Posted on 11/26/2002 11:43:30 AM PST by mrustow
Look at Chief Moose of the sniper fiasco: Ph.D. and not an ounce of common sense. He makes the Ph.D.s they hand out like candy to high school principals these days look like read degrees. Too many cops are over-credentialed, over-unionized, and politically correct. They are becoming indistinguishable from public school employees, and their effectiveness is tranding in the same direction.
It's only legal because of a Supreme Court decision that is, in its own way, just as boneheaded as Roe v. Wade.
If you expect the citizenry to turn square corners in their dealings with the government, then the government must turn square corners in its dealings with its citizenry.
No, I am working from the fact that its not right, regardless of what some court of men has ruled.
"Thou shalt not bare false witness" doesn't have exceptions for interrogations.
That's a good point, and reserving judgement on whether it require the USSC decision to be rescinded. Note, however, that no suspect is required to say word one to the police, and has the right to shout, "Lawyer!"
No, I am working from the fact that its not right, regardless of what some court of men has ruled.
"Thou shalt not bare false witness" doesn't have exceptions for interrogations.
The "fact"? Which law book is that fact found in?
No, I am working from the fact that its not right, regardless of what some court of men has ruled.
"Thou shalt not bare false witness" doesn't have exceptions for interrogations.
The "fact"? Which law book is that fact found in?
Its right to lie to gain something you want, that otherwise would not be given to you if you didn't lie?
Funny, that's called fraud in most places. Not to mention that I'm sure it doesn't please God.
When I was in grad school in a Ph.D. program in philosophy, my profs didn't like my "character" (no money, no likey). So, they let me cop a plea to a master's degree. I handed in what was supposed to be my Ph.D. dissertation as a master's thesis. It was on secularization -- how theological ideas become recast as secular ones, particularly how the Frankfurt School's notion of society was based on a secular version of St. Anselm's (fallacious) ontological proof. (Note that identifying society with the deity involves compounding fallacies.) But like I said, I suffered from "character flaws."
A few years after I left grad school, a rich black guy entered the same program. I know he was rich, because he was showered with money from all kinds of foundations I'd never heard of. Academics only give you money, if they're sure you don't need it. (When I applied to the program, they mistakenly thought I had money; the whole thing was a big misunderstanding.) Anyway, the guy flew through the Ph.D. program in record time (four years, I think), and wrote a dissertation on ebonics (a topic I spent a good deal of time researching), specifically arguing for the possibility of a black speech community. I searched his mid-1990s diss for research on ebonics. He cited only the 1972 work, Black English, and NOTHING since. (There was tons of research, in the interim, on what linguists call African American Vernacular English, aka ebonics.) Not that it mattered, but the dissertation was garbage; it had nothing to do with philosophy or linguistics. But its author had "character" up the yazoo!
Its right to lie to gain something you want, that otherwise would not be given to you if you didn't lie?
Funny, that's called fraud in most places. Not to mention that I'm sure it doesn't please God.
An answer to my question would be most appreciated.
You made a legal claim. I asked you for its basis in law, but you chose to play word games, and now say "its simple for most people." For someone who claims to hate dishonesty, you sure practice a lot of it.
Sorry, I'll offer something more thoughtful when I'm home and can read this more thoroughly.
Without a doubt there are kernels of truth buried in these arguements. However, there are enough real examples of cops behaving badly to justify the attention aimed at them.
The part about black jurors refusing to convict black defendants is a real enough issue. It's also a cultural problem and has little to do with any perceived "war on cops". What's the proposed solution, an outright constitutional ban on jury nullifcation? If so, I'd rather let every black defendant walk than give up the right to trial by a jury of my peers BY A JURY WITH THE POWER TO VOTE THEIR CONSCIENCE.
That's it... yeah let's turn the U.S. into an all out police state to end this terrorism. Smart move.
If you're on the same side I'm on, I hate to consider what the enemy must look like.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.