Two Matters

I found out that part of what I wanted to say got lost in editing yesterday's post about when it's not justified to slam the cops. 

All of that said,  it pisses me off to no end how journalists, newspaper and online scribblers, online, broadcast and cabloid babblers never, ever consider that they are not helping things when they go down that well-trodden path of journalistic slamming of the police when, with absolutely no surprise to anyone who has ever really thought about it - in the absence of criminality or even a suggestion of it, they fail to do what is demanded that they do on those occasions when the journalists or babblers approve of what they demand.   Which is often quite arbitrarily decided. 

The demand is made that before someone is formally investigated before they have been credibly believed to have ALREADY committed a crime, such an investigation be:

- in accord with the limits placed on police investigating and finding evidence, 

- under the rules of how evidence admissible in court can be obtained and when those haven't been met, 

- when any accusation made without evidence being presented COULD BE FALSE AND MOTIVATED BY A GRUDGE OR PREJUDICE, 

- when any lawyer or judge can claim or decide, arbitrarily that the police have failed to meet those bars, 

- when individual police can get into very hot water when the media or a lawyer or a judge can accuse them of breaking the rules, 

- any number of other factors, 

slamming the police when they act within those limits and a crime occurs is typical of the media who are even more arbitrary in that than a lot of judges are.  

Those restrictions are there for reasons, SOME police have abused the rights of people and courts have too in the absence of those restrictions.  

Injustice happened in their absence.  Some police forces have done that as a body, often with the full cooperation of lawyers and judges and legislators.  AND JURIES, TOO. That those are injustices committed by arms of the government means that remedies to that were in the hands of government, the legal system and by the police.

Those are not the only injustices, they aren't even a majority of them in North America. 

But the advantages to honest people gained by those restrictions as well can be to the benefit of criminals and those who would be criminals who until they break the laws, aren't even subject to be investigated criminally.   

If you want to really make things better it is absolutely necessary to consider that when we talk about "injustice" that injustices, those are probably in the majority of cases more dangerously are committed by criminals.  

All crimes against people are acts of injustice.  That injustice is completely in the hands of the criminals and the police are not ever going to be able to prevent all of it or perhaps even a majority of it.  That's the reason we have police, laws, courts, etc. 

It's not particularly difficult to see the problems with what the journalists are doing.  They are acting like brats demanding the the police do the impossible while insisting on the things that make the impossible impossible as well.  

Journalists, writers get rewarded for doing that.  They thrive on presenting those most vicious of committing injustices, criminals as heroes.  It is remarkable how much of popular writing, both non-fiction and fiction, gives a romanticized, positive view of even real gangsters and criminals whose lives were devoted to committing injustice, generally and mostly against those with less of an ability to defend themselves than others.  That has been a practice of scribblers, pop song writers, poets, even "journalists" from time immemorial.  

Writing this I remember that one of Norman Mailer's greatest successes was his use of the criminal Gary Gilmore as a hero in The Executioner's Song for which he got a Pulitzer and, no doubt the even greater reward of a Hollywood movie that got Tommy Lee Jones an Emmy.  And he was joined on the death-row gravy train by his frenemy Gore Vidal who did the same with the mass murderer, Timothy McVeigh.  If you want to consider how degenerate that practice is consider this from the then and still now "lefty" icon about the literal neo-Nazi McVeigh 

Vidal maintained this was because "McVeigh saw himself as John Brown of Kansas", the anti-slavery campaigner who was executed after leading a raid into the south which sparked the American civil war.

Read the entire article at The Guardian, it's a good example of what I'm talking about.  

Yet people wonder why the public have such a screwed up view of justice.   No wonder good police can't do their jobs the way they probably want to, no wonder bad ones can rig things to get away with murder.  

-------------------

I am being trolled at other places I make comments by one of the people who cannot now troll me here.  Why they're bothering, I don't know, it's not as if after all of these years I couldn't guess which of the tiny grab bag of atheist-scientistic bromides they'll pull out.  If I haven't long ago answered all of those them raising a new one might possibly be a fatal shock (I say to encourage them to at least come up with a new line, something which I've more or less given up hope on).   

I found that out that what they don't want most of all is an answer as they raised the same question I'd answered, fully, with historically irrefutable quotations, material cited by him to back up his claims, the testimony of his professional colleagues, correspondents, fellow scientists AND HIS OWN CHILDREN WHO KNEW HIM BETTER THAN ANYONE THEN OR NOW,  the post-war lies about Charles Darwin's eugenics advocacy,  of his direct link to genocide and links to Nazi ideology and those most infamous of genocides.  I proved that as absolutely as any claims made about him can be made.  

They aren't much better at defending their other positions, I can guess what they will say, I can address those without bothering to read what they'll say.  You would think if the idiots thought they could intimidate me into silence fourteen years of their failure to do that would have taught them that's not going to happen, though they don't seem to learn much of anything, which is the difference between us, I guess.  I have learned an enormous amount through these brawls and have changed, fundamentally many ideas I had held to.   I would think that's the difference between thought and rote repetition.  In no way is it more evident that the atheist-materialist-scientistic claims to be "free thinkers" is a phony trademark.  They don't even think.