How are cops supposed to know if their attacker is armed or not?

[HereWeGoAgain]

AND

MB could have submitted to a lawful order

See how easy the world really works

Maybe so, I agree. But, still, there was no cause to murder him. The cops could've arrested him and tried him in a court of law. There were other ways to handle the situation since he was unarmed.

And still there was no murder. I will not allow myself the luxury of second guessing a man who was attacked by a 300 pounder who refused a lawful order and came back to do more damage.

So the story goes. But, there were several different version of that story.

Not after the UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL agreed with the grand jury. Case closed.

Just to be clear. I take NO JOY in a young man losing his life. But the truth is, he caused it, he could have stopped it.

Law enforcement agencies investigating law enforcement agencies, or their members, does not impress me. Now, if an independent agency, experienced in these types of cases did the investigating, then I'd be impressed and satisfied. When an agency investigates it's own members, what are we to think?

Yet you're okay with holder and his obvious bias calling out the police?

 

[Jackson]

Nope. Not at all. No complex here. Just calling it like I see it. Obviously, I have just cause since the news is feeding it to us daily. It happens all across this country daily. We can't ignore it and bury our heads in the sand and pretend that it doesn't happen.

You know the police have been shooting criminals for hundreds of years right?
Why is it now news?

Yes, they have. But, they are now shooting unarmed citizens, children, old people, and disabled people. All unarmed and could've been handled differently. They have made news headlines because it's getting totally out of hand, and we have more people with cameras and spread the word rapidly on the internet.

I posted a vid of a cop that was clearly wrong yet you didnt comment.
Why is that?

What video? Where is it?

I posted it again because you clearly missed it.
I am all for nailing cops who overstep their authority,the MB case and the majority of cases brought up are clearly legit.

Sonny, IIRC, you were indicting ALL police officers of being murderers, child abusers, and the list goes on.

 

[Sonny Clark]

Do you have the video? Yes or no? Was he executed for taking cigars? Did he put someone in intensive care in the hospital? Did he disable someone for life? Was killing him justified for stealing a few cigars? Was there any other way to handle it? Could he have been arrested and tried in a court of law? Was murder the only course of action?

There was no murder, both a grand jury and the Justice department agreed to that.

Yes, there was another way that this could have ended without the death. That is, MB submitting to a lawful order.

There was no trial. No proof other the word of the officer. And, he could've been arrested and jailed. The officer could've called for back up. The officer could've followed him until assistance arrived. There were several other ways it could've been handled besides murder.

AND

MB could have submitted to a lawful order

See how easy the world really works

Maybe so, I agree. But, still, there was no cause to murder him. The cops could've arrested him and tried him in a court of law. There were other ways to handle the situation since he was unarmed.

So you would try and fight a 300 hundred pound dude who is an obvious law breaker?
How about if he attacked a women cop? Or maybe a 115 lb little old man?

Call for back up. Follow suspect until help arrives. Use pepper spray if necessary. Use a taser if necessary. Do something besides murder an unarmed person like a dog in the street. Shoot as a last resort, not as a first action.

 

[BULLDOG]

That's exactly my point. The police tactic of depending on intimidation and force in every situation prevents any respect for the law from developing. If I know I will be treated as criminal no matter what I do, I'm not going to show the respect the police want and need either. I'm not saying that all cops were always wrong, and all the people there were always right. I'm just saying it was stupid for the police to let it degenerate into the combative situation it became. It's the policeman's job to try to prevent that instead of making it worse.

Lack of respect for the police brings it on.
I always ask myself when this kind of crap happens.
Would I ever find myself in a situation like the guy got capped in?
The answer is no 99.9% of the time.
Had MB not robbed a store,stayed out of the street,obeyed the orders of the police officer he'd be alive today. And thats a fact.

The guy was a punk. The police behavior made that more prevalent in the neighborhood.

No,the lack of proper upbringing made that prevalent.
His father was a gang member,is it any wonder he turned out like he did?
If the cycle isnt broken this shit will continue to happen.
Nothing pisses me off more than to hear the dead criminals parents/parent blame the police when they are the ones to blame.
And if I hear "he was such a nice boy"one more time I'm gonna puke.

I already told you I think he was probably a punk. I didn't trust the investigation done by local police because they showed a callous disregard for the rights of the peaceful protestors, but I do trust the DOJ. Contrary to right wing rhetoric, they didn't have a vested interest in the results of the investigation. Bad parents are a terrible problem, and I don't have any more idea how to completely solve that problem than you do, but cops are hired to deal fairly with everybody. It's their job. They aren't allowed to abuse their power just because it is a hard job.

When you attack a cop you forfeit your rights to a trial.
Deal with it in the courtroom not on the street.

So now the cop is judge, jury, and executioner? I believe most cops are probably good, but I'm not naïve enough to think more than a few aren't. With the power given to them, they should be held to a higher standard than others.

 

[Sonny Clark]

That's exactly my point. The police tactic of depending on intimidation and force in every situation prevents any respect for the law from developing. If I know I will be treated as criminal no matter what I do, I'm not going to show the respect the police want and need either. I'm not saying that all cops were always wrong, and all the people there were always right. I'm just saying it was stupid for the police to let it degenerate into the combative situation it became. It's the policeman's job to try to prevent that instead of making it worse.

Lack of respect for the police brings it on.
I always ask myself when this kind of crap happens.
Would I ever find myself in a situation like the guy got capped in?
The answer is no 99.9% of the time.
Had MB not robbed a store,stayed out of the street,obeyed the orders of the police officer he'd be alive today. And thats a fact.

The guy was a punk. The police behavior made that more prevalent in the neighborhood.

No,the lack of proper upbringing made that prevalent.
His father was a gang member,is it any wonder he turned out like he did?
If the cycle isnt broken this shit will continue to happen.
Nothing pisses me off more than to hear the dead criminals parents/parent blame the police when they are the ones to blame.
And if I hear "he was such a nice boy"one more time I'm gonna puke.

I already told you I think he was probably a punk. I didn't trust the investigation done by local police because they showed a callous disregard for the rights of the peaceful protestors, but I do trust the DOJ. Contrary to right wing rhetoric, they didn't have a vested interest in the results of the investigation. Bad parents are a terrible problem, and I don't have any more idea how to completely solve that problem than you do, but cops are hired to deal fairly with everybody. It's their job. They aren't allowed to abuse their power just because it is a hard job.

When you attack a cop you forfeit your rights to a trial.
Deal with it in the courtroom not on the street.

Cops are trained to defend themselves. They carry pepper spray, tasers, batons, maze, MagLites ( heavy flashlights ), and they have radios to call for help.

 

[emilynghiem]

AND

MB could have submitted to a lawful order

See how easy the world really works

Maybe so, I agree. But, still, there was no cause to murder him. The cops could've arrested him and tried him in a court of law. There were other ways to handle the situation since he was unarmed.

And still there was no murder. I will not allow myself the luxury of second guessing a man who was attacked by a 300 pounder who refused a lawful order and came back to do more damage.

So the story goes. But, there were several different version of that story.

Not after the UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL agreed with the grand jury. Case closed.

Just to be clear. I take NO JOY in a young man losing his life. But the truth is, he caused it, he could have stopped it.

Law enforcement agencies investigating law enforcement agencies, or their members, does not impress me. Now, if an independent agency, experienced in these types of cases did the investigating, then I'd be impressed and satisfied. When an agency investigates it's own members, what are we to think?

Good point, Sonny Clark
I think you nailed it, the "conflicts of interest" that are political

Right now our laws only define conflicts of interest in terms of proven contracts and financial transactions exchanged.

What about political conflicts of interest?
These are subjective and harder to prove intent or causality.

That's why my whole neighborhood got destroyed by abuse of taxpayer's money.
No conflict of interest could be PROVEN because the developers and politicians who did this consulted with lawyers.
They know the grey areas and used all the loopholes they could.

See Code of Ethics for Govt Service ethics-commission.net

"Any person in Government service should:

"I. Put loyalty to the highest moral principles and to country above loyalty to persons, party, or Government department.

"II. Uphold the Constitution, laws, and regulations of the United States and of all governments therein and never be a party to their evasion.

"III. Give a full day's labor for a full day's pay; giving earnest effort and best thought to the performance of duties.

"IV. Seek to find and employ more efficient and economical ways of getting tasks accomplished.

"V. Never discriminate unfairly by the dispensing of special favors or privileges to anyone, whether for remuneration or not; and never accept, for himself or herself or for family members, favors or benefits under circumstances which might be construed by reasonable persons as influencing the performance of governmental duties.

"VI. Make no private promises of any kind binding upon the duties of office, since a Governmental employee has no private word which can be binding on public duty.

"VII. Engage in no business with the Government, either directly or indirectly, which is inconsistent with the conscientious performance of governmental duties.

"VIII. Never use any information gained confidentially in the performance of governmental duties as a means of making a private profit.

"IX. Expose corruption wherever discovered.

"X. Uphold these principles, ever conscious that public office is a public trust.

Dante pointed out that literally and legally these 10 articles only apply to civil servants in federal govt.

Sonny Clark what about the idea of incorporating these like the Bill of Rights
where EVERYONE in any level of govt or public institution has to follow them
and also set up a grievance process to redress complaints of abuses by citizens.

And just like OSHA and the codes for health and safety,
the agency or agents complained of receive a warning or citation,
naming the Amendments or Articles they are accused of violating,
and a hearing is held to review the complaints and issue corrections.

If Ralph Nader, a consumer advocate, can write up legislation that created
OSHA, the review and penalty system, and the consumer protection act,
why not create a Constitutional ethics review and redress system.
That resolves conflicts by consensus so people are accountable to each other directly.
and any "conflicts of interest" have to be resolved, or there won't be agreement if
someone on any side is playing games.

 

[Interpol]

What a stupid thread. How do cops know if their attacker is armed? I dunno, maybe by evaluating the situation at hand? If you're being shot at, probably a good indication your attacker is armed.

If the person has something in their hand and they're coming at you, that would be another great example.

But 5 or 6 officers shooting 70 bullets into a guy's back who's running away? Terrible example.

 

[Sonny Clark]

Maybe so, I agree. But, still, there was no cause to murder him. The cops could've arrested him and tried him in a court of law. There were other ways to handle the situation since he was unarmed.

And still there was no murder. I will not allow myself the luxury of second guessing a man who was attacked by a 300 pounder who refused a lawful order and came back to do more damage.

So the story goes. But, there were several different version of that story.

Not after the UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL agreed with the grand jury. Case closed.

Just to be clear. I take NO JOY in a young man losing his life. But the truth is, he caused it, he could have stopped it.

Law enforcement agencies investigating law enforcement agencies, or their members, does not impress me. Now, if an independent agency, experienced in these types of cases did the investigating, then I'd be impressed and satisfied. When an agency investigates it's own members, what are we to think?

Yet you're okay with holder and his obvious bias calling out the police?

I have no use for Mr. Holder. He's one of the boys. He'll do anything for show and to deflect the spotlight in these types of cases. He's a joke. He'll make it look good anyway he can. He wants to make it look s like he's on top of things and doing his job.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

There was no murder, both a grand jury and the Justice department agreed to that.

Yes, there was another way that this could have ended without the death. That is, MB submitting to a lawful order.

There was no trial. No proof other the word of the officer. And, he could've been arrested and jailed. The officer could've called for back up. The officer could've followed him until assistance arrived. There were several other ways it could've been handled besides murder.

AND

MB could have submitted to a lawful order

See how easy the world really works

Maybe so, I agree. But, still, there was no cause to murder him. The cops could've arrested him and tried him in a court of law. There were other ways to handle the situation since he was unarmed.

So you would try and fight a 300 hundred pound dude who is an obvious law breaker?
How about if he attacked a women cop? Or maybe a 115 lb little old man?

Call for back up. Follow suspect until help arrives. Use pepper spray if necessary. Use a taser if necessary. Do something besides murder an unarmed person like a dog in the street. Shoot as a last resort, not as a first action.

Calling for back up isn't always an option. Do you really believe Wilson just shot MB in cold blood when officer Wilson had no idea if multiple witnesses were watching?
That is so unbelievable it's ludicrous.

 

[Sonny Clark]

You know the police have been shooting criminals for hundreds of years right?
Why is it now news?

Yes, they have. But, they are now shooting unarmed citizens, children, old people, and disabled people. All unarmed and could've been handled differently. They have made news headlines because it's getting totally out of hand, and we have more people with cameras and spread the word rapidly on the internet.

I posted a vid of a cop that was clearly wrong yet you didnt comment.
Why is that?

What video? Where is it?

I posted it again because you clearly missed it.
I am all for nailing cops who overstep their authority,the MB case and the majority of cases brought up are clearly legit.

Sonny, IIRC, you were indicting ALL police officers of being murderers, child abusers, and the list goes on.

There are exceptions to everything, as I have already stated a number of times on this thread.

 

[Sonny Clark]

Lack of respect for the police brings it on.
I always ask myself when this kind of crap happens.
Would I ever find myself in a situation like the guy got capped in?
The answer is no 99.9% of the time.
Had MB not robbed a store,stayed out of the street,obeyed the orders of the police officer he'd be alive today. And thats a fact.

The guy was a punk. The police behavior made that more prevalent in the neighborhood.

No,the lack of proper upbringing made that prevalent.
His father was a gang member,is it any wonder he turned out like he did?
If the cycle isnt broken this shit will continue to happen.
Nothing pisses me off more than to hear the dead criminals parents/parent blame the police when they are the ones to blame.
And if I hear "he was such a nice boy"one more time I'm gonna puke.

I already told you I think he was probably a punk. I didn't trust the investigation done by local police because they showed a callous disregard for the rights of the peaceful protestors, but I do trust the DOJ. Contrary to right wing rhetoric, they didn't have a vested interest in the results of the investigation. Bad parents are a terrible problem, and I don't have any more idea how to completely solve that problem than you do, but cops are hired to deal fairly with everybody. It's their job. They aren't allowed to abuse their power just because it is a hard job.

When you attack a cop you forfeit your rights to a trial.
Deal with it in the courtroom not on the street.

So now the cop is judge, jury, and executioner? I believe most cops are probably good, but I'm not naïve enough to think more than a few aren't. With the power given to them, they should be held to a higher standard than others.

I agree.

 

[Pop23]

AND

MB could have submitted to a lawful order

See how easy the world really works

Maybe so, I agree. But, still, there was no cause to murder him. The cops could've arrested him and tried him in a court of law. There were other ways to handle the situation since he was unarmed.

And still there was no murder. I will not allow myself the luxury of second guessing a man who was attacked by a 300 pounder who refused a lawful order and came back to do more damage.

So the story goes. But, there were several different version of that story.

Not after the UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL agreed with the grand jury. Case closed.

Just to be clear. I take NO JOY in a young man losing his life. But the truth is, he caused it, he could have stopped it.

Law enforcement agencies investigating law enforcement agencies, or their members, does not impress me. Now, if an independent agency, experienced in these types of cases did the investigating, then I'd be impressed and satisfied. When an agency investigates it's own members, what are we to think?

The Obama administration had nothing to win by its finding that agreed with the Grand Jury. That's as clear as it gets.

This unarmed bit is simply non sense when the perp refuses a search.

MB likely would be walking around the streets of ferguson today had he simply complied with the lawful order

 

[ClosedCaption]

Ahh...you gave up already

I do not argue with a false premises or lies.

You mean like saying that cops shouldn't kill people is a "war on the public"

Oh I know, if I say cops should shoot more people that will be helping the public

Makes sense lmao

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Lack of respect for the police brings it on.
I always ask myself when this kind of crap happens.
Would I ever find myself in a situation like the guy got capped in?
The answer is no 99.9% of the time.
Had MB not robbed a store,stayed out of the street,obeyed the orders of the police officer he'd be alive today. And thats a fact.

The guy was a punk. The police behavior made that more prevalent in the neighborhood.

No,the lack of proper upbringing made that prevalent.
His father was a gang member,is it any wonder he turned out like he did?
If the cycle isnt broken this shit will continue to happen.
Nothing pisses me off more than to hear the dead criminals parents/parent blame the police when they are the ones to blame.
And if I hear "he was such a nice boy"one more time I'm gonna puke.

I already told you I think he was probably a punk. I didn't trust the investigation done by local police because they showed a callous disregard for the rights of the peaceful protestors, but I do trust the DOJ. Contrary to right wing rhetoric, they didn't have a vested interest in the results of the investigation. Bad parents are a terrible problem, and I don't have any more idea how to completely solve that problem than you do, but cops are hired to deal fairly with everybody. It's their job. They aren't allowed to abuse their power just because it is a hard job.

When you attack a cop you forfeit your rights to a trial.
Deal with it in the courtroom not on the street.

Cops are trained to defend themselves. They carry pepper spray, tasers, batons, maze, MagLites ( heavy flashlights ), and they have radios to call for help.

I know for a fact they dont carry corn.

 

[elektra]

You mean like saying that cops shouldn't kill people is a "war on the public"

Oh I know, if I say cops should shoot more people that will be helping the public

Makes sense lmao

Right, whatever the tyrants and democrats dictate the truth to be, you believe. You are not alone, most people are weak minded, under-educated, and gullible.

 

[Pop23]

Lack of respect for the police brings it on.
I always ask myself when this kind of crap happens.
Would I ever find myself in a situation like the guy got capped in?
The answer is no 99.9% of the time.
Had MB not robbed a store,stayed out of the street,obeyed the orders of the police officer he'd be alive today. And thats a fact.

The guy was a punk. The police behavior made that more prevalent in the neighborhood.

No,the lack of proper upbringing made that prevalent.
His father was a gang member,is it any wonder he turned out like he did?
If the cycle isnt broken this shit will continue to happen.
Nothing pisses me off more than to hear the dead criminals parents/parent blame the police when they are the ones to blame.
And if I hear "he was such a nice boy"one more time I'm gonna puke.

I already told you I think he was probably a punk. I didn't trust the investigation done by local police because they showed a callous disregard for the rights of the peaceful protestors, but I do trust the DOJ. Contrary to right wing rhetoric, they didn't have a vested interest in the results of the investigation. Bad parents are a terrible problem, and I don't have any more idea how to completely solve that problem than you do, but cops are hired to deal fairly with everybody. It's their job. They aren't allowed to abuse their power just because it is a hard job.

When you attack a cop you forfeit your rights to a trial.
Deal with it in the courtroom not on the street.

So now the cop is judge, jury, and executioner? I believe most cops are probably good, but I'm not naïve enough to think more than a few aren't. With the power given to them, they should be held to a higher standard than others.

No, Michael Brown served as his own judge when he disobeyed a lawful order AND attact the officer doing his job.

Would you allow your own death for a paycheck?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Lack of respect for the police brings it on.
I always ask myself when this kind of crap happens.
Would I ever find myself in a situation like the guy got capped in?
The answer is no 99.9% of the time.
Had MB not robbed a store,stayed out of the street,obeyed the orders of the police officer he'd be alive today. And thats a fact.

The guy was a punk. The police behavior made that more prevalent in the neighborhood.

No,the lack of proper upbringing made that prevalent.
His father was a gang member,is it any wonder he turned out like he did?
If the cycle isnt broken this shit will continue to happen.
Nothing pisses me off more than to hear the dead criminals parents/parent blame the police when they are the ones to blame.
And if I hear "he was such a nice boy"one more time I'm gonna puke.

I already told you I think he was probably a punk. I didn't trust the investigation done by local police because they showed a callous disregard for the rights of the peaceful protestors, but I do trust the DOJ. Contrary to right wing rhetoric, they didn't have a vested interest in the results of the investigation. Bad parents are a terrible problem, and I don't have any more idea how to completely solve that problem than you do, but cops are hired to deal fairly with everybody. It's their job. They aren't allowed to abuse their power just because it is a hard job.

When you attack a cop you forfeit your rights to a trial.
Deal with it in the courtroom not on the street.

Cops are trained to defend themselves. They carry pepper spray, tasers, batons, maze, MagLites ( heavy flashlights ), and they have radios to call for help.

I know what a maglight is,I have four or five of em. And I dont give a rats ass how much training you may have a 300 lb dude is most likely going to kick your ass unless you're a MMA fighter.

 

[Sonny Clark]

Maybe so, I agree. But, still, there was no cause to murder him. The cops could've arrested him and tried him in a court of law. There were other ways to handle the situation since he was unarmed.

And still there was no murder. I will not allow myself the luxury of second guessing a man who was attacked by a 300 pounder who refused a lawful order and came back to do more damage.

So the story goes. But, there were several different version of that story.

Not after the UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL agreed with the grand jury. Case closed.

Just to be clear. I take NO JOY in a young man losing his life. But the truth is, he caused it, he could have stopped it.

Law enforcement agencies investigating law enforcement agencies, or their members, does not impress me. Now, if an independent agency, experienced in these types of cases did the investigating, then I'd be impressed and satisfied. When an agency investigates it's own members, what are we to think?

Good point, Sonny Clark
I think you nailed it, the "conflicts of interest" that are political

Right now our laws only define conflicts of interest in terms of proven contracts and financial transactions exchanged.

What about political conflicts of interest?
These are subjective and harder to prove intent or causality.

That's why my whole neighborhood got destroyed by abuse of taxpayer's money.
No conflict of interest could be PROVEN because the developers and politicians who did this consulted with lawyers.
They know the grey areas and used all the loopholes they could.

See Code of Ethics for Govt Service ethics-commission.net

"Any person in Government service should:

"I. Put loyalty to the highest moral principles and to country above loyalty to persons, party, or Government department.

"II. Uphold the Constitution, laws, and regulations of the United States and of all governments therein and never be a party to their evasion.

"III. Give a full day's labor for a full day's pay; giving earnest effort and best thought to the performance of duties.

"IV. Seek to find and employ more efficient and economical ways of getting tasks accomplished.

"V. Never discriminate unfairly by the dispensing of special favors or privileges to anyone, whether for remuneration or not; and never accept, for himself or herself or for family members, favors or benefits under circumstances which might be construed by reasonable persons as influencing the performance of governmental duties.

"VI. Make no private promises of any kind binding upon the duties of office, since a Governmental employee has no private word which can be binding on public duty.

"VII. Engage in no business with the Government, either directly or indirectly, which is inconsistent with the conscientious performance of governmental duties.

"VIII. Never use any information gained confidentially in the performance of governmental duties as a means of making a private profit.

"IX. Expose corruption wherever discovered.

"X. Uphold these principles, ever conscious that public office is a public trust.

Dante pointed out that literally and legally these 10 articles only apply to civil servants in federal govt.

Sonny Clark what about the idea of incorporating these like the Bill of Rights
where EVERYONE in any level of govt or public institution has to follow them
and also set up a grievance process to redress complaints of abuses by citizens.

And just like OSHA and the codes for health and safety,
the agency or agents complained of receive a warning or citation,
naming the Amendments or Articles they are accused of violating,
and a hearing is held to review the complaints and issue corrections.

If Ralph Nader, a consumer advocate, can write up legislation that created
OSHA, the review and penalty system, and the consumer protection act,
why not create a Constitutional ethics review and redress system.
That resolves conflicts by consensus so people are accountable to each other directly.
and any "conflicts of interest" have to be resolved, or there won't be agreement if
someone on any side is playing games.

We already have the U.S. Constitution. We already have laws that imply equal and fair justice. Yes, we could amend what we have to make points a lot clearer and easier to interpret. We need to reestablish true justice in our courtrooms. We need to do away with giving a free pass to politicians, members of law enforcement, and others that seem to always either get away with crime, or get a mere slap on the wrist.

 

[BULLDOG]

Maybe so, I agree. But, still, there was no cause to murder him. The cops could've arrested him and tried him in a court of law. There were other ways to handle the situation since he was unarmed.

And still there was no murder. I will not allow myself the luxury of second guessing a man who was attacked by a 300 pounder who refused a lawful order and came back to do more damage.

So the story goes. But, there were several different version of that story.

Not after the UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL agreed with the grand jury. Case closed.

Just to be clear. I take NO JOY in a young man losing his life. But the truth is, he caused it, he could have stopped it.

Law enforcement agencies investigating law enforcement agencies, or their members, does not impress me. Now, if an independent agency, experienced in these types of cases did the investigating, then I'd be impressed and satisfied. When an agency investigates it's own members, what are we to think?

Good point, Sonny Clark
I think you nailed it, the "conflicts of interest" that are political

Right now our laws only define conflicts of interest in terms of proven contracts and financial transactions exchanged.

What about political conflicts of interest?
These are subjective and harder to prove intent or causality.

That's why my whole neighborhood got destroyed by abuse of taxpayer's money.
No conflict of interest could be PROVEN because the developers and politicians who did this consulted with lawyers.
They know the grey areas and used all the loopholes they could.

See Code of Ethics for Govt Service ethics-commission.net

"Any person in Government service should:

"I. Put loyalty to the highest moral principles and to country above loyalty to persons, party, or Government department.

"II. Uphold the Constitution, laws, and regulations of the United States and of all governments therein and never be a party to their evasion.

"III. Give a full day's labor for a full day's pay; giving earnest effort and best thought to the performance of duties.

"IV. Seek to find and employ more efficient and economical ways of getting tasks accomplished.

"V. Never discriminate unfairly by the dispensing of special favors or privileges to anyone, whether for remuneration or not; and never accept, for himself or herself or for family members, favors or benefits under circumstances which might be construed by reasonable persons as influencing the performance of governmental duties.

"VI. Make no private promises of any kind binding upon the duties of office, since a Governmental employee has no private word which can be binding on public duty.

"VII. Engage in no business with the Government, either directly or indirectly, which is inconsistent with the conscientious performance of governmental duties.

"VIII. Never use any information gained confidentially in the performance of governmental duties as a means of making a private profit.

"IX. Expose corruption wherever discovered.

"X. Uphold these principles, ever conscious that public office is a public trust.

Dante pointed out that literally and legally these 10 articles only apply to civil servants in federal govt.

Sonny Clark what about the idea of incorporating these like the Bill of Rights
where EVERYONE in any level of govt or public institution has to follow them
and also set up a grievance process to redress complaints of abuses by citizens.

And just like OSHA and the codes for health and safety,
the agency or agents complained of receive a warning or citation,
naming the Amendments or Articles they are accused of violating,
and a hearing is held to review the complaints and issue corrections.

If Ralph Nader, a consumer advocate, can write up legislation that created
OSHA, the review and penalty system, and the consumer protection act,
why not create a Constitutional ethics review and redress system.
That resolves conflicts by consensus so people are accountable to each other directly.
and any "conflicts of interest" have to be resolved, or there won't be agreement if
someone on any side is playing games.

I can't think of a single person who could possibly disagree with any of that, except, of course, the politicians who are the only ones who are capable of enacting any of it. They don't even want to limit superPacs. They would laugh at that list as they wadded it up and threw it in the trash.

 

[ClosedCaption]

You mean like saying that cops shouldn't kill people is a "war on the public"

Oh I know, if I say cops should shoot more people that will be helping the public

Makes sense lmao

Right, whatever the tyrants and democrats dictate the truth to be, you believe. You are not alone, most people are weak minded, under-educated, and gullible.

it's easy to believe especially when you don't have a rebuttal saying the opposite