No, I mentioned those few officers that had not seen the criminal action (and so not ignored it), they are just such a tiny minority that they are statistically insignificant. I gave them...and the non-corrupt forces an incredibly generous 10%, even though I believe the true measure is closer to <2%. I have yet to see an independent investigation of any police force that failed to find rampant criminal behavior force wide. I conceded that they likely do exist...somewhere...but they have yet to show themselves, and appear to be quite endangered if not extinct.
Whistleblowers do show up, but in such tiny numbers compared to total law enforcement that they statistically don't exist at all.
I understand that's your position, I just disagree. Ben Franklin was talking about private citizens VS law enforcement, and you have twisted it backwards. Those IN law enforcement have a higher duty to be honest, non-violent, non-criminals. Do you not agree? And please understand no one has suggested putting them all in prison based on a presumption of guilt...which is what Ben Franklin was talking about...the court of public opinion is a different matter. Also, in practice, assuming that all law enforcement is 'bad' and are untrustworthy liars actually lets far more innocent 'escape suffering', since they are the one's making the (often enough, false) charges. Just something to think about.

OK, let me try another tact. Do you think it's OK to put all members of a mafia crime family in prison, even though some may have done little more than honest accounting work? Well, I'm not suggesting prison, or even replacement, just meaningful, independent oversight EDIT:with real teeth. While I would LIKE to replace all officers (including the 'good' ones, let them all re-apply with stricter standards) and start fresh, I do see that that's not in any way reasonable or feasible...the best I can hope for is a change in behavior and a change in how we treat them...to one of zero tolerance for any professional malfeasance.
OK, once again, there is a statistically insignificant population of law enforcement that is totally 'pure' and not criminal. They exist. Because law enforcement as a group has become SO corrupt, they will be lumped in with the rest in public opinion until they prove themselves. There comes a point when the presumption of innocence is so damaged by a particular group of like minded individuals (which excludes by race, as a race is not 'like minded') that it no longer makes sense....and I'm far past that point. I now presume they are all trained liars (and I contend that's true, all of them, 100%, it's part of the job, and another way they're 'bad', but that's another discussion altogether) and that they'll lie to and about anyone they come in contact with. It's a terrible presumption to have to make about a group of people, but the only logical one to make since the alternative so overwhelmingly often leads to severe suffering for the innocent.

Don't be so sure about that being the case if you come to the USA.
I was pulled out of my car at gunpoint, thrown to the ground, and had the knee to my face because an idiot officer read my license plate wrong and assumed my car was stolen, then when he realized his mistake, threatened me with reprisal when he said "...remember, bud, I know where you live if you report this".

I did report it. I had to fight tooth and nail just to make that report, the officers at the station didn't want to take it or allow me to make a written complaint, and actually said at one point 'we don't take written complaints about officers.', and absolutely nothing came of it in the end.

Until American police forces clean house, if I wanna see a "good cop", I'll have to go on vacation to another country. When you say "People in your country hate cops so much because the good ones allow the bad ones to dominate the public Image." you miss the point that they also allow the 'bad' one's to act badly with no consequence, and stand behind them consistently with lies about what really happened...only to be proven clearly to be liars when video comes out. That's why I say the 'good cops' are endangered, if not extinct at this point.

That's insane. How are those not extinct? They're massive, slow, and I can't see how they can defend themselves. Unless they just live far outside predatory areas I'd expect them to just be floating buffets for sharks and such.

>> ^Grimm:

I agree....if it had been something a little more rare like an 8-Track it would have been more believable. Even though LP's aren't around like they used to be they are not extinct...I would assume most teens these days are familiar with "DJ's" that still mix and scratch using records.>> ^Trout:
Hmmm... BS meter blinkin' a bit. Methinks looks kinda staged?



Rarely are DJ's using LP's do mix with now. It's kind of sad but to be honest, you can do a lot more with MP3 mixers than with turn tables. At the very least, LP's are dying out as a medium for DJ's. It's not entirely dead yet but it's becoming more rare rapidly. Anyone who is coming into it now probably wont see records used by a DJ very often.

I agree....if it had been something a little more rare like an 8-Track it would have been more believable. Even though LP's aren't around like they used to be they are not extinct...I would assume most teens these days are familiar with "DJ's" that still mix and scratch using records.>> ^Trout:

Hmmm... BS meter blinkin' a bit. Methinks looks kinda staged?

^NetRunner:
By the time machines get that smart, we're going to be irrelevant -- if not extinct -- if we insist on staying in our bodies of meat. Of course, if we shed those we won't really be the same species anymore, so it's pretty much the same thing.

You say "extinct" like it's a bad thing. =)

Not every extinct species died off... many of them simply evolved. We already have people with artificial organs and limbs, which I have no problem with. If Stephen Hawking gets an artificial body eventually then I'm happy for him. I'm pretty happy with what I have, but I may feel differently when I'm 80.

Of course, I don't see my own death as something to fear, so I may be looking at things from a different perspective.

Personally I'm less worried about this phase of robotic warfare, it's the phase where the President and maybe the Joint Chiefs are the only humans in the loop at all.

Assuming we make it that far, of course. By the time machines get that smart, we're going to be irrelevant -- if not extinct -- if we insist on staying in our bodies of meat. Of course, if we shed those we won't really be the same species anymore, so it's pretty much the same thing.

Singularity, here we come!

^dghandi
"The issue, in not "right to survive", as you suggest, but moral relevance. The basis for moral relevance is always arbitrary. We do not assign moral relevance to all life ( microbes, etc), nor to all human cells ( finger nails, appendix, cancer), nor all minds ( cows, dogs, chimps). There exists no innate discrete criteria for moral relevance."

As far as this point, there is one instance where this might arise: if all the evolutionary intermediates between apes and men were still alive. It would probably be pretty hard to determine who is "a man" and who is "an ape" based off of their mental, physical, or even genetic makeup. Luckily we don't have this problem because all the intermediates are extinct--thus we can easily distinguish between a "man" and an "ape". However--even if they were not extinct, there is but one criteria to distinguish which is which, and that criteria is not arbitrary: reproduction. Species are the set of animals who can successfully reproduce--thus as hard as it might be from appearance, it would be possible to separate the two.

Recall my definition of a right: A “right” is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context. Rights are thus a sort of "social contract" between men (or at least the same species).

It is only logically consistent to apply "rights" and thus, morality, to your own species. Thus, we define rights in terms of a social contract between men. Every other species is in competition with you. Again, to apply this in any other manner would be to say that a lion cannot morally eat an antelope. Likewise, it would mean that humans could not morally eat plants or animals--and there is no way to reconcile that with "the right to life".