Civil War-again?

[Praxis+Theodicy]

My point is that we don't run prisons by trusting everything prisoners say over the guards and officials who run them.

For rather obvious reasons. Just like how a police officer's testimony in court is generally considered credible. There is not a presumption that government officials are lying, but rather the opposite.

I have friends and family who have been involved in law enforcement, and I can say with certainty that an automatic presumption that a government official is giving a truthful testimony is a dangerous assumption. In America, local police departments tend to act on a VERY powerful culture of "protect our own". You'd have just as much luck getting a member of the mafia to give credible testimony that would expose the guilt of his family than you would getting a police officer to give credible testimony that would expose the guilt of his comrades. Beyond the culture fostered in law enforcement agencies, there are systemic protections for a mafia member who testifies against his comrades, incentivizing him to do so; and there are systemic protections for the police officer who gives false testimony to protect HIS comrades. It's tough to escape this incentive structure. I'm not even blaming individual actors here. Police officers giving false testimony to "protect our own" isn't something that they going about doing consciously. It's like an Amish man not wearing a mustache. It's just what you do; it's the culture. It's expected. It's encouraged.

My point is that, you are correct, this presumption does exist. I'm just pointing out that it is a dangerous presumption. It put the actors with authority above the power of the law itself. Again, Rule of Law versus Law of Rulers.

[JohnH]

I have friends and family who have been involved in law enforcement, and I can say with certainty that an automatic presumption that a government official is giving a truthful testimony is a dangerous assumption. In America, local police departments tend to act on a VERY powerful culture of "protect our own". You'd have just as much luck getting a member of the mafia to give credible testimony that would expose the guilt of his family than you would getting a police officer to give credible testimony that would expose the guilt of his comrades. Beyond the culture fostered in law enforcement agencies, there are systemic protections for a mafia member who testifies against his comrades, incentivizing him to do so; and there are systemic protections for the police officer who gives false testimony to protect HIS comrades. It's tough to escape this incentive structure. I'm not even blaming individual actors here. Police officers giving false testimony to "protect our own" isn't something that they going about doing consciously. It's like an Amish man not wearing a mustache. It's just what you do; it's the culture. It's expected. It's encouraged.

My point is that, you are correct, this presumption does exist. I'm just pointing out that it is a dangerous presumption. It put the actors with authority above the power of the law itself. Again, Rule of Law versus Law of Rulers.

What I was pointing out is that it has been this way for a very long time, and it is not a sign at all that America is being taken over by an "authoritarian government" that it continues to be this way.

Generally speaking, police officers are more credible than prisoners. Unfortunately, prisoners can and do commit self harm and there are limits to how much that can be stopped (as the Epstein example shows). Automatically assuming that the prison guards "murdered" a detainee (particularly with absolutely no motive to do so, and lots of motives not to do so) is a big assumption.

[ken_sylvania]

Interesting how none of that applied to anyone in January 6 (when no one attempted to kill any officers).

Yet obviously ramming an officer with a vehicle is now a “constitutional right”.

Does the constitution also give you the right to lie?

[JohnH]

Interesting how none of that applied to anyone in January 6 (when no one attempted to kill any officers).

Yet obviously ramming an officer with a vehicle is now a “constitutional right”.

Does the constitution also give you the right to lie?

?

[Praxis+Theodicy]

Was he or was he not trying to kill himself?
If they wanted him dead wouldn’t they have just let him kill himself?

Pretty sure that's exactly what happened. The guards conveniently fell asleep and the camera on his cell conveniently malfunctioned for a window of time where he was able to kill himself.

There should have been disciplinary actions for that level of negligence, at the very least.

So he wanted to die?

I'm sorry; I was only sharing assumptions. I didn't know the man myself, so I'm not sure what he wanted.

[temporal1]

Interesting how none of that applied to anyone in January 6 (when no one attempted to kill any officers).

Yet obviously ramming an officer with a vehicle is now a “constitutional right”.

Does the constitution also give you the right to lie?

i don’tthink so. Not the Constitution.
However, law schools dedicate fortunes, defense attorney become filthy rich, pushing legal language and policies to the max.
Unions are strong in it, too.

Esp following WJC, the extreme art of lying to the max with a straight face and bold insistence, has become the norm and goal.

Eschewing Jesus’ way of Truth and Light.

Every means possible is taken to protect (and free) the alleged guilty. It’s now big business and culture.
Crime is celebrated and rewarded. https://forum.mennonet.com/viewtopic.php?t=7802

Jesus will prevail. Jesus has prevailed. The road can be bumpy.

[JohnH]

One of the more absurd expectations is that the same branch of government will somehow "independently" investigate / charge itself. As if that's ever worked.

[Praxis+Theodicy]

Interesting how none of that applied to anyone in January 6 (when no one attempted to kill any officers).

Yet obviously ramming an officer with a vehicle is now a “constitutional right”.

Does the constitution also give you the right to lie?

https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF12180

The Supreme Court has said the Free Speech Clause protects false speech when viewed as a broad category, but the government may restrict limited subcategories of false speech without violating the First Amendment. For example, defamation, fraud, political advertisements, and broadcast speech are subject to special considerations.

[Southerner]

The 5 officers who tried to save the man's life are also witnesses.

Yes, they are witnesses. The question that needs to go before the jury is whether they tried to save the man's life, or whether they abused him and in doing so, took his life.

Good point. Reminds me of the article I read recently of an officer at an ICE dentention center who raped a Nicaraguan lady multiple times. The officer was sentenced to 15 years in jail.

[Valerie]

The 5 officers who tried to save the man's life are also witnesses.

Yes, they are witnesses. The question that needs to go before the jury is whether they tried to save the man's life, or whether they abused him and in doing so, took his life.

Good point. Reminds me of the article I read recently of an officer at an ICE dentention center who raped a Nicaraguan lady multiple times. The officer was sentenced to 15 years in jail.

As he should be if not more time.
The speed of which so many were hired for ICE I imagine there will some evil that slips through the cracks. I admit to be clueless to the screening of potential ICE agents.
I also believe there should be better training- I doubt there’s any more stressful job on the entire country.

Last night Trump said they are not without mistakes