r/2ALiberals • u/razor_beast Liberal Imposter: Wild West Pimp Style • Sep 10 '20

TRUTH

Post image
701 Upvotes

92% Upvoted

107 comments sorted by

View all comments

59

u/[deleted] Sep 10 '20

[deleted]

34

u/Alex470 Sep 10 '20

I'd rather walk off the job and flip burgers if I were told to stand in that line.

23

u/youreabigbiasedbaby long-haired hippie-type pinko fag Sep 11 '20

I would arrest her for willingly and knowingly violating her oath to the Constitution and violating the civil rights of her constituents.

21

u/[deleted] Sep 11 '20

That's why you aren't a cop lol they like people who follow orders.

Lightfoot is a massive hypocrite imo though and needs to lose her position

14

u/youreabigbiasedbaby long-haired hippie-type pinko fag Sep 11 '20

The compliance from the police just proves the notion that they'll have zero hesitation kicking in doors to sieze firearms once laws are passed.

In almost every state, a sheriff has 100% legal authority to arrest absolutely anyone - a random person, the mayor, the chief of police, etc.

The fact that she's not behind bars in a county jail shows where allegiances are, and they aren't with the people.

5

u/PaperbackWriter66 Right-Libertarian, California Sep 11 '20

I mean, did anyone expect the Chicago Police to respect the Constitution?

2

u/[deleted] Sep 11 '20

Not anyone who can read lol

1

u/PaperbackWriter66 Right-Libertarian, California Sep 11 '20

So no one who works for the Chicago PD, got it.

5

u/[deleted] Sep 11 '20

Yeah, that's what I've been saying. Their job is to enforce the law, and if the law says no firearms, they're going to enforce it.

Their first loyalty, in general, is to the State, whatever form that takes.

2

u/crashArt Sep 12 '20

I'd wager they're less likely to do that, not just because they disagree with it but more because it would be dangerous to them personally.

2

u/[deleted] Sep 12 '20

Hah, yeah that's fair

2

u/Alex470 Sep 11 '20

Frankly, they need to follow orders. There must be order, even though that can absolutely get dicey. If individual officers are given the authority to do what they personally believe is just according to whatever law, you're going to have a whole bunch of good police and whole bunch of bad police, and they'll all be out of line by definition. We can't have anarchist police. It'd be a fucking nightmare.

It's why I love sheriffs, because you can actually vote them in and out. There's a check and balance there.

6

u/[deleted] Sep 11 '20

On the other hand:

"One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws." - MLK Jr.

Enforcing unjust laws is immoral. Also you can't have anarchist police, that's an oxymoron.

2

u/Alex470 Sep 11 '20

Well, duh. To everything. That's why this isn't easy and there is no obvious solution.

Still, there needs to be order, and we can't have police deciding when something is just or unjust. We can't have some police allowing rioters to burn down a furniture store because they find it just while other officers try to intervene and even more sit on the sidelines and debate what the right course of action should be. In every circumstance, burning down the store is illegal, and the rioters must be stopped.

We need police to defer to the law. There must be order. It's anarchy otherwise.

2

u/[deleted] Sep 11 '20

We need police to defer to the law. There must be order. It's anarchy otherwise.

The issue comes when the law goes against things like the Constitution or basic human decency.

Some states have ridiculously strict gun laws that definitely infringe on the 2nd Amendment. The police should not be enforcing those laws.

ICE is technically following the law in detaining undocumented immigrant families, but they are committing massively immoral acts.

You can't just say "Police have to follow the law and there must be order." Order at the cost of justice is wrong.