What is the market rate you believe people should be paid for a job that deals with this?
It's capitalism...they get paid what the market will bear.
While I certainly respect and appreciate good law officers, it is far from the most dangerous job in this country. In fact, I don't believe it's even in the top 10.
Not to mention, of the more dangerous jobs, many have lower average salary, including coal miners, loggers, roofers, and electrical pole workers -- all honorable and tremendously important jobs in our society.
But, like law enforcement, while we may believe that these workers are underpaid, from a capitalist standpoint, they aren't at all underpaid (by definition)...
Btw, the cops I know (my family members, for example) will tell you that they don't do it for the money...if it was just about money, they'd be doing something more lucrative...
Tim
My only point is that there are a lot of BAD people in this world, and some of them wear badges, some of them wear a suit and tie, and some of them wear baggies!
My only point is that there are a lot of BAD people in this world, and some of them wear badges, some of them wear a suit and tie, and some of them wear baggies!
And a lot of them are sitting in prison thanks to whom?
My only point is that there are a lot of BAD people in this world, and some of them wear badges, some of them wear a suit and tie, and some of them wear baggies!
And a lot of them are sitting in prison thanks to whom?
The good police officers, of which there are certainly many.
And who do we have to thank for the thousands of people sitting in prison (or dead) due to the misconduct of police officers?
For example, in this one department, there were "more than 75 officers being investigated or charged and over 100 criminal cases being overturned due to perjury or other forms of misconduct":
Let's see you defend that...even the Bible implies that it's better that lots of guilty men go free than one innocent man gets punished.
LOL Quote the chapter and verse in context.
Genesis 18:23-32:
"And Abraham drew near and said, Wilt thou also destroy the righteous with the wicked?... That be far from thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked: and that the righteous should be as the wicked, that be far from thee: Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right? And the Lord said, If I find in Sodom fifty righteous within the city, then I will spare all the place for their sakes...
And he said, Oh let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak yet but this once: Peradventure ten shall be found there. And he said, I will not destroy it for ten's sake."
Personally, it's meaningless to me, as I don't get any of my ethical or legal direction from the Bible...but as someone who has indicated they follow the teachings of the Bible, I'd think you'd have a different attitude.
But, then again, you probably don't care what the Bible says either...you just use it to argue when it's convenient for you and ignore it when it's not...
Or, you'll do you're typical thing when you can't defend your arguments anymore, and just stop responding to this thread altogether...
Again though the context here is completely different from what you proposed. You proposed that "even the Bible implies that it's better that lots of guilty men go free than one innocent man gets punished."
If I need to teach you reading comprehension just to continue this debate, it's not worth it...
Given the private messages I've received on this topic, it seems even those who normally agree with your philosophies believe you're just fabricating stuff here to maintain your argument (as usual)...
You didn't quote it in context. You didn't explain why Abraham was arguing on behalf of Sodom. You didn't explain that his nephew was living there and had established a household and life there. You think for a second that may have been a conflict of interest there?
"Given the private messages I've received on this topic"
I stopped caring what people say about me in private messages that they don't have the balls to face me with back in high school.
You didn't quote it in context. You didn't explain why Abraham was arguing on behalf of Sodom. You didn't explain that his nephew was living there and had established a household and life there. You think for a second that may have been a conflict of interest there?
Okay, I'll humor you...
What did God mean when he was quoted as saying:
"If I find in Sodom fifty righteous within the city, then I will spare all the place for their sakes..."
That certainly sounds like, "It's better to let many guilty go unpunished than to punish even a few innocents."
But I'm sure you have a better interpretation, so let's hear it...
I stopped caring what people say about me in private messages that they don't have the balls to face me with back in high school.
I guess punctuation wasn't taught where you went to school...
"If I find in Sodom fifty righteous within the city, then I will spare all the place for their sakes..."
That certainly sounds like, "It's better to let many guilty go unpunished than to punish even a few innocents." "
Again, you have to look at the context. The judgment was set. He already knew that there was no one righteous but Lot and his family and was making that point to Abraham.
The full passage is:
26 The LORD said, "If I find fifty righteous people in the city of Sodom, I will spare the whole place for their sake."
27 Then Abraham spoke up again: "Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, though I am nothing but dust and ashes, 28 what if the number of the righteous is five less than fifty? Will you destroy the whole city because of five people?"
"If I find forty-five there," he said, "I will not destroy it."
29 Once again he spoke to him, "What if only forty are found there?"
He said, "For the sake of forty, I will not do it."
30 Then he said, "May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak. What if only thirty can be found there?"
He answered, "I will not do it if I find thirty there."
31 Abraham said, "Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, what if only twenty can be found there?"
He said, "For the sake of twenty, I will not destroy it."
32 Then he said, "May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak just once more. What if only ten can be found there?"
He answered, "For the sake of ten, I will not destroy it.
33 When the LORD had finished speaking with Abraham, he left, and Abraham returned home."
This is not about "it's better that lots of guilty men go free than one innocent man gets punished". It has nothing to do with it. This has everything to do with the making the point of characterizing omniscient judgment and the human perception of it. God already knows the answer, Essentially he's just humoring Abraham.
"I stopped caring what people say about me in private messages that they don't have the balls to face me with back in high school."
I guess punctuation wasn't taught where you went to school..."
You mean mechanics and this sentence is just fine as it stands. Your best bet would have been to argue a dangling participle.
"If I find in Sodom fifty righteous within the city, then I will spare all the place for their sakes..."
This has everything to do with the making the point of characterizing omniscient judgment and the human perception of it. God already knows the answer, Essentially he's just humoring Abraham.
So, basically your argument is that God was lying when he said this quote?
Because if he wasn't lying, then it really doesn't matter what the context of the statement was, does it...if it's true a statement, it's true statement, regardless of the context.
So, that's what you're going with here -- God was lying?
For your sake, I hope prevarication isn't a sin for which you'll end up in hell...
Let me think the last time a cop harassed me. 17 car stops WITHOUT A SINGLE CITATION, ie, your tail light is dim, you tags expire NEXT MONTH, you were going 7 MPH over the speed limit (72 in a 65 zone on a lonely highway with no traffic passing us the entire time we were stopped),etc...
Wow Mike, I seem to recall a not too distant thread where you impressed us all (beaten over our heads with a stick was more like it) with your unwillingness to do ANYTHING at all illegal, even as insignificant as jaywalking or speeding... and now THIS! So much for that aura of unrivaled model citizenry - NEVER EVER breaking ANY law...
But hey, 7mi over limit is not illegal in anyone's book, right? After all, you never got a citation... and the highway was pretty lonely also...
I'll take Tim's lack of response as preferring to accept that he was wrong than to call God a liar...I guess we know where he *finally* draws the line...
Anyway, more fun stories of police abusing their power:
Better be careful who you ticket...it could be another civil servant with more power than you:
Wish I could provide more fun stories, but those are the only ones I could find in recent news while doing a 3 minute Google search...if you search around, I'm willing to bet there are hundreds more...
I'll take Tim's lack of response as preferring to accept that he was wrong than to call God a liar...I guess we know where he *finally* draws the line...
:roll: I was trying to let a thread that started as a thank you but degenerated into a stupid debate just die.
Luckily the other officer acted heroically, took his job seriously and was willing to risk his life to save the woman from the drunk idiot cop. Now, cops like that (the one who did his job) definitely deserve our thanks...
OK, Sorin, lock me up and throw away the key. I am sure my burned out tail light puts all of society into extreme danger and I don't deserve to be set loose upon the public.
I was trying to let a thread that started as a thank you but degenerated into a stupid debate just die.
Funny how you always tend to do that sort of thing after getting argued into a corner...
Well, not really funny, but predictable...
I wasn't getting argued into a corner. You were threatening gutter gossip mudslinging against me personally rather than a focus on the debate. At that point you lost any chance of an ethical debate in the arena of ideas. The debate became worthless.
You were threatening gutter gossip mudslinging against me personally rather than a focus on the debate.
Funny, I thought it was you who called me a "cop hater" on the first page of this thread before our debate ever started -- an insult, btw, that has absolutely no basis whatsoever and came from another thread that you didn't even bother to read, but where you also started to throw around insults.
You can dish it out, but when someone stands their ground, you cry about how it's not fair...
Why is it that I was the 2nd person to vote this up? Maybe I missed something?
I think other people recognized that Tim wasn't posting this just to be nice to police officers (though hopefully that was part of it), but instead was posting this as a response to my previous thread linking to a documentary about corrupt cops.
In other words, as opposed to this just being an altruistic thread to give thanks, it was more Tim's (pretty sad) attempt to make me look bad because of the thread I posted.
All that said, if you can ignore Tim's childish attempt to try to make me look bad, the message in this thread is a good one, and the good officers out there definitely deserve our thanks...it just would have been nice if the OP had more "pure" intentions...
That's just my interpretation of why this thread didn't get more upvotes...I could be wrong...
OK, Sorin, lock me up and throw away the key. I am sure my burned out tail light puts all of society into extreme danger and I don't deserve to be set loose upon the public.
I am a bad, evil, horrible person!!!
Between us two, Mike, I'm not the one to boast myself as hollier than thou; someone else was. But now shame on us for calling your bluff! Although thru self deprecation you managed to wiggle yourself out of this one also, congrats.
I'm sure you know this saying: Judge Not Lest Ye Be Judged! and Let He Who is Without Sin Cast the First Stone ... (but don't care to apply it)
"Cop hater" were your words Jason. I merely repeated you.
I did not call you a liar based on what dirt on you I thought I had found in some Google search. That was pathetic of you. I'm not crying about it. Frankly I'm disappointed in you. That was weak.
Nope. Some other people here did. Little thing called gratitude.
Ahhhh...so now you're saying that anyone who didn't vote up your post doesn't have gratitude for the good cops out there...
I'm sure you don't care, but given that this thread has been viewed over 600 times, that's a lot of people you're categorizing (and probably insulting)...
Any shot the lack of upvotes has to do with the messenger and the reason for the message, and not the message itself? Hmmm....