davidmcbeth
Banned
davidmcbeth -
The sentence/thought to which I object is "The purpose is not to enforce the law but to enforce the government's desires."
That is broad brushing, because neither of us can state with any authority what was the government's motivation is this instance. Therefore it can hardly be extrapolated to a general condition.
Examples do not equate to goals. In fact IMO these force multipliers are the exception rather than the customary response.
Dial 911 for Emergencies Only
Appropriate uses of 911 are instances of immediate danger or there is a crime in progress, such as:
person with a weapon (gun/knife)
http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/police/contact-us/911/
That is not a broad stroke itself? Equating just carrying with an immediate danger or crime. Because the gov't desires (unarmed citizens) it so.
Motivation is extrapolated from the policy ... a logical conclusion. And don't expect them to tell you their true motivations.
Every time I have listened to a 911 call where the gov't should not have sent the police I expected the caller to be hysterical and this motivated the police response .... not so. I expect the 911 call here to be similar; we'll see.
I look at facts and draw conclusions from such facts .... if there is another explanation that's fine .. it does not invalidate the possibility that my conclusion is not more proper.
Expecting the gov't to behave rationally is irrational.
Last edited by a moderator: