>>84879482>So does that mean we shouldn't have police because they can't always enforce the law?No, it just means that, if they're symbols of the law, they can't be breaking the law. Their role is to serve as an example, and in their exemplary position, they get to tell other people how they're doing in terms of the law. They're supposed to be the living version of, "He who is without sin, cast the first stone." If the people charged with casting the stone are shown to be sinful like everyone else, everyone else says, "Fuck, I'm just like them," and they pick up stones, too.
>THAT DOESN'T MEAN ALL OF THEM ARE LIKE THAT. It doesn't matter. The police aren't a type of human that rose organically out of biology or society or whatever. They're an organization, with a mission and policies and standards. It's up to the organization to set those things and to punish or oust those who don't fall in line with them. If they DON'T punish or oust them, you can rationally say that someone's behavior while a part of that organization reflects on that organization's values and practices.
So when a cop shoots a black man lying on the ground with his hands up from 50 ft away, and the department lets the cop off, one can rationally say that the department doesn't have a problem shooting a black man lying on the ground with his hands up and 50 ft from hurting any cop.
> and you actively cheer for their deaths?Can you show me where I'm cheering?
