is it not leaders in the women’s movement that brought them their right to vote? How do you reconcile your view of the natural progress toward a more idealistic society given our knowledge of how other social ideals were achieved in the past, if I may ask?

I agree that it does take activists to push the boundaries, but I'm still unclear on the practicalities of policing being a civil right for all. How would an individual prove that they were acting objectively? How would it be any different from the current right to perform a citizen's arrest?

Traumas like 9/11 and the London bombings…

I know about 9/11. What London bombings are you referring to? Are you going back to WW2?

It was on July 7th 2005. 4 suicide bombers coordinated an attack on the morning rush hour in central London, with bombs in the underground (subway trains) and a double decker bus.

In my next post on this thread, I think I'll discuss interactions with those who want others to think that are the police. I have recently been sexually assaulted by one of them.

Do you mean those who want others to think that they are the police? Isn't that impersonating a police officer?

-- Updated March 24th, 2015, 10:03 pm to add the following --

Also, I feel, this really brings up the question of where to draw the line exactly between someone who wishes to help (and gives it a lot of lip service) and those who actually do. At the moment that line is drawn by the law. If we want to create a world without the institution of the police- how would we draw the line between personal/ moral right and what is best for the majority? It just seems like a logistical nightmare. I know you said that you want to keep the police, but if you wish to melt their rights and protections in to those of the mass public then you will, in effect, be nullifying their power and so, making them just like everyone else. Surely there has to be a chain of command or a system in order to maintain order. Aren't we hierarchical apes? We respond well to discipline.

I do appreciate that the police is an institution (with faults), but I worry that we have been so well taken care of (in the West) that we are unaware of just how bad things would be without the social services we enjoy. We can certainly minimise their dominance and institutional prejudice but to say that we should all be given the same rights, seems like throwing the baby out with the bath water. What's to stop a man coming in to my home saying that he is trying to help me? Or him, even believing that he has the right to?

Have you tried applying to be a police officer? Maybe that would be something that would interest you? If not, why not?

[Empiricist-Bruno]

I was referring to this statement, you made previously: "I have in mind widespread systemic changes. But I really think that this can only start when there is a common desire from many people to take responsibility for ones' own security. That perhaps is where I'm going off line. There just hasn't been enough nuclear accidents/wars yet to make this desire grow. Maybe, in a few thousands of years, someone will have more convincing arguments than I do".

Well, if you were referring to this line, you should have noted that I had put nuclear accidents first in the list. What I think is that a significant number of wars might increase a desire to get rid of WMD. I have made the statement in the tone of a suggestion, or hypothesis. It is not presented as a belief but you made it look like this was a "belief" of mine. So, it would appear to me that you have skillfully twisted around what I have written before debunking it.

Its debatable whether we needed them to win WW2. At the time it obviously seemed so but hindsight is 20/20.

"We" won WW2? Please, consider changing psychiatrist. Earlier, you mentioned that "we" meant human beings. Were there non-human beings enemies involved in WW2?

I just tend to think that we don't want WMDs but its more a case that we're scared to be defenceless within the current political climate. When we have a more stable energy source, like when we can use hydrogen in power stations to create an infinite supply, we may be able to solve many of our human problems and improve education and living conditions worldwide. Then, we would all naturally become more peaceful and think that WMDs need to be abolished. Its just very difficult (nigh on impossible) to abolish them now, isn't it? What if some sneaky psychopath with a crazy moustache decides to take over the world and we're all defenceless? Likewise, it is difficult not to lock our doors at night, 'just in case'.

Here again, I'm at a loss as to whom you are referring to when you say "we." I am frightened by your apparent understanding of what is needed in the world: an infinite power source for machines. This makes me want to view you as a a person who identifies himself/herself to machines and their needs. In my opinion, this is some sort of unhealthy mental condition that is quite common in our times and is a source of serious delusions. There won't ever be found an infinite power source for machines, but pursuing this dream will divert you from seeking to address our real social problems now with policing.

If you are scared to be defenseless it might be rational proposition given your circumstances or it can be just pure paranoia. I have mentioned before that there are political interests that want you to be afraid of certain things so that you view them as your protection. You are made to become loyal to them this way. Again, your worst enemies aren't necessarily those you are facing, they're often the ones you mistake for your friends or allies.

There are subjects like gay rights or euthanasia or paliative care which resonate with me more and which I feel that I could support in my own small way. Policing though, I don't necessarily see as 'men's work' but I fall to pieces when faced with real violence and agression.

Peace is the basis for human rights. If you don't care for peace, you are just being hypocritical about the rest, in my opinion. May I suggest that you try and join a combat sport or learn very confrontational games such as chess? It can help boost your self-confidence.

Now, my favorite quote from you:

Do you mean those who want others to think that they are the police? Isn't that impersonating a police officer?

First, yes, you are correct. This is what I meant to say. I'm sorry about the typo. Thank you so much for the following question; it really strikes at the heart of the matter and no one else asked it! What does it mean to impersonate a police officer and why is it legal for some and illegal for others?

Those people for whom you are so grateful for your own security and which you call the police, do they not want you to think that they are the police? Yes, of course they do and it isn't because they really are the police, it is because they are really impersonating a role. An actor is a worker and those who want you to believe that they are the police are actors: they impersonate the role of police officer and that is their job. No body is born a police officer.

Being a police officer is meaningless if you don't have a stage to perform this role. Their is no such thing as a fake police officer as all police officers play a role on a stage; there can be only bad ones and good ones. Bed bugs with public deception skills generally disagree with that for reasons that are apparently still not clear to you.

While you apparently thank bed bugs for your safety, I simply ignore them, most of the time, as I sincerely wish not to see them. When I do see what I call the police, they often do not wear the fascist looking uniform that appear to give you confidence in them. No, I don't think of the police the same way you do. I do think viewing the police the way I do, the correct way, is the first needed step toward gaining an effective police force that can ensure there are no WMD anywhere around us.

"if you wish to melt their rights and protections in to those of the mass public then you will, in effect, be nullifying their power and so, making them just like everyone else. Surely there has to be a chain of command or a system in order to maintain order."

I feel that you are addressing the issue that I have raised in this thread. Thank you for doing this. But here, you are not too clear as to how melting their rights and protections in those of the mass would nullify those rights. Can you please be more specific?

I have alluded earlier that if our civilization were to adopt self-policing, it would involve broad changes at various levels, including education. If there is one place where we should all learn about self-policing it is in schools but we don't and again, I would blame the bed bugs with good public deception skills for this short coming. Current educational systems, as they are designed, tend to dis-empower students. I think I understand the roots of mass shooting in schools, and it certainly isn't the bed bugs with public deception skills that are going to make any difference in that. You see, teachers have much in common with bed bugs with public deception skills and they wouldn't teach anything that does not work for them or their bed bugs colleagues.

Yes, I do agree that a system can be put in place for a much better social order if it is decided to start teaching the way to achieve this early in schools. But again, I don't think this is the right place where to start. The opposition would be too strong there. I would think that the pressure now has to be put on the bed bugs with public deceptions skills themselves and I think that this pressure could force them to change their ways. The bed bugs are simply actors and some of these actors don't take the rigidity of their role too seriously and are able, and perhaps willing, to evolve.

The population just has to start working on them to encourage them to do the right thing. I do think that things may have a chance to progress that way. That angry bed bug who stopped me for no reason and then just lashed out at me verbally because I didn't recognize him for whatever it was that he wished to be recognized for, well, if everyone adopted my approach, all such bed bugs would have terrible days every day. They have to become afraid of interacting with the population, because they know they adopt a role that is being policed out by the population.

I think that starting to teach the population in general how to deal with the bed bugs is key. I mean, in the bed bug schools, they teach the bed bugs how to manage the population; it is only fair that the population responds by learning the best management techniques available to dealing with them. For so long as the bed bugs will be more interested in stopping people for no reasons then in getting rid of WMDs, we have a right to stay angry at them, I would believe. What a bunch of hypocrites, saying that they have our safety in mind. But then again, what do you expect from a bed bug?

"What's to stop a man coming in to my home saying that he is trying to help me?"

If that person is a bed bug with public deceptions skills, you may be in even greater trouble would you not be? Are you a man hater?

Have you tried applying to be a police officer? Maybe that would be something that would interest you? If not, why not?

How do you know that I am not a police officer already, if I may ask? Never let down your guard. They will come at you from unexpected positions, and that bed bug may be me.

[Lucylu]

Lucylu wrote:"What's to stop a man coming in to my home saying that he is trying to help me?" If that person is a bed bug with public deceptions skills, you may be in even greater trouble would you not be? Are you a man hater?

I asked that question before you had explained your position properly. I understood 'impersonating a police officer' in the more commonly used way. And just because I don't want strange men coming in to my home, does that mean you can assume I'm a man hater? That's quite a leap and also quite insulting. At least if a police officer has a uniform, ID, and is professionally registered, then if something goes wrong, I have a means of making an official complaint.

Those people for whom you are so grateful for your own security and which you call the police, do they not want you to think that they are the police? Yes, of course they do and it isn't because they really are the police, it is because they are really impersonating a role. An actor is a worker and those who want you to believe that they are the police are actors: they impersonate the role of police officer and that is their job. No body is born a police officer. Being a police officer is meaningless if you don't have a stage to perform this role. Their is no such thing as a fake police officer as all police officers play a role on a stage; there can be only bad ones and good ones. Bed bugs with public deception skills generally disagree with that for reasons that are apparently still not clear to you.

I think this explanation may have been better placed in the OP, to avoid confusion. I'm not sure why you would want others to labour under a misapprehension when you knew full well that you have a very specific translation of what a police officer is and what impersonating a police officer means to you. Also, I wonder if, as you say, there are good and bad police officers, could it be classed as prejudice if you wish to remove the entire group because of the act of individual people within that group?

Can I ask, why are you focusing on the police here, rather than all institutions or all people for that matter? Do you not trust doctors with your safety either? Or the people who built your house?

For instance, when you say "starting to teach the population in general how to deal with the bed bugs is key. I mean, in the bed bug schools, they teach the bed bugs how to manage the population". Are the bed bugs not also part of the population? Aren't they people too?

With this in mind, could you give a more detailed account of exactly who these bed bugs are?

Do you think its wise to dehumanise people in that way, by referring to them as bugs? Does that apply to anyone that you think isn't living the way that you would wish? Can you be more specific? It seems that to give people this title, gives you the opportunity to criticize them from a perceived sense of superiority? It gives you license in your mind to be rude to them and when they become naturally offended or react in some way, you can take that as proof of their ignorance and not even listen to them or show them any respect at all.

They have to become afraid of interacting with the population, because they know they adopt a role that is being policed out by the population.

Its confusing given your previous distaste for bullying behaviour that you see that as the way to solve the problem. Is it ok, as long as you are the dominant one?

You mention education:

Doesn't society want to teach children to respect one another and to communicate and be happy, rather than teach them to fight against some abstract group? Wouldn't that entail an innate/ subconscious lesson in itself; that there is an 'Other' who we (the ingroup) must fight, because 'we' are better than 'them' (the outgroup)? Obviously improving education is the way forward. Surely everyone (by which I mean all humans) can agree with that. Teaching meditation and social skills in schools would be a good start. But its important to be sure that these skills are coming from a place of respect (for others and ourselves), not out of anger. And we are not making the same mistakes, like the Pigs in Animal Farm.

Especially as you yourself seem to opt for confrontation. You mention education, but then feel that it would be easier to confront these 'bedbugs' and make they're life 'terrible' and make them 'afraid'. That doesn't sound like a peaceful process. And who are you to decide who is a bug to be squished and to make them think like you, 'the correct way'.

Lucylu wrote:Its debatable whether we needed them to win WW2. At the time it obviously seemed so but hindsight is 20/20. "We" won WW2? Please, consider changing psychiatrist. Earlier, you mentioned that "we" meant human beings. Were there non-human beings enemies involved in WW2?

I will pay more attention to my pronouns in future. I do miss the edit button for things like that. I guess at the time, I thought the context would have made the meaning obvious, given that we're speaking English right now! So, to revisit my earlier post and add a question..

I appreciate that you do not want WMDs to exist. That's a given. But what do you think the Allies should have done, instead of creating nuclear bombs in WWII? I'm sure you're aware that even Einstein wrote to Roosevelt saying that the Allies needed to build nuclear weapons before the Germans managed it. This cant just be explained away as paranoia. And we all know Einstein was not one of your 'bed bugs'...he had the foresight to give up his German citizenship and become Swiss, and he flouted authority figures to such a degree that he couldn't even get a job for years after he finished University- no one would give him a reference for an academic position!

Do you think the threat of groups like ISIS is just paranoia? How are we supposed to uninvent WMDs?

I am frightened by your apparent understanding of what is needed in the world: an infinite power source for machines. This makes me want to view you as a a person who identifies himself/herself to machines and their needs. In my opinion, this is some sort of unhealthy mental condition that is quite common in our times and is a source of serious delusions. There won't ever be found an infinite power source for machines, but pursuing this dream will divert you from seeking to address our real social problems now with policing.

Yes, I think you do WANT to view me as a person who identifies herself as a machine. That may be clouding your judgment. I believe that technology is a positive thing. I assume you are using electricity and the internet to write on this forum and you're sitting in a warm and light home, despite your chilly location? I think humans will be able to, if not create, then at least harness a practically infinite supply of energy one day, such as the radiation from solar winds which is concentrated at the Earth's poles, but I'm no scientist. Personally, I don't see why we cant improve our physical living conditions and improve our social conditions at the same time.

How do you know that I am not a police officer already, if I may ask? Never let down your guard. They will come at you from unexpected positions, and that bed bug may be me.

I assumed that you hadn't been talking about yourself in the third person (and in such poor terms) throughout this thread but maybe I'm wrong.

Also, I feel, this really brings up the question of where to draw the line exactly between someone who wishes to help (and gives it a lot of lip service) and those who actually do. At the moment that line is drawn by the law. If we want to create a world without the institution of the police- how would we draw the line between personal/ moral right and what is best for the majority? It just seems like a logistical nightmare. I know you said that you want to keep the police, but if you wish to melt their rights and protections in to those of the mass public then you will, in effect, be nullifying their power and so, making them just like everyone else. Surely there has to be a chain of command or a system in order to maintain order. Aren't we hierarchical apes? We respond well to discipline.

I think, given the previous confusion, it would be better if you explained what you think about the practical realities of your ideas first. Surely, if humans can improve the quality of education and communication, the people within the institutions would be different anyway and so the institutions themselves would improve too. This is what I meant earlier, by changing naturally; a bottom up approach.

I do think viewing the police the way I do, the correct way, is the first needed step toward gaining an effective police force that can ensure there are no WMD anywhere around us.

I take it by police you mean the military here? As I understand it, the police technically belong to the Government whereas the armed forces (in the UK and the Commonwealth) belong to the Crown. A police man on the street has no power over international relations and WMDs.

[Empiricist-Bruno]

Those people for whom you are so grateful for your own security and which you call the police, do they not want you to think that they are the police? Yes, of course they do and it isn't because they really are the police, it is because they are really impersonating a role. An actor is a worker and those who want you to believe that they are the police are actors: they impersonate the role of police officer and that is their job. No body is born a police officer. Being a police officer is meaningless if you don't have a stage to perform this role. There is no such thing as a fake police officer as all police officers play a role on a stage; there can be only bad ones and good ones. Bed bugs with public deception skills generally disagree with that for reasons that are apparently still not clear to you.

I think this explanation may have been better placed in the OP, to avoid confusion.

Thanks for the suggestion. It comes a bit late though.

I'm not sure why you would want others to labour under a misapprehension when you knew full well that you have a very specific translation of what a police officer is and what impersonating a police officer means to you.

The reason is quite simple: I have struggled myself quite a bit to come up to that adequate understanding of the police. This may be esoteric knowledge; you can never appreciate this knowledge if you never struggle to acquire it.

Also, I wonder if, as you say, there are good and bad police officers, could it be classed as prejudice if you wish to remove the entire group because of the act of individual people within that group?

I want change, change that could lead to us living free of WMDs. Overall, the bad police impersonators we have may or may not want or be able to change. I'm not sure I know which entire group you claim that I would want to see removed. I don't think I've had the time to go that far yet.

Can I ask, why are you focusing on the police here, rather than all institutions or all people for that matter? Do you not trust doctors with your safety either? Or the people who built your house?

Doctors are generally not thought of as public safety providers, they are thought of as individual health providers. In our very divided society, health and safety are two different things and when it comes to WMDs, I would believe that this is a police issue. I'm not particularly distrustful. In the case of home builders, I do not see what ulterior motives or incentives they may have to build unsafe homes. I’m glad that you see that my focus is broader than just the police. I’m not yet willing/ready to identify the broader group more concretely, other than by referring to it as the bed bugs’ nest. Being more pointed would be counter-productive. We’re not there yet, I feel.

For instance, when you say "starting to teach the population in general how to deal with the bed bugs is key. I mean, in the bed bug schools, they teach the bed bugs how to manage the population". Are the bed bugs not also part of the population? Aren't they people too?

I actually wonder quite a bit what these bed bugs are; I just don't know. They appall me so much. I found them so shocking that my head turns the other way when I notice them coming near me. What is the population constituted with? I would agree that there are some very strange elements walking among it; elements that I cannot and do not wish to define. I think it is among this lot that you find my bed bugs with public relation skills.

In the US, there once was a suspect, a serial killer named Ted Bundy. When he was apprehended, a number of people correctly deemed him to be an animal. Would you not share that sentiment? I think that for our safety, we can't presume and believe that all the people surrounding us do have a sense of belonging to the general population. If they don't think they belong to the population, then do we still have to view them as part of the population?

Do you think its wise to dehumanise people in that way, by referring to them as bugs? Does that apply to anyone that you think isn't living the way that you would wish? Can you be more specific?

In order to dehumanise people, you must first establish that they are humans. I would think that people who provide security to the owners of WMD are making a point that they have little to do with humankind. Also, what is humankind? I could argue that bed bugs (not the ones with the public deception skills option attached to their character) are part of humankind, more so than the bed bugs with public deception skills.

It seems that to give people this title, gives you the opportunity to criticize them from a perceived sense of superiority? It gives you license in your mind to be rude to them and when they become naturally offended or react in some way, you can take that as proof of their ignorance and not even listen to them or show them any respect at all.

I wouldn't give anyone whom I think of as people this title. Here's a short funny story to make my point: A desperado enters a saloon full of people, fires two shots in the ceiling and screams, “I want all cockroaches, all rats and all stinging scorpions out of this room now! Within seconds, the room is completely empty except for one man standing at the table and the desperado. The desperado approaches the man and says, "Didn't you hear me? I said I want all cockroaches, all rats and all stinging scorpion out now!" The man replies, “Yes, I heard you. There sure was a lot of that in here!"

Its confusing given your previous distaste for bullying behaviour that you see that as the way to solve the problem. Is it ok, as long as you are the dominant one?

In my opinion, there are different kinds of bullying behavior it is a delicate subject. I wouldn't see it as fine if anyone walked around at any time displaying firearms, as if this were necessary. Your steady questioning of my views might dishearten me; would you consider your questioning behavior bullying? Why not? I will provide more details on the kind of bullying behavior/provocation that I think is civilized and the kind that isn’t. Being forceful does not necessarily imply violence, battery.

You mention education:

Doesn't society want to teach children to respect one another and to communicate and be happy, rather than teach them to fight against some abstract group? Wouldn't that entail an innate/ subconscious lesson in itself; that there is an 'Other' who we (the ingroup) must fight, because 'we' are better than 'them' (the outgroup)?

I have not advised to teach anyone to fight against any abstract group. I would argue that those who oppose policing as a civil rights are in constant fight against the rest. That is the fight I’d love to see end; it is among the group of people who oppose policing as a civil right that we find a sentiment of superiority, in my opinion.

Obviously improving education is the way forward. Surely everyone (by which I mean all humans) can agree with that. Teaching meditation and social skills in schools would be a good start. But its important to be sure that these skills are coming from a place of respect (for others and ourselves), not out of anger. And we are not making the same mistakes, like the Pigs in Animal Farm.

Especially as you yourself seem to opt for confrontation. You mention education, but then feel that it would be easier to confront these 'bedbugs' and make they're life 'terrible' and make them 'afraid'. That doesn't sound like a peaceful process.

I could argue that you make my life terrible with all your good points hitting on my arguments. Shame on you? Aren’t you yourself confrontational?

And who are you to decide who is a bug to be squished and to make them think like you, 'the correct way'.

I’m an animal rights person. Please do not squish any bug. Great debunking… but I have not mentioned this and I do not share these aims.

I appreciate that you do not want WMDs to exist. That's a given. But what do you think the Allies should have done, instead of creating nuclear bombs in WWII? I'm sure you're aware that even Einstein wrote to Roosevelt saying that the Allies needed to build nuclear weapons before the Germans managed it. This cant just be explained away as paranoia.

Good question! Thanks for your appreciation. Einstein wrote in that letter that he thought the new bombs could destruct, "an entire harbor." It's not clear he understood the scope of the threat. Einstein opposed the development of nuclear weapons after the war. During a war or time of crisis, (and when WMD are just beginning to appear) it is excusable not to see the big picture and make decisions that seem to make sense. In my opinion, the question of what they should have done would not have ever come up if, at that time, they had had policing as a civil right.

[quote="Lucylu]"And we all know Einstein was not one of your 'bed bugs'...[/quote]
I don't know of anyone who is one of my bed bugs with public deceptions skills; they know themselves.

Do you think the threat of groups like ISIS is just paranoia? How are we supposed to uninvent WMDs?

ISIS cannot explode in my face the way a nuclear bomb can. For this reason, nuclear bombs are my first concern and it is from this perspective that I would evaluate the danger level of this group. How to build WMD cannot and will not disappear; the willingness to build them and keep them can be made to disappear. Working toward this goal is my objective. Do you appreciate this goal of mine too, which is consistent with my desire to push WMD into non-existence?

I am frightened by your apparent understanding of what is needed in the world: an infinite power source for machines. This makes me want to view you as a person who identifies himself/herself to machines and their needs. In my opinion, this is some sort of unhealthy mental condition that is quite common in our times and is a source of serious delusions. There won't ever be found an infinite power source for machines, but pursuing this dream will divert you from seeking to address our real social problems now with policing.

Yes, I think you do WANT to view me as a person who identifies herself as a machine. That may be clouding your judgment.

And for what reasons do you believe this? And are you concerned that you cause me to feel fear or are you indifferent to that?

I believe that technology is a positive thing. I assume you are using electricity and the internet to write on this forum and you're sitting in a warm and light home, despite your chilly location?

No, I do not use electricity to write on this forum; not even the natural electricity that is firing up my neurons. That I am completely convinced of. But it's hard to find people that agree with me on this subject though. I wrote a book on this topic, Alert About Machines. That's not to say I'm opposed to seeing electricity being used to propagate my thoughts, even if my thoughts are, as someone else mentioned, like Jello, impossible for some to figure.

I think humans will be able to, if not create, then at least harness a practically infinite supply of energy one day, such as the radiation from solar winds which is concentrated at the Earth's poles, but I'm no scientist. Personally, I don't see why we cant improve our physical living conditions and improve our social conditions at the same time.

Here, I may be able to give you some clues as to why that won't work: The machines have made one species' life better, what about the others species? Live in harmony first or else you have no future. Concerns for only one species is not so different from concerns for only one person, it stinks narcissism, egoism, racism. This isn’t a foundation for peace in the world.

How do you know that I am not a police officer already, if I may ask? Never let down your guard. They will come at you from unexpected positions, and that bed bug may be me.

I assumed that you hadn't been talking about yourself in the third person (and in such poor terms) throughout this thread but maybe I'm wrong.

I'm glad you are giving me the benefit of the doubt.

I think, given the previous confusion, it would be better if you explained what you think about the practical realities of your ideas first. Surely, if humans can improve the quality of education and communication, the people within the institutions would be different anyway and so the institutions themselves would improve too. This is what I meant earlier, by changing naturally; a bottom up approach.

But what if I feel that our institutions are supporting evil knowledge and traditions and have a vested interest in maintaining these. How can we know that they won't be getting even more evil if they are "improving" bottom up approach? Again, I'm scared.

I do think viewing the police the way I do, the correct way, is the first needed step toward gaining an effective police force that can ensure there are no WMD anywhere around us.

I take it by police you mean the military here? As I understand it, the police technically belong to the Government whereas the armed forces (in the UK and the Commonwealth) belong to the Crown. A police man on the street has no power over international relations and WMDs.

I would think that the government belongs to the bed bugs with public deceptions skills and whatever the bed bugs claim that their organization is like is, in fact, just propaganda to serve their own purposes. When you want to know who is in charge of public safety, if you have several heads to deal with, you won't get anywhere. The "known" divisions of armed forces is just smoke and mirrors or propaganda. Given that I'm thinking of civil empowerment with policing rights, I first deal with the armed forces that are closer to the people but that does not exclude any group's private fighting force.

I'm really impressed with the speed at which you can come up with a reply to my posts and thankful for the opportunity you give me to expand my philosophical views here. I'm not finished but I don't want you to be without anything to reply to for too long and so this is it for now.

[Thscott]

Living without WMD would be an illusion. A technological country of the future could build one as needed and none could stop them. This is already so easy for chemical weapons that you might be able to make your own and it gets easier all the time. Even if you get rid of every nuke a world war will be pleanty of time to make some so all your effort will have been wasted.

-- Updated April 4th, 2015, 10:55 pm to add the following --

Also WMD and modern smarter policing - the things you seem to oppose, appear to have resulted in an era of unprecedented peace and personal security despite population pressures. Potentially saving many millions of lives. So strangely they both seem to work. Even bombing Hiroshima probably saved lives compared to house to house fighting.

-- Updated April 4th, 2015, 10:57 pm to add the following --

Where I am the police and army often oppose each other. The army always wins of course.

[Empiricist-Bruno]

Living without WMD would be an illusion. A technological country of the future could build one as needed and none could stop them. This is already so easy for chemical weapons that you might be able to make your own and it gets easier all the time. Even if you get rid of every nuke a world war will be pleanty of time to make some so all your effort will have been wasted.

-- Updated April 4th, 2015, 10:55 pm to add the following --

Also WMD and modern smarter policing - the things you seem to oppose, appear to have resulted in an era of unprecedented peace and personal security despite population pressures. Potentially saving many millions of lives. So strangely they both seem to work. Even bombing Hiroshima probably saved lives compared to house to house fighting.

Hey Thscott,

I'm sorry but I don't believe chemical weapons that are able to produce the same kind of devastation comparable to a nuclear blast are easy to produce. Making a nuclear bomb isn't easy either if you don't have the right ingredients. A civilian police could easily keep an eye on the areas that are rich in uranium to ensure no extraction operation is going on there. Also, I am convinced that a civil right to policing would make a world war a near impossibility. Smarter policing is not what I oppose; it is what I define as civilian policing.

You are suggesting that I oppose something (WMDs) that has resulted in an era of unprecedented peace and personal security, saving millions of lives. Well, when faced with imminent disaster from WMDs, you create new options such as the United Nations. I think that organization has much more to do with the peace we now enjoy but this organization could have come into existence without the creation of WMDs don't you think?

Also, I have a very fundamental problem with thinking that we owe our peace to WMDs. Assuming that your statement is correct (which I don't think it is), what does it say about us? Isn't this a down put of human kind? I think such statements are worth a few nuclear bombs by themselves.

[Lucylu]

Hi again,

You are suggesting that I oppose something (WMDs) that has resulted in an era of unprecedented peace and personal security, saving millions of lives. Well, when faced with imminent disaster from WMDs, you create new options such as the United Nations. I think that organization has much more to do with the peace we now enjoy but this organization could have come into existence without the creation of WMDs don't you think?

Are you sure? Maybe every action has an equal and opposite reaction. It may be that all these aspects were necessary in the building of a universal human society and gradually we can cut out the parts that we don't need anymore.

A civilian police could easily keep an eye on the areas that are rich in uranium to ensure no extraction operation is going on there.

Surely whoever owns the land can do what they like with it. If you want to control the uranium maybe you should buy the land?

I'm finding it hard to understand your arguments as anyone you don't like seems to be labelled an ill- defined 'bed bug'. Don't you think the class war goes both ways? The upper classes historically think the lower classes are ignorant and lazy, and the lower classes think the upper are arrogant and cruel. Maybe the answer is not just about the upper class changing their minds, but also the lower classes not being judgemental also?

I also cant quite bring together your thoughts about WMDs, the police, and the god forsaken 'bed bugs'. It all reeks a little of paranoia and the anger of impotence or adolescence. What are your plans to solve these supposed flaws? Who's to say you aren't just another nutter standing on a soapbox ranting words of hate and criticism rather than doing anything to help?

Don't you think it is best and most effective to change the system from within? Changing policy for example.

[Empiricist-Bruno]

You are suggesting that I oppose something (WMDs) that has resulted in an era of unprecedented peace and personal security, saving millions of lives. Well, when faced with imminent disaster from WMDs, you create new options such as the United Nations. I think that organization has much more to do with the peace we now enjoy but this organization could have come into existence without the creation of WMDs don't you think?

Are you sure? Maybe every action has an equal and opposite reaction. It may be that all these aspects were necessary in the building of a universal human society and gradually we can cut out the parts that we don't need anymore.

Yes, I feel very sure about this. The great statement, which you seem to draw from a physics science book, does not apply to sociology in this instance, I would believe. I think Hume has made a great argument against the point you are making here. Hume was a great an empiricist.

A civilian police could easily keep an eye on the areas that are rich in uranium to ensure no extraction operation is going on there.

Surely whoever owns the land can do what they like with it. If you want to control the uranium maybe you should buy the land?

In Canada, that may prove to be difficult as I think much of where the uranium lays belongs to first nations. Canada's role in producing the raw material for Hiroshima should be more widely known. In Canada, even if you do own land, you can't do whatever you want with it. Any construction you make is subject to city bylaw and permits and approvals.

I'm finding it hard to understand your arguments as anyone you don't like seems to be labelled an ill- defined 'bed bug'. I also cant quite bring together your thoughts about WMDs, the police, and the god forsaken 'bed bugs'. It all reeks a little of paranoia and the anger of impotence or adolescence. What are your plans to solve these supposed flaws?

Quite obviously, you are coming across some sort of bed bug right now. I just talk about them and try to find my way around them. You seem to challenge them head on. This gives me insights as to why you may be so easily frightened in the face of violent opposition. Please, see me as Charlie Brown; on my playing field, the opposing team never appears. If they were to appear, then it wouldn't be Charlie Brown that you are watching.

Beware of hating youth: "reek...anger of adolescence." I mean, I think Tiananmen Sq was full of progressive adolescents before conservative forces put an end to this "anger of adolescence." I think old conservative forces display way more anger. Similarly, you may be more prone to anger yourself than you are willing to admit.

Now, since we’re on the topic of impotence, I'd like to say that I see impotence as stemming from low self-esteem such as the one that is apparently displayed by the previous person on this thread who was unable to give me any answer when I asked him the question, "What does that say about us if we agree that we need nuclear weapons to live in peace?" That reeks impotence to me.

Who's to say you aren't just another nutter standing on a soapbox ranting words of hate and criticism rather than doing anything to help?

I believe that prior to WW2, there were people standing on a soap box arguing in favor of a body like the United Nations. Aren't you worried that you may be like those that didn't pay any attention to these "nutters"? Also, you seem to suggest in your earlier post that just about any event that we go through is needed for us to evolve to the next step. But let me ask, if we don't learn from our mistakes, how relevant is our history? Do you consider that you have made many mistakes in your life and have adjusted accordingly? Haven't you, rather, been right all along?

Don't you think it is best and most effective to change the system from within? Changing policy for example.

Thanks for the concrete example. Working to make good changes from within a bad system is a hopeless situation, in my opinion. I once knew of a Green Party Candidate who went to the Liberals in order to get a chance to get elected. That is so sad and useless. Your question is also difficult to answer because it is difficult for me to say which changes are from within and which changes are not. For instance, if you go vegetarian, you make changes. But are you making changes from within? According to Einstein, nothing would increase the chance of survival on Earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet. Much improvement in the state of the world can be made by such changes from within. But that isn't what you mean right?

Overall, this discussion with you all has been really instructive for me. I now realize that whenever I see someone in a police uniform, I must always think of that person as an alleged police officer, unless I am part of the police. Whenever the media says, "The police says..." I must always translate this in my mind to, "An alleged police officer says..." No one can know the police; this is the consequence of outlawing police impersonators. One can only allege that a person is a police officer. Knowing who the police is simply not permitted for members of the general public; all that that the general public can do is to allege that a person is a police officer. We have no right to know.

We are supposed to be content with alleged police officers (an unknown force, similar to the forces of nature) being busy managing us. If we see someone with a police uniform stopping us, we are required by law not to "know" that we are faced with a police officer but simply that we are required to allege that this person is a police officer and to behave as if our allegations were true. General members of the public have never any right to identify the police.

So, if you, Lucylu, describe to me what a police officer does look like, you are doing something which you have no right to do, unless you are the police, something which I never have any right to know anyway. What you do have a right to do is to describe to me what a police officer is alleged to look like. We just don't know them. They appear to like it that way and obviously you do like it like that way as well. I really think its grand time for a better option: let's make policing a civil right now!

[Lucylu]

Which specific cases of the use of nuclear weapons do you find troubling today? Are there any?

Are you against the right in the USA to own firearms? It would seem to have parallels with a country's right to have an army and to compete with whatever weapons other countries have.

A civilian police could easily keep an eye on the areas that are rich in uranium to ensure no extraction operation is going on there.

Are you also against nuclear power? If so, how do you propose to fulfil the world's energy consumption needs without nuclear energy? Perhaps once we (humans) can produce enough sustainable energy making nuclear energy no longer needed then eventually nuclear weapons will also seem even more obsolete and so be decommissioned, but until then it doesn't seem feasible.

Also, how would civilian police have as much time and resources as an organised, dedicated police force? How can people be expected to work full time, take care of their families and their homes and also work as a civilian police officer?

In Canada, even if you do own land, you can't do whatever you want with it. Any construction you make is subject to city bylaw and permits and approvals.

So the real work needs to be done at the legal/ policy level, no? A group of civilians have no right to go on to someone else's property and interfere with a legally permitted action, such as mining. A civilian only has the right to stand on the boundary of the land, in a public place, and peacefully protest.

Now, since we’re on the topic of impotence, I'd like to say that I see impotence as stemming from low self-esteem such as the one that is apparently displayed by the previous person on this thread who was unable to give me any answer when I asked him the question, "What does that say about us if we agree that we need nuclear weapons to live in peace?" That reeks impotence to me.

Maybe he's just busy elsewhere.

What you do have a right to do is to describe to me what a police officer is alleged to look like. We just don't know them.

That's just the nature of being a working professional isn't it? You have to project a certain image in order to be taken seriously. You cant just talk in the same manner as you would to a friend as it doesn't inspire confidence and it seems to lack integrity and reliability. You're right it may all change but I just think it will happen gradually. To me, it seems naïve to suggest that everything would be great if there were no rules and we all just took care of eachother. You're not accounting for human laziness and ignorance, not to mention error. I just don't think you're taking care of the practicalities.

What happens when a civilian police officer loses his temper and hits a criminal while apprehending him? What if a group of civilian police officers beat up a paedophile while questioning him? What if they kill him? The police force needs to be meticulously monitored and documented, especially if it wishes to put people in prison. If they aren't being trained and aren't subject to professional codes of conduct, how will they know how to handle challenging and dangerous situations? I don't understand how you could expect a civilian police force to fulfil the same standards as an organised police force unless it has the same processes and structures, thereby becoming a very similar institution.

How, for instance, would a civilian police force deal with terrorists? Say they caught a group of terrorists or a murderer. They would want to put the criminal in prison, no? And then the civilian police would work at the prison? Who would pay them for putting themselves in dangerous situations with violent criminals or are they giving up their time for free? How would they be any different from the current police if they are performing the same role as a police officer with legal backing and are being paid for it? If they are gaining experience and becoming specialised in certain fields of investigation or in a given role to be given increasing responsibility and increasing pay? If there is no financial incentive, who would want to take on a very difficult and emotionally draining job, working with a public that has no respect for you?

You're not accounting for the very real necessity of money.

To think of a practical way to move forwards, I would like to see children during school (perhaps around their mid to late teens) being made to do community service for a year or so (in the same way that many countries had or have conscription) so that they gain a greater awareness and respect for the social and organisational needs of society and how hard these jobs actually are. This could mean volunteering in various different roles, such as waste disposal, homeless shelters, caring for the elderly and perhaps work experience with the police, health services, social services and even government. This could be branched out so that unemployed people don't get their dole money unless they also do community service, and perhaps it could even become an expected part of working life for adults.

Say, if one year out of every five, was given to community service (paid). I believe this was touched on in another thread which discussed sortition. If every one was expected to work in government or community service for a period of their life, a little like we are called upon to do jury service, then society as a whole may become more aware and responsible and ultimately more authentically democratic.

Eventually this could evolve in to the kind of civilian policing (as well as all areas of social services) that you aspire to. I cant envisage the removal of the real police force altogether (as I said there will always be a necessity for training an accountability) but I can envisage the integration of the public in to public services and a more socially responsible ethos. It appears to be happening already, as it seems that society (certainly in Britain) is demanding more honesty from its politicians and is able to see through all the fine words, nice suits and rhetoric.

[Empiricist-Bruno]

I just thought I'd revived this thread in light of what just happened, the planned reactionary murder of men in uniform.

Lucylu, one type of criminal that you have no power to make a 'citizen's arrest' is the criminal that wears a uniform. And we don't even have the right to know who they really are.

So when you have "murders" as the only recourse to deal with the out of control actions of guys in uniform, is this in fact an act of policing? I mean wasn't the murder of what is perceived as 5 police officers meant to try improve social justice by stimulating a fear in the men in uniform to recklessly kill in a racist way a specific group of people? Should this action be considered a police action in light of its aim if that was really its aim? Are these killers of uniformed men really doing what they must to bring justice to society? I mean, in Canada, we had a guy Rosco, who killed 4 apparent cops because they were seizing his farm or something. This kind of killing was not motivated for the improvement of society in general, or to force police to improve their actions. It was apparently motivated by a visceral hatred of the uniform. So this was clearly not a police action.

What does it mean to stand by the police if we don't know who they are and can't recognize them by their actions? Should the killing of these anonymous men in uniform in this particular instance, provided that it is limited to say a day or two after what sparked this killings and perhaps that these killings be moderately limited to say ten uniformed dudes, be regarded as a civil right? I'm not sure where I stand on this question.

[Steve3007]

Bruno:

So when you have "murders" as the only recourse to deal with the out of control actions of guys in uniform, is this in fact an act of policing?

No. Of course it isn't. Those police officers that were killed in Dallas weren't uniforms. They were individual human beings with no responsibility for the actions of other individual human beings who may or may not also wear uniforms. In the context of policing, the only reason to shoot an individual is to neutralize a direct, immediate threat to the lives of others from that individual at that time. It is not to intimidate other people into doing what you want by threat of violence. There's another name for that. Regardless of whether the action in Dallas was intended to "improve social justice by stimulating a fear in the men in uniform to recklessly kill in a racist way a specific group of people", it cannot be described as policing.

I presume your proposition that these murders were acts of policing is just intended to stimulate discussion.

[LuckyR]

Bruno:

So when you have "murders" as the only recourse to deal with the out of control actions of guys in uniform, is this in fact an act of policing?

No. Of course it isn't. Those police officers that were killed in Dallas weren't uniforms. They were individual human beings with no responsibility for the actions of other individual human beings who may or may not also wear uniforms. In the context of policing, the only reason to shoot an individual is to neutralize a direct, immediate threat to the lives of others from that individual at that time. It is not to intimidate other people into doing what you want by threat of violence. There's another name for that. Regardless of whether the action in Dallas was intended to "improve social justice by stimulating a fear in the men in uniform to recklessly kill in a racist way a specific group of people", it cannot be described as policing.

I presume your proposition that these murders were acts of policing is just intended to stimulate discussion.

I am not making that presumption. The heinous acts of the police are fundamentally different from the heinous acts of the Dallas snipers. The police are given a certain set of powers including the right to use deadly force, though a certain number of the police clearly operate outside the bounds of this limited mandate. The reasons for their doing so are numerous and complex, but my guess is "sending a message" or "evening the score" are not chief among them. The two probably share a certain disrespect at minimum and a mutual hatred most probably. But beyond that are likely not very comparable.

[Supine]

Or are some cops or whole departments impersonating military-styled soldiers on combat fields?

I don't proclaim to be a cop or know all things or most things related to professional policing and apprehension. I have some tiny, meager, insights into it from Security Forces training (trained and qualified in the pistol and arrest) in the Marine Corps. That helps inform some of my views. And I really get tired of hearing some of the melodramatics about cops "fearing" for their lives off of the slightest movement, even if it involves persons who identify themselves as in possession of a firearm and licensed to carry concealed. Get off the police force then as the US Constitution grants most Americans the right to bear arms. Concealed carry permits go further in privileging certain citizens with the right to hold and carry a firearm.

Frankly, and Obama and the whole of the US Government can lie until they're blue in the face, but cops tactically operate in the USA like US Marines and Army Rangers in foreign lands engaging enemy combatant and trying to intimidate and subdue the population at large.

The cop--per his training no doubt--in Minnesota had his service weapon trained in that car window long after the young man was shot. He informed and warned the female driver to keep her hands still, on the steering wheel no doubt, while the young man lay dying from traumatic bullet injuries, bleeding out, and likely organ failing. This is how Marines operate on Al Qaida or Iraqis or any territory or population they are ordered to subdue. Move and they'll blow your face off.

So, apparently, this cop suspected this young Black-American woman even after he shot her boyfriend multiple times, and with child in the backseat, of possibly being ISIS or Al Qaida terrorists. Or does agree with me--evidence in his training and actions--that Americans are savages? He must fear American citizens as a violent band of roaming savages? Slight moves mean they are about to kill you even if you have a more dominate tactical position.

More interesting in Dallas, the cops there supposedly used a bomb to kill the sniper in the parking structure? Cops are using fragmentation bombs now on US citizens?

Are police police or are they impersonating combat troops with orders to subdue and occupy?

(Bearing in mind police are para-military forces with military ranks given.)

But if this sniper was a Kurd in Turkey the US Congress and Obama would have a different tune and song. Just like when they arm other nations citizens with bombs and assault rifles and encourage them to go out and kill cops and soldiers in their nation. Then the US Government tells that foreign government to stand down, allow its armed rebel citizens to violently take over. As in Syria. All for "freedom." Like the white man's "Boston Tea Party" and treason against the British Crown.

But Black-Americans are told to remain peaceful and march singing "We shall overcome..."

[LuckyR]

No doubt there is a double standard in the US. In fact, by the police hiding post hoc behind the "I feared for my life" defense, they are essentially using the double standard as their justification for their actions. I suppose this codifies the double standard in a strange way. If you think about it, how much of a double standard do the beneficiaries of it expect the victims of it to tolerate before there is backlash?

It is my opinion that if the Trayvon Martin protests or the Michael Brown protests would have led to a stabilization (not even a slowing or a halt) in the rate of unarmed black men being killed by the police, these Dallas shootings would not have happened. In my opinion it is too simplistic to cite the deaths of unarmed black men as a cause. That is only one third of the cause IMO. The other two are: the fact that there was a huge outpouring of protest AND YET what followed was an escalation in the rate of deaths of unarmed black men. So the message to the community isn't just: we can kill unarmed folks without any repercussions. It is: we can kill unarmed folks without any repercussions AND there is NOTHING you can do about it, IN FACT your protests are kind of pi55ing us off so we're gonna do even more of these shootings.

Now, I am not implying that that is the intended message sent out by anyone. But I believe that is the message received by many in the community.