Orwell wrote:
My guess is that it is a combination of the two- this sort of situation would never have occurred had either of them acted appropriately.
I think an important thing to keep in mind is that the police officer is on paid time and we can have higher expectations of their conduct and adherence to standards (ie it is reasonable to expect professional conduct from people while in the commission of duties they are monetarily compensated for).
Police officers receive training specifically to teach them how to behave professionally and appropriately in situations such as when crime might be suspected but is not necessarily occurring, whereas citizens do not receive systematic training in what to do when arriving home to the frustration that your door wont open and then being accosted by police suspecting you of committing a crime, something that few people would enjoy at a time of significant frustration (not being able to get inside one’s own house).
The roles between these two people is that one is there to serve and protect the other, while the other is there to be served and protected and actually contributes to the monetary compensation the other is in receipt of in respect of the professional duties which they are in the commission of.
Add to this that one party instigated contact with the other who wanted nothing to do with them.
Why would we expect equal levels of politeness, professionalism ,reasonability etc from each of these parties? One is on paid time and trained to deal with this situation, the other is a private person contributing financially to that paid time and-professional training, is not trained to deal with this contingency, and has been imposed on at a time of understandable frustration, while having every right to expect the other party serve and protect rather than frustrate and harass them.
It seems very obvious to me who had a professional duty to ensure a better outcome than this, who should be expected to have the training and expertise to have avoided this poor outcome, and who has a duty to protect and serve the interests and well being of the other to any extent.
pezar wrote:
I almost hope that the Chinese invade just so we can see once and for all how dumb she is.
I doubt that very much. The Chinese would have to be very stupid indeed to physically invade the US. The only point to doing so would be to destroy the US or its power, and this can more easily be achieved (with much less risk) simply by dumping US debt onto the financial markets.
If the Chinese divested themselves of US debt, the US dollar would crash, oil producers would abandon the US dollar and the US could not afford to import the essentials needed to sustain itself socially, politically and industrially. Most of the US’s military apparatus would be useless to countering the effects of this, and nuclear strikes would be the only realistic counter measure, which actually would not solve the US’s problem but rather ensure everyone else suffers too.
29 Jul 2009, 10:46 pm
