Russell Arrested 5/29/08 for no government drivers license

[Rodinia]

Because if you do not give them the benefit of the doubt, why should they give it to you? And you may think they already don't but has that been proven? If you haven't given them the benefit of the doubt, I would have to argue that no, that has not been proven.

[Pat McCotter]

We engaged him in discourse. Those were his actions after discourse. Sorry but 'nuff said.

[Rodinia]

Those were his actions as a "law enforcement officer". I disagree that 'nuff's been said. I disagree because as a "person" he has an opinion outside of the realm of his day job. I see opportunity.

[Rodinia]

And what chance do we think we've got if we don't try an persuade people? People who haven't clearly earned their "discredited" status?

[error]

This police officer certainly deserves public shame for his actions. And the fact that he was simply enforcing the "law" (or even just obeying it!) -- those magic words on goddamned pieces of paper -- is no excuse for such an immoral act.

It's my hope that people like this police officer who find themselves committing moral offenses against other people will realize the error of their ways and the harm they are doing to society generally, and eventually stop committing such offenses.

I suspect that this police officer is a human being; it is because of his humanity that we shame him publicly. If he were not human, then perhaps he would deserve some other punishment for his offenses.

[Rodinia]

Ok error, I would agree that between you and I, there is no excuse for upholding an immoral law. However, I would argue that the individual who upheld "the law" is ignorant of the standard of "immoral" that you and I probably agree upon. How is it fair for us to judge this individual by a standard that he is unfamiliar with?

Bear in mind, this is a particularly benign situation. Not a black and white example of an immoral act committed by a "law enforcement" officer. How I would personally make the distinction is if for example, this officer physically accosted Russel. That would clearly be immoral and unacceptable and would serve as evidence to discredit his opinions should he wish to offer them after the fact.

[Kat Kanning]

You're saying there is no absolute right and wrong.

[error]

Ok error, I would agree that between you and I, there is no excuse for upholding an immoral law. However, I would argue that the individual who upheld "the law" is ignorant of the standard of "immoral" that you and I probably agree upon. How is it fair for us to judge this individual by a standard that he is unfamiliar with?

You judge every day with every person. That's why you limit your association with some people, associate freely with others, ostracize some people entirely, and attempt to explain yourself to yet others.

[error]

You're saying there is no absolute right and wrong.

Free, voluntary association is right. Coercion, force and fraud are wrong. Seems pretty simple to me.

[Rodinia]

You're saying there is no absolute right and wrong.

Oh, no, certainly not, there is absolute right and wrong. But there is also gray. And this circumstance in my opinion falls within the realm of gray. It does because there has been no actual, physical harm done.
The officer was upholding the law as he understands it and it seems to me, there is still an opportunity to influence his perspective.

[Rodinia]

Ok error, I would agree that between you and I, there is no excuse for upholding an immoral law. However, I would argue that the individual who upheld "the law" is ignorant of the standard of "immoral" that you and I probably agree upon. How is it fair for us to judge this individual by a standard that he is unfamiliar with?

You judge every day with every person. That's why you limit your association with some people, associate freely with others, ostracize some people entirely, and attempt to explain yourself to yet others.

Yes, fine. However, personally speaking, there is only so far I'm willing to go to "limit" my association with people who may perpetuate unpleasantnesses upon me. 
For example, I regularly speed, according to the speed limits anyhow. I could argue the arbitrary nature of speed limits, (I have and it's gotten me nowhere) but the fact is, I am unwilling to do the speed limit under most circumstances. Not that I'm reckless mind you, as MOST people aren't. However being pulled over for speeding does not constitute an act of immorality on behalf of the officer in my opinion.
As well as they are only people. And those who do not treat morality in an egregious manner, I would suggest there is opportunity to sway minds.
Did I mention, I am an eternal optimist? Seriously, I can't even rationalize my way out of it, believe me, I've tried.

[Rodinia]

If silence is consent, the majority of the populace is guilty of immorality.

You're saying there is no absolute right and wrong.

Free, voluntary association is right. Coercion, force and fraud are wrong. Seems pretty simple to me.

[TackleTheWorld]

If silence is consent, the majority of the populace is guilty of immorality.

And if silence is the sound of leaving other alone, 100% of all police are guilty of interfering in people's lives.

[Russell Kanning]

People that are opposing me are my "enemies" ...

Rodinia ... you probably look at the cops as protecting you from the bad guys ... Jose sees them as the bad guys.

We have not kicked the cops off of our forum. PatMc wasn't suggesting that either. But I am not going to give them special treatment and do special things for them like what Highline wanted.

You feel comfortable questioning Jose and PatMc and others .... because they will not hurt you like the cops might.

[Russell Kanning]

Those were his actions as a "law enforcement officer". I disagree that 'nuff's been said. I disagree because as a "person" he has an opinion outside of the realm of his day job. I see opportunity.

Is he a person or a law enforcement officer?
How should we then live?
What if I get a job as a hired killer for the government?
Would taking the job be wrong?

Is it innocent to take any job? Can you then do whatever is required at that job?