Asbestos. Thalidomide. Agent Orange. Every EPA Superfund site ever.
The government initially comes out and says it's totally safe and effective. It takes years, but eventually the bodies stack up until it's undeniable.
They deny it anyway. The case drags on until the principals die in choking agony. Their heirs continue with the case.
Eventually, the grandkids get a tepid non-apology while the government declares "It time to move on, to look forward and not back. We all need to work together on this..."
What makes you think we'll treat the fry-machine-refugees at the TSA any better? Indeed, if you needed to find a group of hopeless chumps to irradiate for minimum wage, what better population would you find?
There is not one -- NOT ONE -- professional who has been willing to certify these devices as safe. Not one.
Rapiscan categorically denies the machines are safe. What they do say is that "These machines have been built to TSA/DHS specifications. We are not responsible for those specifications, nor are we responsible for their use."
The FDA has been denied a chance to test them as they are not "medical equipment."
TSA Head John Pistole, when directly asked by Congress about safety, covers his butt and weasel words the question with "They are as safe as we can make them... I have been told they would be safe... I believe they should be made to be safe as possible, but I am not a doctor... Technical details should be referred to technical staff, except that the details are classified because 'Terrorists/9/11.'"
He categorically refuses to say, "These machines are safe and will not cause cancer." He suggests it, he implies it, he lets reporters say it, but he never actually says it himself. His testimony bears the hallmarks of someone who has rehearsed long and hard with their lawyer.
No one -- nobody -- with an M.D. or PhD. after their name has been willing to sign off on these machines.
On the other hand, the list of serious "heavy-hitter" experts on radiation willing to shout that these machines are dangerous would fill the rest of this page.
On paper, per the published specs, the American Radiological Association has gone on record that the machines are a public health hazard. The head of Radiology at Johns Hopkins has written an open letter to the president calling the machines a danger to public health. You could fill a undergraduate auditorium with the number of professors who know what they're talking about who refuse to walk through these scanners.
Next time you hear someone from the TSA talk about how safe the scanners are, ask yourself, "If we replaced the word 'scanner' with the words 'arsenic,' 'asbestos,' or 'uranium,' would this statement still be true in the narrowest legal sense? Would the statement they just made let you hold them responsible in a court of law later? Ask yourself, "How many qualifiers did they put in this statement to sound like they just said 'The machines are safe,' without actually saying 'The machines are safe?'"
Then ask yourself how long it took the lawyers to come up with the phrasing that would let them do that.
Remember, if you don't like it, don't travel. Travel by any means of conveyance is a PRIVILEGE, people. You don't have a right to it. Don't like it? Don't ride.
(Powering down Troll mode.)
OK, we're here. First it was planes, then rail, now buses, ferries and roads. Go baby, go baby, go baby, GO! The faster this program expands, the sooner we can get the general revolt started.:-)
The Chinese people and government have made the decision that they do not have western style freedoms such as free speech.
Actually, the Chinese people demanded those Human -- not just "Western" -- rights in Tiananmen Square in 1989. The Government sent tanks against them. Best guesses are that at least 3,000 people were murdered.
It concerns me. This is my business. All men are brothers. Those men were my brothers. Those three thousand martyrs in the cause of Freedom are "Americans" in the truest sense and finest traditions of the word. I stand ashamed that MY government has forgotten them and betrayed their sacrifice.
Drving, despite what the DMV and the police would have you believe, is a right well-established by both law and court decision. Yes, the police are lying to you as they overreach their authority, shocking I know.
Cites follow, the reasoning is roughly this. A citizen cannot participate in modern society without the use of an automobile. Public transportation only covers a minor portion of the geography of the US. Bicycles and walking cannot cover the routine distances involved in modern life. On the other hand, driving is a dangerous activity with significant hazards to the public at large, thus the right to "Life," balances against the right to "Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness."
Personally, I hope the TSA does expand to random traffic stops. I hope they start impementing strip searches for walking down the sidewalk. I want them to set up shop at the OWS rally near you. The faster they can provoke a full-out general revolt against their nonsense, the happier I'll be.
Here are the court decisions I promised you:
"The use of the highways for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental Right of which the public and the individual cannot be rightfully deprived." [emphasis added] Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago, 169 NE 22; Ligare vs. Chicago, 28 NE 934; Boon vs. Clark, 214 SSW 607; 25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways Sect.163.
""Even the legislature has no power to deny to a citizen the right to travel upon the highway and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, though this right may be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience." Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 22. "
"Complete freedom of the highways is so old and well established a blessing that we have forgotten the days of the Robber Barons and toll roads, and yet, under an act like this, arbitrarily administered, the highways may be completely monopolized, if, through lack of interest, the people submit, then they may look to see the most sacred of their liberties taken from them one by one, by more or less rapid encroachment." Robertson vs. Department of Public Works, 180 Wash 133, 147.
"The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit at will, but a common right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 179.
"Personal liberty largely consists of the Right of locomotion -- to go where and when one pleases -- only so far restrained as the Rights of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horsedrawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but the common Right which he has under his Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this Constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another's Rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct." [emphasis added] II Am.Jur. (1st) Constitutional Law, Sect.329, p.1135.
"The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the 5th Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.
"Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to move from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal liberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any State is a right secured by the 14th amendment and by other provisions of the Constitution." Schactman v. Dulles, 96 App DC 287, 293.
I work for a company that supports other companies, so I get to see a lot. I've seen a few people succeed on merit. I've seen a lot more succeed on relationships. I've seen a wife hired as a technical team lead. Problem was, she literally knew nothing about anything. I mean, she couldn't even type. One of the junior engineers was assigned to "assist" her. She got all the title, credit, and salary. He took all the blame. She took her string of "successes" and moved on to a higher management position, having established her technical skills. He got saddled with a lousy reputation for screwups and had to start over at a different company. We got called in to put out the fires and clean up the messes and billed them like there was no tomorrow, so we kept rooting for the trophy wife.
I could also tell you about the son of a company president who destroyed a network, had his Dad call us, and then got all kinds of kudos for a brilliant job recovering and redesigning the company's infrastructure during a crisis. No one ever asked what caused the crisis, of course.
Like I said, we're "hired guns," and we get paid, so we're happy. But my college delusions of meritocracy and the rewards of hard work and skill have not survived contact with the real world.:-)
I will admit that we do have a few bad apples (any large population will have outliers). But to use those as a basis to excoriate us as a whole...my friend, you are sorely mistaken.
My, have things changed. I was always taught that the honor of the unit lies with each man...
So let me get this straight... a Mexican can come to the US, make pay thats too low for american workers, send the majority of their income home, and yet still manage to live, eat, breath, and drink in the US? Are you stupid? Its not like the American's in these jobs have to pay more to live, at that level there are no taxes.
You don't speak a word of Spanish, do you? I work with a food charity. I'm the son of Southern cotton-choppers. My father grew up eating racoon and possum as a staple. Let me see if I can explain.
These families cram into filth-infested apartments and sleep in shifts. Their children go hungry. If we didn't help feed some of them, they wouldn't eat. Many of the field laborers are shorter in stature. There's a reason for that. The rare time some of these guys smile, they're missing teeth. My wife is getting a dental implant this month. Their's don't. The fashion of wearing big work shirts as jackets came about because these guys can't afford the gore-tex my kids take for granted. Their medical care and insurance coverage consists of alcohol, if they're lucky.
It's not that they're not hard-working, although God knows they do work hard. It's that they don't have any choices. Mexico is currently run by criminals on both sides of the law, and once-proud families are reduced to subsistence living.
Shame on you for that post. You don't want any part of what they have.
This country has an admittted employment rate of over 9 percent. Thousands of engineers over 40 can't find a job.
If no one wants to work for your comany, then it's because your company's reputation precedes you, and the competent labor pool is avoiding you like the plague.
It's like listening to someone with a 400 credit score complain that they can't get a mortgage...
The rate at which immigrants become middle to upper middle class in the American society far outweigh the rate of average Americans.
God, you're hilarious. Most immigrants in this country live in exploited poverty. The few who arrive with money and connections do quite well, but you won't find any former field workers in the boardroom.
The fact that you can even think anything even close to your quote above means you filter so much out of your day-to-day perceptions that you're certifiably psychotic.
When you watch the news, do the words coming out of the pretty lady's mouth make any sense to you? At all?
When has a major corporation taken any major risk lately? The whole platform of late is that the economy won't start moving again until we remove risk from the marketplace. When a major campaign contributor has a boo-boo, we rush to flood them with free cash, deeming them "too important to leave to the vagaries of the marketplace."
The whole problem with our economy is that there is no risk -- at all. We haven't held the wealthy accountable in this country since the 60s.
Meanwhile, we're sure as hell going to make sure Grandma doesn't get her medication and take the rest out of the hide of our teachers.
They're too big to fail. Any time they can't make payroll, our tax dollars will bail them out, no questions asked. The executives who ask for the check will get multi-million dollar bonuses for "proactively meeting challenges."
The worst punishment large corporations face these days is that maybe, just maybe, they'll need to give themselves a new name,
...because the numbers say they have. My political awareness began with Watergate. In 1972, concentrations of wealth in this country were radically different. Unions still had some sway. Textbooks in public schools were not a rare and precious commodity.
I didn't get strip-searched to board a plane. I carried a pocket knife to school, and my science teacher borrowed it to open a box of reagents. We had the capability of putting a man on the moon. Engineers made good money and their sole income could support a family in affluence. "Stay in school" was a reasonable plan for success, not a bitter joke.
Prisons were run by the government, not for-profit corporations. Using prisons as a way to make money was thought of as immoral, so much so it was a major plot point of "Gone with the Wind." Jimmy Stewart was a national hero, not a filthy socialist.
Two reporters caught a president in a felony, and it cost the president his career. Today, Woodward and Bernstein would be reporting from Gitmo. I went to church and sat on bare wooden pews while a conservative Christian pastor taught that God loves all men. Today, the sons of those pastors appear on Jumbotrons and talk about church marketing and working the demographics. From the sermons I've heard lately, they've never even seen the New Testament, and have only a few pages of Cliff Notes on the Old.
You make a good point, but I'm pretty sure things have actually changed.
How much money do you have? If it's billions, then your security detail defended you against a lone rogue officer who violated department policy, and the City offers it's apologies and takes this matter very, very seriously.
If all you did was study hard, work hard and then follow the rules after you served your Country honorably, then criminal lowlifes like you will not be tolerated or coddled...
Sadly, hung juries are no longer permitted these days. Directed verdicts seem to be the order of the day, and if the judge finds out you're the lone holdout, you'll just be removed and replaced with someone more malleable. If you try to do anything about it, like talking to the media, you'll find yourself charged with contempt of court.
Our judiciary is far too corrupt for mere juries to fix...
The Law should not be applied equally to cop and civilian. Penalties should be HARSHER when the authorities break the law, and the benefit of the doubt should not apply, because law enforcement officers are charged with avoiding even the appearance of impropriety. This idea is usually expressed as "the color of authority", and it is an essential and traditional safeguard of Liberty.
Yes, the rules are absolutely different when you carry the awesome power to kill in a split second. They are, and they should be.
Cops shouldn't solicit charitable donations from businesses, because it looks like protection money. Military officers may not sleep with their subordinates, because it looks like "command rape." The FBI shouldn't be assembling dossiers on political activists, because it looks like oppression.
These used to be commonly accepted ideas before we gutted public education and Fox News began blaring propaganda 24/7.
Slashdot Mirror
The 5th has only covered verbal testimony.
And how is the defendant to submit this password without speaking or writing/typing?
Physical objects and information related to those objects have never been considered the same thing as verbal testimony.
And if we were talking about smart cards, I could see your point.
If you're getting frisked, we're no longer talking about "law abiding citizens".
OK, 1. Presumption of Innocence, and 2. The NYPD's "Stop and Frisk" program.
You're working on old assumptions. Yes, the NYPD is stopping and frisking random, innocent people on the street.
Asbestos. Thalidomide. Agent Orange. Every EPA Superfund site ever.
The government initially comes out and says it's totally safe and effective. It takes years, but eventually the bodies stack up until it's undeniable.
They deny it anyway. The case drags on until the principals die in choking agony. Their heirs continue with the case.
Eventually, the grandkids get a tepid non-apology while the government declares "It time to move on, to look forward and not back. We all need to work together on this..."
What makes you think we'll treat the fry-machine-refugees at the TSA any better? Indeed, if you needed to find a group of hopeless chumps to irradiate for minimum wage, what better population would you find?
There is not one -- NOT ONE -- professional who has been willing to certify these devices as safe. Not one.
Rapiscan categorically denies the machines are safe. What they do say is that "These machines have been built to TSA/DHS specifications. We are not responsible for those specifications, nor are we responsible for their use."
The FDA has been denied a chance to test them as they are not "medical equipment."
TSA Head John Pistole, when directly asked by Congress about safety, covers his butt and weasel words the question with "They are as safe as we can make them... I have been told they would be safe... I believe they should be made to be safe as possible, but I am not a doctor... Technical details should be referred to technical staff, except that the details are classified because 'Terrorists/9/11.'"
He categorically refuses to say, "These machines are safe and will not cause cancer." He suggests it, he implies it, he lets reporters say it, but he never actually says it himself. His testimony bears the hallmarks of someone who has rehearsed long and hard with their lawyer.
No one -- nobody -- with an M.D. or PhD. after their name has been willing to sign off on these machines.
On the other hand, the list of serious "heavy-hitter" experts on radiation willing to shout that these machines are dangerous would fill the rest of this page.
On paper, per the published specs, the American Radiological Association has gone on record that the machines are a public health hazard. The head of Radiology at Johns Hopkins has written an open letter to the president calling the machines a danger to public health. You could fill a undergraduate auditorium with the number of professors who know what they're talking about who refuse to walk through these scanners.
Next time you hear someone from the TSA talk about how safe the scanners are, ask yourself, "If we replaced the word 'scanner' with the words 'arsenic,' 'asbestos,' or 'uranium,' would this statement still be true in the narrowest legal sense? Would the statement they just made let you hold them responsible in a court of law later? Ask yourself, "How many qualifiers did they put in this statement to sound like they just said 'The machines are safe,' without actually saying 'The machines are safe?'"
Then ask yourself how long it took the lawyers to come up with the phrasing that would let them do that.
Remember, if you don't like it, don't travel. Travel by any means of conveyance is a PRIVILEGE, people. You don't have a right to it. Don't like it? Don't ride.
(Powering down Troll mode.)
OK, we're here. First it was planes, then rail, now buses, ferries and roads. Go baby, go baby, go baby, GO! :-)
The faster this program expands, the sooner we can get the general revolt started.
I watched Tiananmen as it happened, so yes, it made an impression. As for the others, you'd see a radically different world if I were in charge. :-)
The Chinese people and government have made the decision that they do not have western style freedoms such as free speech.
Actually, the Chinese people demanded those Human -- not just "Western" -- rights in Tiananmen Square in 1989. The Government sent tanks against them. Best guesses are that at least 3,000 people were murdered.
It concerns me. This is my business. All men are brothers. Those men were my brothers. Those three thousand martyrs in the cause of Freedom are "Americans" in the truest sense and finest traditions of the word. I stand ashamed that MY government has forgotten them and betrayed their sacrifice.
Drving, despite what the DMV and the police would have you believe, is a right well-established by both law and court decision. Yes, the police are lying to you as they overreach their authority, shocking I know.
Cites follow, the reasoning is roughly this. A citizen cannot participate in modern society without the use of an automobile. Public transportation only covers a minor portion of the geography of the US. Bicycles and walking cannot cover the routine distances involved in modern life. On the other hand, driving is a dangerous activity with significant hazards to the public at large, thus the right to "Life," balances against the right to "Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness."
Personally, I hope the TSA does expand to random traffic stops. I hope they start impementing strip searches for walking down the sidewalk. I want them to set up shop at the OWS rally near you. The faster they can provoke a full-out general revolt against their nonsense, the happier I'll be.
Here are the court decisions I promised you:
"The use of the highways for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental Right of which the public and the individual cannot be rightfully deprived." [emphasis added] Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago, 169 NE 22; Ligare vs. Chicago, 28 NE 934; Boon vs. Clark, 214 SSW 607; 25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways Sect.163.
""Even the legislature has no power to deny to a citizen the right to travel upon the highway and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, though this right may be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience." Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 22. "
"Complete freedom of the highways is so old and well established a blessing that we have forgotten the days of the Robber Barons and toll roads, and yet, under an act like this, arbitrarily administered, the highways may be completely monopolized, if, through lack of interest, the people submit, then they may look to see the most sacred of their liberties taken from them one by one, by more or less rapid encroachment." Robertson vs. Department of Public Works, 180 Wash 133, 147.
"The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit at will, but a common right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 179.
"Personal liberty largely consists of the Right of locomotion -- to go where and when one pleases -- only so far restrained as the Rights of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horsedrawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but the common Right which he has under his Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this Constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another's Rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct." [emphasis added] II Am.Jur. (1st) Constitutional Law, Sect.329, p.1135.
"The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the 5th Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.
"Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to move from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal liberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any State is a right secured by the 14th amendment and by other provisions of the Constitution." Schactman v. Dulles, 96 App DC 287, 293.
"Personal liberty -- consists of the power of lo
Phillip Seymour Hoffman. :-)
...about overweight pasty-faced guys sitting in chairs typing while griping on the phone. :-)
...it's who you know.
I work for a company that supports other companies, so I get to see a lot. I've seen a few people succeed on merit. I've seen a lot more succeed on relationships. I've seen a wife hired as a technical team lead. Problem was, she literally knew nothing about anything. I mean, she couldn't even type. One of the junior engineers was assigned to "assist" her. She got all the title, credit, and salary. He took all the blame. She took her string of "successes" and moved on to a higher management position, having established her technical skills. He got saddled with a lousy reputation for screwups and had to start over at a different company. We got called in to put out the fires and clean up the messes and billed them like there was no tomorrow, so we kept rooting for the trophy wife.
I could also tell you about the son of a company president who destroyed a network, had his Dad call us, and then got all kinds of kudos for a brilliant job recovering and redesigning the company's infrastructure during a crisis. No one ever asked what caused the crisis, of course.
Like I said, we're "hired guns," and we get paid, so we're happy. But my college delusions of meritocracy and the rewards of hard work and skill have not survived contact with the real world. :-)
I will admit that we do have a few bad apples (any large population will have outliers). But to use those as a basis to excoriate us as a whole...my friend, you are sorely mistaken.
My, have things changed. I was always taught that the honor of the unit lies with each man...
We're better than AC sock puppets and 'leetspeak, aren't we?
Well, maybe not. :-)
I'd rather have the reply than the points any day. :-)
Oh, I'm good. I don't have any trouble finding guys, because people want to work with me.
So let me get this straight ... a Mexican can come to the US, make pay thats too low for american workers, send the majority of their income home, and yet still manage to live, eat, breath, and drink in the US? Are you stupid? Its not like the American's in these jobs have to pay more to live, at that level there are no taxes.
You don't speak a word of Spanish, do you? I work with a food charity. I'm the son of Southern cotton-choppers. My father grew up eating racoon and possum as a staple. Let me see if I can explain.
These families cram into filth-infested apartments and sleep in shifts. Their children go hungry. If we didn't help feed some of them, they wouldn't eat. Many of the field laborers are shorter in stature. There's a reason for that. The rare time some of these guys smile, they're missing teeth. My wife is getting a dental implant this month. Their's don't. The fashion of wearing big work shirts as jackets came about because these guys can't afford the gore-tex my kids take for granted. Their medical care and insurance coverage consists of alcohol, if they're lucky.
It's not that they're not hard-working, although God knows they do work hard. It's that they don't have any choices. Mexico is currently run by criminals on both sides of the law, and once-proud families are reduced to subsistence living.
Shame on you for that post. You don't want any part of what they have.
UNemployment rate of over 9 percent...
This country has an admittted employment rate of over 9 percent. Thousands of engineers over 40 can't find a job.
If no one wants to work for your comany, then it's because your company's reputation precedes you, and the competent labor pool is avoiding you like the plague.
It's like listening to someone with a 400 credit score complain that they can't get a mortgage...
The rate at which immigrants become middle to upper middle class in the American society far outweigh the rate of average Americans.
God, you're hilarious. Most immigrants in this country live in exploited poverty. The few who arrive with money and connections do quite well, but you won't find any former field workers in the boardroom.
The fact that you can even think anything even close to your quote above means you filter so much out of your day-to-day perceptions that you're certifiably psychotic.
Big risks require big rewards
When you watch the news, do the words coming out of the pretty lady's mouth make any sense to you? At all?
When has a major corporation taken any major risk lately? The whole platform of late is that the economy won't start moving again until we remove risk from the marketplace. When a major campaign contributor has a boo-boo, we rush to flood them with free cash, deeming them "too important to leave to the vagaries of the marketplace."
The whole problem with our economy is that there is no risk -- at all. We haven't held the wealthy accountable in this country since the 60s.
Meanwhile, we're sure as hell going to make sure Grandma doesn't get her medication and take the rest out of the hide of our teachers.
They're too big to fail. Any time they can't make payroll, our tax dollars will bail them out, no questions asked. The executives who ask for the check will get multi-million dollar bonuses for "proactively meeting challenges."
The worst punishment large corporations face these days is that maybe, just maybe, they'll need to give themselves a new name,
...because the numbers say they have. My political awareness began with Watergate. In 1972, concentrations of wealth in this country were radically different. Unions still had some sway. Textbooks in public schools were not a rare and precious commodity.
I didn't get strip-searched to board a plane. I carried a pocket knife to school, and my science teacher borrowed it to open a box of reagents. We had the capability of putting a man on the moon. Engineers made good money and their sole income could support a family in affluence. "Stay in school" was a reasonable plan for success, not a bitter joke.
Prisons were run by the government, not for-profit corporations. Using prisons as a way to make money was thought of as immoral, so much so it was a major plot point of "Gone with the Wind." Jimmy Stewart was a national hero, not a filthy socialist.
Two reporters caught a president in a felony, and it cost the president his career. Today, Woodward and Bernstein would be reporting from Gitmo. I went to church and sat on bare wooden pews while a conservative Christian pastor taught that God loves all men. Today, the sons of those pastors appear on Jumbotrons and talk about church marketing and working the demographics. From the sermons I've heard lately, they've never even seen the New Testament, and have only a few pages of Cliff Notes on the Old.
You make a good point, but I'm pretty sure things have actually changed.
How much money do you have? If it's billions, then your security detail defended you against a lone rogue officer who violated department policy, and the City offers it's apologies and takes this matter very, very seriously.
If all you did was study hard, work hard and then follow the rules after you served your Country honorably, then criminal lowlifes like you will not be tolerated or coddled...
Sadly, hung juries are no longer permitted these days. Directed verdicts seem to be the order of the day, and if the judge finds out you're the lone holdout, you'll just be removed and replaced with someone more malleable. If you try to do anything about it, like talking to the media, you'll find yourself charged with contempt of court.
Our judiciary is far too corrupt for mere juries to fix...
The Law should not be applied equally to cop and civilian. Penalties should be HARSHER when the authorities break the law, and the benefit of the doubt should not apply, because law enforcement officers are charged with avoiding even the appearance of impropriety. This idea is usually expressed as "the color of authority", and it is an essential and traditional safeguard of Liberty.
Yes, the rules are absolutely different when you carry the awesome power to kill in a split second. They are, and they should be.
Cops shouldn't solicit charitable donations from businesses, because it looks like protection money. Military officers may not sleep with their subordinates, because it looks like "command rape." The FBI shouldn't be assembling dossiers on political activists, because it looks like oppression.
These used to be commonly accepted ideas before we gutted public education and Fox News began blaring propaganda 24/7.