TL;DR: Harry would be morally upstanding and a loose cannon (assuming he doesn’t mature past 18), therefore a “good” cop
“Loose cannons” are never good as cops. No matter how much you delude yourself they’re completely moral and even if that were 100% true they wouldn’t be good cops. Cops aren’t justice. They’re law enforcement.
Someone applying their own morality all the time instead of laws should never ever be a cop. That’s why ACAB.
“Loose cannons” are never good as cops. No matter how much you delude yourself they’re completely moral and even if that were 100% true they wouldn’t be good cops. Cops aren’t justice. They’re law enforcement.
A reminder that we’re talking about choosing between lesser evils here. Would you rather an immoral by-the-book Auror/cop in league with Voldemort/Hitler or a moral loose cannon like Harry?
Someone applying their own morality all the time instead of laws should never ever be a cop. That’s why ACAB.
How do you feel about ICE arresting people for immigration offenses?
How do you feel about the DEA prosecuting people for cannabis?
There’s nuance here, and you’re pretending there isn’t.
“No but you have to understand, All Cops might Be Bastards but they’re could be way worse bastards!”
Wow what a magnificent argument.
How do you feel about ICE arresting people for immigration offenses?
How do you feel about the DEA prosecuting people for cannabis?
Do you not understand that things are clearly immoral should lead to law enforcement refusing to enforce the laws. It doesn’t mean they get to decide which laws to enforce or not, willy nilly, but if someone says “go an arrest every minority out there” they can say ‘that’s unconstitutional and I won’t do it, you can fire me and then I’ll sue you’ or whatever it is you do there.
What you CAN’T do is become law enforcement and then use that authority while being completely arbitrary about laws.
The only reason I’m not a cop is because drugs are illegal (and some other laws but mainly those.)
“No but you have to understand, All Cops might Be Bastards but they’re could be way worse bastards!”
This strawman isn’t even properly put together; it’s falling apart. If English isn’t your first language, skip the following: Write better.
Do you not understand that things are clearly immoral should lead to law enforcement refusing to enforce the laws. It doesn’t mean they get to decide which laws to enforce or not, willy nilly, but if someone says “go an arrest every minority out there” they can say ‘that’s unconstitutional and I won’t do it, you can fire me and then I’ll sue you’ or whatever it is you do there.
Evidently not, because my understanding of your argument is that it is an oxymoron: Cops should use their own moral judgement to selectively enforce the law, but also, cops should not use their own moral judgement to selectively enforce the law.
I’m not a Harry Potter encyclopedia so maybe your perception of Harry being a loose cannon is much more arbitrary than mine, but in the context of someone refusing to enforce a law on moral grounds, you’re making zero sense to me. It seems like you’re assigning “willy nilly” to selective enforcement you disagree with and “refusal” to selective enforcement you agree with.
This strawman isn’t even properly put together; it’s falling apart. If English isn’t your first language, skip the following: Write better.
I really wouldn’t talk with that sort of syntax. “They” became “they’re” due to my fat thumbs, not because I meant it to. I write pretty fast on a phone and like we all (should) know, the predictive algorithm sometimes get stuck with the wrong word, and I don’t really care yoo much (see, now I have to fix “yoo” to “too”. Better to remove “yoo” as a prediction really, but who’s got time for thay).
I’ll bet my left nut that if we both tested our English skills, I’d have a larger vocabulary and better syntax. More than ten years ago I surpassed the average native speaker in vocabulary size.
Cops should use their own moral judgement to selectively enforce the law, but also, cops should not use their own moral judgement to selectively enforce the law.
No, you’re just a dummy. There are laws in place which allow cops — just like soldiers, to not do what they’re commanded to do. They’re called “illegal orders”. So for instance if I were at war (and I am a sergeant in the reserves), I would never hesitate to question a direct command… unless it broke the core principles which are not my personal morals, but strict rules which are in place. At that point, if it’s murky if it is a legal order or not (as superiors officers often do give them, to both cops and soldiers), the first step is to ask it in writing. Then you can show that you protested, but as it was unclear, you did it anyway. However if your superiors officers tell you to do something clearly illegal like torturing people and kidnapping children, you don’t need to hesitate, and even getting it in writing wouldn’t help, as any reasonably well trained person should definitely understand the immortality and thus refuse to obey.
I’m not a Harry Potter encyclopedia so maybe your perception of Harry being a loose cannon is much more arbitrary than mine,
See what did I tell you about the syntax. Gjeoddamn.
But also, vocabulary. My definition isn’t arbitrary in the least. Are you sure you know the meaning of the word?
but in the context of someone refusing to enforce a law on moral grounds, you’re making zero sense to me.
Probably because you have zero actual understanding of the topic…?
It seems like you’re assigning “willy nilly” to selective enforcement you disagree with and “refusal” to selective enforcement you agree with.
Yes, you keep repeating your asinine and completely wrong argument. Did you just forget the other times, or do you repeat it so that you’ll remember it? Either way, kinda weird, and super wrong.
“Loose cannons” are never good as cops. No matter how much you delude yourself they’re completely moral and even if that were 100% true they wouldn’t be good cops. Cops aren’t justice. They’re law enforcement.
Someone applying their own morality all the time instead of laws should never ever be a cop. That’s why ACAB.
A reminder that we’re talking about choosing between lesser evils here. Would you rather an immoral by-the-book Auror/cop in league with Voldemort/Hitler or a moral loose cannon like Harry?
How do you feel about ICE arresting people for immigration offenses?
How do you feel about the DEA prosecuting people for cannabis?
There’s nuance here, and you’re pretending there isn’t.
“No but you have to understand, All Cops might Be Bastards but they’re could be way worse bastards!”
Wow what a magnificent argument.
Do you not understand that things are clearly immoral should lead to law enforcement refusing to enforce the laws. It doesn’t mean they get to decide which laws to enforce or not, willy nilly, but if someone says “go an arrest every minority out there” they can say ‘that’s unconstitutional and I won’t do it, you can fire me and then I’ll sue you’ or whatever it is you do there.
What you CAN’T do is become law enforcement and then use that authority while being completely arbitrary about laws.
The only reason I’m not a cop is because drugs are illegal (and some other laws but mainly those.)
This strawman isn’t even properly put together; it’s falling apart. If English isn’t your first language, skip the following: Write better.
Evidently not, because my understanding of your argument is that it is an oxymoron: Cops should use their own moral judgement to selectively enforce the law, but also, cops should not use their own moral judgement to selectively enforce the law.
I’m not a Harry Potter encyclopedia so maybe your perception of Harry being a loose cannon is much more arbitrary than mine, but in the context of someone refusing to enforce a law on moral grounds, you’re making zero sense to me. It seems like you’re assigning “willy nilly” to selective enforcement you disagree with and “refusal” to selective enforcement you agree with.
I really wouldn’t talk with that sort of syntax. “They” became “they’re” due to my fat thumbs, not because I meant it to. I write pretty fast on a phone and like we all (should) know, the predictive algorithm sometimes get stuck with the wrong word, and I don’t really care yoo much (see, now I have to fix “yoo” to “too”. Better to remove “yoo” as a prediction really, but who’s got time for thay).
I’ll bet my left nut that if we both tested our English skills, I’d have a larger vocabulary and better syntax. More than ten years ago I surpassed the average native speaker in vocabulary size.
No, you’re just a dummy. There are laws in place which allow cops — just like soldiers, to not do what they’re commanded to do. They’re called “illegal orders”. So for instance if I were at war (and I am a sergeant in the reserves), I would never hesitate to question a direct command… unless it broke the core principles which are not my personal morals, but strict rules which are in place. At that point, if it’s murky if it is a legal order or not (as superiors officers often do give them, to both cops and soldiers), the first step is to ask it in writing. Then you can show that you protested, but as it was unclear, you did it anyway. However if your superiors officers tell you to do something clearly illegal like torturing people and kidnapping children, you don’t need to hesitate, and even getting it in writing wouldn’t help, as any reasonably well trained person should definitely understand the immortality and thus refuse to obey.
See what did I tell you about the syntax. Gjeoddamn.
But also, vocabulary. My definition isn’t arbitrary in the least. Are you sure you know the meaning of the word?
Probably because you have zero actual understanding of the topic…?
Yes, you keep repeating your asinine and completely wrong argument. Did you just forget the other times, or do you repeat it so that you’ll remember it? Either way, kinda weird, and super wrong.
Let’s start small and check this out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_order_(international_law)