Attitudes towards the police

[Meekychuppet]

I think the blind acceptance of any law is an extraordinarily dangerous thing.

Who said "any"?

Again, you've only posted 'obey the law and you'll be fine' sentiments.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I think the blind acceptance of any law is an extraordinarily dangerous thing.

And who said "blind"?

All you have posted is acceptance of the law. Your posts have been no more complex than that. If you have more to say but don't say it then it's hardly up to me to read your mind.

My statement is quite clear and unambiguous. If you don't read more into it that is there you'll do finer.

[Meekychuppet]

I think the blind acceptance of any law is an extraordinarily dangerous thing.

And who said "blind"?

All you have posted is acceptance of the law. Your posts have been no more complex than that. If you have more to say but don't say it then it's hardly up to me to read your mind.

My statement is quite clear and unambiguous. If you don't read more into it that is there you'll do finer.

It is clear and unambiguous, quite right. Unfortunately it doesn't address most of the issue.

[floppit]

I think the blind acceptance of any law is an extraordinarily dangerous thing.

Who said "any"?

Again, you've only posted 'obey the law and you'll be fine' sentiments.

I read it more as X is the consequence of not obeying the law - that's stating reality rather than a value judgement on the ethics of the reality. Maybe I missed something which adds sentiment?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I think the blind acceptance of any law is an extraordinarily dangerous thing.

And who said "blind"?

All you have posted is acceptance of the law. Your posts have been no more complex than that. If you have more to say but don't say it then it's hardly up to me to read your mind.

My statement is quite clear and unambiguous. If you don't read more into it that is there you'll do finer.

It is clear and unambiguous, quite right. Unfortunately it doesn't address most of the issue.

Were you going to add something to that?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I think the blind acceptance of any law is an extraordinarily dangerous thing.

Who said "any"?

Again, you've only posted 'obey the law and you'll be fine' sentiments.

I read it more as X is the consequence of not obeying the law - that's stating reality rather than a value judgement on the ethics of the reality. Maybe I missed something which adds sentiment?

You have to throw in some words I didn't type to get past your estimate and into something more sinister, I'm afraid.

[Meekychuppet]

Were you going to add something to that?

Pulling teeth? Nah.

[Meekychuppet]

I think the blind acceptance of any law is an extraordinarily dangerous thing.

Who said "any"?

Again, you've only posted 'obey the law and you'll be fine' sentiments.

I read it more as X is the consequence of not obeying the law - that's stating reality rather than a value judgement on the ethics of the reality. Maybe I missed something which adds sentiment?

It added nothing to the discussion that we don't already know, or did we all need to be told that if you don't break the law you don't get into trouble?

[floppit]

I think the blind acceptance of any law is an extraordinarily dangerous thing.

Who said "any"?

Again, you've only posted 'obey the law and you'll be fine' sentiments.

I read it more as X is the consequence of not obeying the law - that's stating reality rather than a value judgement on the ethics of the reality. Maybe I missed something which adds sentiment?

You have to throw in some words I didn't type to get past your estimate and into something more sinister, I'm afraid.

Eh? Ok - I'm confused....

[floppit]

I think the blind acceptance of any law is an extraordinarily dangerous thing.

Who said "any"?

Again, you've only posted 'obey the law and you'll be fine' sentiments.

I read it more as X is the consequence of not obeying the law - that's stating reality rather than a value judgement on the ethics of the reality. Maybe I missed something which adds sentiment?

It added nothing to the discussion that we don't already know, or did we all need to be told that if you don't break the law you don't get into trouble?

More to the point - is a derail into acceptance of the law required to evaluate police? Especially as I didn't see anything that looked (to me) as if it was evaluating the law itself.

Meh - it beats TV!

[Meekychuppet]

It added nothing to the discussion that we don't already know, or did we all need to be told that if you don't break the law you don't get into trouble?

More to the point - is a derail into acceptance of the law required to evaluate police? Especially as I didn't see anything that looked (to me) as if it was evaluating the law itself.[/quote]

I would think it is since people have tried to excuse abuses on 'the system' rather than the police. It's only fair to discuss the other side of that argument.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I think the blind acceptance of any law is an extraordinarily dangerous thing.

Who said "any"?

Again, you've only posted 'obey the law and you'll be fine' sentiments.

I read it more as X is the consequence of not obeying the law - that's stating reality rather than a value judgement on the ethics of the reality. Maybe I missed something which adds sentiment?

You have to throw in some words I didn't type to get past your estimate and into something more sinister, I'm afraid.

Eh? Ok - I'm confused....

You didn't miss anything in my statement. Meeky wants to add to my statement with pejoratively slanted words. I wouldn't let him.

[Meekychuppet]

You didn't miss anything in my statement. Meeky wants to add to my statement with pejoratively slanted words. I wouldn't let him.

No, Meeky wants you to say something of value because, oddly enough, he can figure out for himself that if one breaks the law one receives correctional/disciplinary treatment. You've said nothing, and when invited to embellish your point you chose not to. Now you're just trying to pick a fight/start a derail so you can stay in the thread without actually saying anything that might further discussion. It's your standard response to a different view, as evidenced in the Wikileaks thread. You'll say that you have a point, you're asked what it is, you refuse to give it. Personally I don't give a shit either way, but I'll be damned if I am going to let you get away with taking the high ground when you refuse to get in the game properly. I thought you military sorts had the stomach for butting heads. This is a disappointingly wussy strategy. Turns out you just want to pretend you're superior when you don't have the courage to bat your corner.

By all means continue, I don't give a shit, but if you misrepresent me again I'll be spanking your little botty over it. You don't wanna play? Fine. Don't be that kid in the playground winding it up and then running away when the fighting starts.

[floppit]

You didn't miss anything in my statement. Meeky wants to add to my statement with pejoratively slanted words. I wouldn't let him.

I think I about got that roughly 2 mins after posting!

Meeky.
I think the problem is that while the Police are 'supposed' to uphold the law it's hard to complain when they do even if a law is naff. The two discussions might impact on each other but are separate by nature. Surely it would be clearer to pull out where the abuse (actions beyond the law) is justified by laws that don't require said abusive response. I haven't read all the posts to this point in detail and if people have suggested that because a law is broken any abuse is justified, clearly that would be wrong - and illegal.

[floppit]

It's an interesting discussion but my bed and a cuddle beckons so I'll try to catch up tomorrow. Night night.