estradling75

In physics we learn that it requires effort to create and maintain a vacuum. If you do not put forth the effort to maintain it, it will quickly become corrupted by whatever it can pull in. It seems in that psychology we have something similar. Ask anyone trying to break a habit or addiction if they just stop they create a type of "vacuum" that makes it very very hard to break free. They almost always have to substitute something else in. It seem that boycotts that are a simple "stop doing something" fall into this "vacuum" category. Therefore they do not last unless they are very well organized and can maintain the effort or they switch something else in. Boycotts against things like Goya, Target or Nike, if they are not part of your life then you have already boycotted them, if they are then to start boycotting them you really have to replace them. Stopping would only last as long as an individual's will power. Which is why I think the more effective ways do not appear to be ones that ask/tell/demand that we stop, but rather ones that redirect and replace.

Wow the lack of self awareness is strong in this one. You come and accuse us of supporting Tyranny and being ok with what happened... When it is quite plain to anyone with a lukewarm IQ and a sense of honesty that we were advocating nothing of the sort. When you get called out on it you neither apologize or make your case. You throw a hissy fit. When your words get thrown back your face, you demand that we do what you are clearly unwilling to do. You are unwilling to make your case (of us being supporters of Tyranny and being ok with it), but demand that others do, you are unwilling to apologize but get down right snarky if some one else does not. And you attack anyone that does not get what you really meant, but make no effort to understand others really mean.

Ok You did right here. No respect for due process or those running the investigation Grunt wants him in jail now based on what he understand the evidence to be. Please note Grunt did not say "this is an example of why I want the existing laws to be changed" Again it was Also please note I have answered the challenge wereas Grunt has not, nor has he spelled apologized correctly either (and the challenge to him was issued first) I can take what I am dishing out. Does not appear that he can.

Nope I did not.. I do not apologize for standing up to those advocating vigilantism instead of justice when the system is working. The wrong has been righted, and the perpetrator, is being investigated and dealt with by the systems set in place to handle them. And there is redundancy in those system, including the victim suing. Those that are trotting this out example of a failed system are to busy being blinded by their own self interest and hobby horses to recognize truth. And that truth is as of what we know right now this is an perfect example of the system working, and self correcting when something goes wrong. The only thing better then that would be a perfect system where nothing goes wrong... and as long as we have imperfect people we can never have a perfect system.

Indeed. I see no one willing to sacrifice liberty. I do see many who value it so much that we are happy that it is being protected at a systematic level. In this case someone liberty was violated and the system stepped in and corrected. And it corrected it so quickly for the individual that we didn't even know we need to break our our V for vendetta masks or Punisher gear, before he was freed. Realistically the only way it could go better, would be to change human nature... And we as a church are working on that.

When one demands justice without due process it is known as vigilantism. (Which howling for blood is). A cop has special powers as part of a due process investigation. Thus is not a vigilante when performing his or her duties. A cop accused of violating the trust place in them is a horrible thing, but they are also entitled to due process and not being subject to vigilantism. The claims made in the news articles and video is not due process. In as much as they represent facts they are evidence, which is gathered as a part of due process. Now the department investigation is due process and their findings are not vigilantism. Now you have taken the departments statement as a result of due process. If this is true (which it possibly is) then you need to accept the full statement and not just cherry pick what you want to hear. Yes the statement called it "overreach" which you selectively take out and call for the punishment of the officer. You selectively ignore the corrective actions included in the statement which would be part of the due process finding (assuming it is a due process report). The statement does not list any punishment of the officer but rather corrective actions of for the department. When you are selectively ignoring the facts that do not fit and taking other facts and twisting them out of context to support your prerendered conclusion, that is not due process that is vigilantism and the label fits. It is also possible that the department statement is not a due process statement but a PR piece in which case its not really relevant at all. And then there is the possibility of the families lawsuit which would trigger yet another investigative look.. This one being independent of the department and that would also fit as being due process. The simple fact is that the consequence of the officers actions are probably not fully played out yet. The fact that is it still playing out is a positive sign that our system is working flaws and all. One being happy that they system is working, does not equate to one being happy at the event that required the system to work in the first place.

I am so tired you deliberately lying, distorting, and twisting my words to to fit your hobby horse. I have never said it was OK ever.. ever... ever... If you truly believe that is what i said then quote it. Otherwise apologize.. because I see no reason to try to discuss things with someone that behaving in such a fundamentally dishonest manner.

Your interpretation of their statement is what you think you know. I have provided alternative interpretations. As for the victim being Innocent until Proven Guilty he absolutely is. But that Proven Guilty part has to be allowed to happen too. And police are the ones given power to start that process. This means the police have been granted power related to that investigative process. Now anyone who pays attention to the scriptures know that people are weak, flawed, prone to error and sin. And this investigating power is put into flawed human hands. It is inevitable that mistakes, errors and even abuse of this power will happen. We don't have to like it and we should not like it but until we can change human nature we are stuck with it. So the question becomes how to we correct it? This is an example of one of the quickest corrections I have seen. This is not an example of systemic failure of our law enforcement system. This is a example of our system working as designed to self correct when the expected errors, mistakes and abuses happen.

You used a straw man argument though. The idea that everyone just 'knows' the order is wrong.. is nice in theory.. but the reality tends to be less clear on what is really known when. Generally speaking we want cops and soldiers to protect us from the bad guys... Sadly the bad guy the bad guys do not wear black capes, handle bar mustaches, and monologue their criminal plans at the drop of the hat. That means the soldiers need to sometimes act on orders without knowing all the facts and the cops need to investigate (their form of action). All evidence points to the cops investigating (and controlling the situation while they did). Their investigation cleared the man. The fact that the clearing came from the leadership clarification shows that it was not clear to the cops before. Now you can say it should have been clear to the cops before... I will not argue with that point... All I will say such confusion points to leadership failure. And you can say that such marital law type tactic that many places are imposing are wrong.. I will not disagree with that either.. Sadly as the body count starts to rise such positions become the minority. Fair enough. I am going by the mantra of "Innocent until Proven Guilty". Which means that we should not be howling for his blood based on what we 'think' we know. Now when the department investigates and they have the facts and proof. If "overreach" is code for "abused his authority" then the department and whatever oversight organization exist should deal with it as such. If however "overreach" is code for "made a mistake" then the department and whatever oversight organization exist should deal with it as such. (And yes big mistakes can still get you fired or more).

So are you telling me that as a Father who has authority over his kids that you never ever even once in the heat of the moment made a judgement call about the punishment of your kids... Only to realize later that you made the wrong call... If so then you are a better father then any other father I have ever heard of (except God). If you have made such a mistake.. then you deserve to be punished exactly the same as you propose for this officer. True but if you are going to use a war analogy use the right one. If a solider kills a child suicide bomber... we recognize it has a hard but necessary choice. If the solider kills what he thinks is a child suicide bomber and it turns out he was mistaken.. we recognize it as a tragedy. and we investigate to find out why the failure happened and try to prevent. COVID -19 is a viral bomb who's carriers are incredibly hard to detect. And police are our soldiers on the front line to try to stop these bombs from getting through (Like the other first responders) He was not a solider purposely disobeying orders (or following orders that are inherently wrong). He is a solider on the front line and in the heat of conflict and in the mist of conflicting commands/demands made the wrong call. A call that was quickly corrected, but a certain amount of harm was already done.

If this is truly how he feels and truly what he wants... why punish and individual officer? Punish the leaders.. Punish the department, punish the city/county/state, slap them silly with a lawsuit that will pay for his daughters college. Punishing the guy who appears to have been trying their best to follow conflicting orders... does not deter the leaders from giving conflicting orders. There is a strong case to be made for punishing leaders for their failures in leadership and holding them accountable for the actions of their subordinate. If you want to stop this slippery slope in it tracks, go after the Police Captain, the Police Commissioner, the Mayor, the City Council, and/or the Governor. Because to really work against corruption the least effective thing you can do it hit the ones with their feet on the street.. You need to go after the ones with their butts in a seat.

What makes you think anyone here thinks it is 'acceptable?' It happened.. and all the consequences that are coming as a result are showing that it is not considered acceptable.. What more do you want? The cop to be lynched? Sorry but that is not the rule of law and liberty I signed up for. The leaders have rebuked the action and the man who was offended can have redress (if he wants it) That seems like an utterly acceptable response to an unacceptable action

Sounds like you understand that the president was doing his job. It also sounds like you don't want to see or know about some of the jobs he has to do, and that is fair. Because of this it sounds like you should be against those who forced this call into the public domain.. rather then letting it stay in the background with every other call the president needs to make.

Which raises a different question... What is poverty? I was watching a show about Dracula the other day (Yes it was a guilty habit) and the show brought him from the Victorian Age into our time. One of his first scenes in our day is at a home that is clearly poor (by our standards) But Dracula mistook her for being wealthy, because in our day the poor have things (like TVs) that would have been the wonder and treasure of a King. The simple fact is that the Poor in a First World Country are very well off when you compare them to any other time in history and even when compared to our day against the 3rd world. Thus the idea that the first world has not done enough to help the poor seems increasingly misleading from a objective historical view point

You mean like how when drug abuse was mostly a inner city poor people problem... the answer was to "Get tough on Crime" and Many laws on drug use... Whereas now that it has reached Middle Class Suburbs.. its now a "Health Crisis Epidemic" that we need to "Wake up to" or "Open our eyes and see it'

Indeed. When the ministering program was rolled out Elder Holland was very clear, "We want more Care, Not Less" While they did away with a direct report of Monthly visits... Monthly visits should be the minimum bar... and we should absolutely be doing better then that. The take away that the program is requiring less of us is a vile satanic lie. The program require less reporting to mortal leaders.. but I have not really been to worried what my leaders thought compared to what the Lord thought of my attempts to keep my promises to him.

Indeed it is pretty typical the people who scream the loudest about openmindedness and tolerance are the most unaccepting of anyone that dares think differently then they do. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is about as 'old school' as it gets. It is also a religion that has to be applied personally, it always has been. Anyone who is just now realizing this because of the changes the church has made is outing themselves as one of the "Foolish Virgins" but luckily for them there still appears to be time to repent. It reminds me of the Law of Moses really. The Law of Moses was all about the Gospel of Jesus Christ.. with spiritual 'training wheels' tacked on. People might celebrate the removal of the 'training wheels' that is currently happening in the Church. But the sad reality is.. if you couldn't make it work with the 'training wheels' you are unlikely to make it work without them

I am not one to said that the leaders do not have a hard choice in these cases. I am saying for everyone attempting to arm chair quarterback the calls the leader's make (like the news article and posters in this thread)... that it is a easy one... get some facts before going off on who should have done what. If you do not like that clergymen are exempt and you want to use this as an example.. well that is fair. But then make that case, don't try to turn it into some kind of scandal like the church is trying to cover it up or something

Which basically means... That California needs to change its laws if they want to be able to act in cases like this. And if they come after the church in defiance of their own laws the Church lawyers should be able to win handily

Bottom line is... the Church has a hotline for the leaders to call and talk to Church lawyers in cases like this. Assuming the call was made and the advice followed (And if I were a church leader in a case like this... doing so would be the 'No duh Of course I am going to' option) then the Church and the leaders are going to be on solid legal ground (whatever that ground is). This will not mean there will not be a legal fight over it, but rather the Church will be confident it can win such a fight. Of course such legal action might show the legal holes between what people wanted and voted for and what they got... causing the laws to be changed. But such changes are not retroactive.

Indeed but the simple fact is that people hide their sins. (Some better then others) Yet there seems to be wholly unreasonable expectation that church leaders will some how magically bring these sins out into the light the first time and every time. If the Church failed to follow the law it should be held accountable. But one should have a reasonable understanding of what the law requires before making such an accusation or inference. If an individual Church leader failed to follow the law (and/or Church Policy) they should be held accountable. But one should have a reasonable understanding of what the law and Church policy requires before making such an accusation or inference. However no one should be attacked for not acting on something they have no reasonable way of knowing. (And yes I believe in Discernment but that gift, like all others works on the Lord's timing. Not on mortal hindsight) In both cases it appears there is a grievous sin that has taken place. Those individuals will have to answer for those sins. In both those cases the Church as responded but once more understanding is gained there is no indication that the Church responded incorrectly or poorly or illegally.

Indeed. He implies that the church broke the law... When any understanding of church policy and even @Just_A_Guy clarification of what the law really is makes this very doubtful. But instead of letting the actual facts and actual law apply to inform his opinion his to busy trying to twist the laws and facts to support his opinion. This is a clear demonstration that the truth is not with him

Yes it is people... As Vort said People not living their covenants as they promised. People not following Chris as they covenanted. I do not see what Prophet is doing as changing the goal posts I see it as a call to repentance. For example... Not looking after your fellows like you should have because you consider Home and Visiting Teaching 'forced friendships?' Well change the name of the program, tweak the reporting side a bit a tell everyone with these superfluous changes we expect 'More care not Less.' That is a paint job, not a moving of the Goal Posts. Some will repent and do what they have been covenanting to do other will not. Shorter church same idea. The goal is a better relationship with Christ that has always been the case. The goal has never been spend three hours in church. However anyone that ever thought that they were doing enough just because they showed up and expected others to carry them is in for a serious wake up call now. Hopefully they will heed the call to repent

Indeed. Also note it is Government Control. Like this Location: We want to accept Medicade/Medicare. Government: Great in addition to all this Red Tape on getting the funds... we also are going to require you to find and pay for a qualified surveyor to call and do a mandated interview with your clients. And if you do not met a certain set of numbers we charge fees, reduce funding, or otherwise penalize you.

Indeed as a someone employed by a company that takes some of those measurement... I have no problem with idea of government providing solid information... Even with that my CEO often laments we could offer a much better set of measurement if the government would stop mandating mediocrity