Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
silverIn the beginning there was nothing, and then it exploded.USA, Left coast.Veteran
This morning, I read a story on aol news about a man, who in one of his many common drunken, violent states, had shot and killed 3 people including his spouse who was bed-ridden due to a stroke, his son's girlfriend and a man who was just visiting the home. His son, wrestled with him for the gun, and shot him dead.
The crazy part of the story is this: "The sheriff’s department arrested Morey, the only survivor, for the killing of his father. He was booked at the sheriff’s Walnut Station. His bail is set at $1 million. Corina said Morey could face charges if he shot his father when the man was no longer a threat."
It was said that they don't know yet if the gun went off and killed him during the struggle or not...
Now, nobody with half a brain would believe that just because the gun was taken away would stop the man's violent rampage; to me, it appears on its face, that it's all about feeding the justice system with any tidbit they can get their hands on. It's sick to the nth degree and is what will destroy this country as we know it - if it isn't already dead.
Well, I probably have not been harassed much by police because I'm white, but there are times where I've been asked where I'm heading etc. when I've gone through a roadside checkpoint. I kind of thought, you know, it's really none of your business, why are you asking me? But I've been honest, upfront and said where I'm going. It's happened to Mrs. Walker and I a few times when we've been on a camping trip and had a carload full of stuff. And we've actually had a couple of pleasant conversations once the cops realized we weren't up to anything untowards and were just out having fun.
I suppose to tie Buddhism into it, we probably all agree that police or some way of enforcing social behavior is necessary in some form because there will always be someone preying on others. In the wild frontier towns, they ended up forming a vigilance committee if they didn't have official law. Do you feel a police officer is in an occupation that is a problem for a Buddhist? Many Buddhists would say a soldier isn't a proper occupation. But is there that much difference?
@silver said:
They may be 'only' human, but wouldn't a conscientious individual - police or otherwise feel that as humans...we can do better.
True...However my point was @silver, they (the police) are only human and have all the flaws that come with the human package...
Example 'fear' 'worry' 'anxiety' 'impatience' etc etc...It's hard enough to deal with for those of us (Buddhas in training) who are aware we are inflicted with them...
Hence my comment re: mindfulness training for the force would be a good idea...But it's possible some authoritative figures would be opposed to such measures, perhaps it would go against their Christian values, threatening Christianity in some way....
I remember the time when some meditation instructors first tried to get meditation into the prisons in the US and the troubles they had trying to convince the authorities they were not trying to convert the inmates .....
1
silverIn the beginning there was nothing, and then it exploded.USA, Left coast.Veteran
edited January 2016
Yeah. I know.
Then you added stuff: I appreciate what you're saying. When I first came to CA and found my first chiropractor, the topic of yoga was brought up and he seemed unnecessarily wary about it -- seeming to be concerned about some sort of religious conversion, as well -- he did advertise as a Christian chiropractor so that explains that...
@Cinorjer said:
Do you feel a police officer is in an occupation that is a problem for a Buddhist? Many Buddhists would say a soldier isn't a proper occupation. But is there that much difference?
I would suggest that Buddhist lay practice is open to all. It is possible for a soldier or police officer to be on the path.
The karmic repurcussions of professions are dependent on how they are practiced. It is difficult to be unaffected by emotional conflict in a killing profession.
@silver said:
This morning, I read a story on aol news about a man, who in one of his many common drunken, violent states, had shot and killed 3 people including his spouse who was bed-ridden due to a stroke, his son's girlfriend and a man who was just visiting the home. His son, wrestled with him for the gun, and shot him dead.
The crazy part of the story is this: "The sheriff’s department arrested Morey, the only survivor, for the killing of his father. He was booked at the sheriff’s Walnut Station. His bail is set at $1 million. Corina said Morey could face charges if he shot his father when the man was no longer a threat."
It was said that they don't know yet if the gun went off and killed him during the struggle or not...
Now, nobody with half a brain would believe that just because the gun was taken away would stop the man's violent rampage; to me, it appears on its face, that it's all about feeding the justice system with any tidbit they can get their hands on. It's sick to the nth degree and is what will destroy this country as we know it - if it isn't already dead.
What really bugs me about situations like this is the first thing that pops into my mind - i.e. why wasn't the father locked away a long time ago? There are all kinds of people like this walking the streets. The legal system can't or won't put them away where they aren't going to hurt anyone. I personally know a woman exactly like that. She's consistently on the Crime Stoppers Most Wanted list. But she gets off on bail, and goes about her drug-induced way, only to be picked up again a few months later, and released again. She's going to kill or severely injure somebody some day, it's just a matter of time. Why isn't she locked up at least until she's gone through a drug rehabilitation program? I'm sure a judge could have required her to do that somewhere along the way. But, no, they can't be bothered with actually trying to get to the root of the problem. Maybe there's a shortage of prison cells? Beats me.
What can we not so overt dharma bunnies do?
In other words moving from 'isn't it terrible' which it is, to skilfull means ...
1
silverIn the beginning there was nothing, and then it exploded.USA, Left coast.Veteran
I think they should figure out a way to categorize folks who are a clear and present danger to society and themselves, druggies etc., and be able to confine them and treat them with the most progressive ways at their disposal. I mean, heck - they don't confine people in 'insane' asylums any more, all that sort of labeling is best swept completely away and base it on the most practical, logical means. I mean, where are the people who come up with this stuff.....there's no longer any authorities who are willing to move ahead with the latest innovations. Why is no one doing this work? It's because of pure politics - $$$.
@Cinorjer said:
I suppose to tie Buddhism into it, we probably all agree that police or some way of enforcing social behavior is necessary in some form because there will always be someone preying on others. In the wild frontier towns, they ended up forming a vigilance committee if they didn't have official law. Do you feel that the occupation of police officer is a problem for a Buddhist?
(Many Buddhists would say a soldier isn't a proper occupation. But is there that much difference?)
No, I do not believe that it should be a problem; especially if the police are committed to sound principles of fairness and humanity. Indeed, being familiar with ideas such as reverence for life and Simon the Pilgrim's engaged Buddhism * would help make any "copper" a better community servant —nay a bodhisattva of sorts.
I took a minicourse in college that dealt with the corruption in the Philadelphia Police Department way back when (the 1940s, I think). They had to make so many vice arrests or, failing to make their quota, they'd be suspected of being on the take. Well, anyhow, the writer of one of the books postulated four types of police mentality. Two of the types believed that people were basically good and should be helped along, while the other two believed that people were to be punished. (I forget all the ramifications.) Anyhow, the writer called the worst policeman "The Enforcer," the type who took no pity, had no remorse, and threw the book at you. I forget the name of The Advocate, who would spend time getting to know a little bit about you and would be very unlikely to jump the gun. (I'd really like to find some old college books and revisit this issue.)
I'm not sure that being a soldier is a very good career choice for a serious Buddhist, but as a temporary occupation for a couple of years I see no real issue. But I do think it is a serious mistake to confuse the police with the military. If a military force is needed, call out the reserves, regulars, or National Guard. The police should be civilians, Full Stop.
@StingRay said:
I was thinking about this and one idea would be to arm police with guns that would knock out the person shot for 24 hours.
Not that easy. Non lethal weaponry is expensive, underdeveloped, open to potential misuse and often times ineffective and for example with tasers, potentially lethal. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonic_weapon
Maybe we need more dharma police chanting pro-actively?
The US spend billions of dollars on the best weapons to use in there wars on foreign soil while thousands of Americans are killing each other at home. Surely they could put some of that vast amount of money towards research inventing a weapon for the police that does everything they there current guns do interms of range accuracy etc but don't kill people. The so called threat to the police from the individual would be removed without there life being removed.
I understand that the problem would still be there where civilians will be carrying lethal weapons. I know this will never happen but the only way to remove the lethal guns from the streets if anybody is carrying one they get an instant life sentence sounds crazy but it would drastically reduce deaths from guns!! A few years ago we would have thought a smoking ban in public places would be crazy and would never happen.
My main point from the above is the design of a non lethal weapon that is effective.
In a previous life I worked for some years as a paramedic in a big city ER. Our city had a fairly active "knife and gun club" (medical-speak for violent crime) and our hospital was a designated Trauma Center, so we interacted with cops quite a lot. I was intrigued by the similarities and differences between health care workers and law enforcement. What we shared was that the people we encountered were, to say the least, generally having a bad day. Often they were having the worst day of their life, and some were having the last day. We could commune and commiserate with the cops on that commonality. But where we differed was that, in general, health care workers usually want to help others. Cops want to dominate others.
As Earthninja points out, it's a job. We need cops. A civil society requires that the function must exist. So, knowing what personality type is drawn to this field, how can we have a law enforcement function but not have police abuse?
First, we can't expect the police to solve it. They need to participate and self-monitor, but they are not in the right position or in possession of the right perspective or personality to create an effective system by themselves. It is incumbent on society to create a system that recognizes the predilections of the participants. We can't expect cops to be nice. We have to recognize that they are not, and design their jobs, their environment, and their oversight accordingly. Only then will we have an effective, manageable system.
I've always thought that almost any job can be done by a Buddhist, if the person uses Buddhist values to conduct their job with compassion. There are some exceptions. If the company or organization you work for makes a living taking advantage of other people's suffering, then you'd probably be fired quickly anyway. I get the impression that a cop who actually takes "to serve and protect" seriously anymore would quickly run into dire trouble with the other cops and superiors, because the Buddhist way tells us the decision to keep silent or do nothing is to share karmic responsibility for bad actions. The few cops who have stepped up and complained were punished, and somehow for once the police unions didn't offer their blanket protection.
1
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
@StingRay said:
I was thinking about this and one idea would be to arm police with guns that would knock out the person shot for 24 hours.
Not that easy. Non lethal weaponry is expensive, underdeveloped, open to potential misuse and often times ineffective and for example with tasers, potentially lethal. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonic_weapon
Maybe we need more dharma police chanting pro-actively?
The US spend billions of dollars on the best weapons to use in there wars on foreign soil while thousands of Americans are killing each other at home. Surely they could put some of that vast amount of money towards research inventing a weapon for the police that does everything they there current guns do interms of range accuracy etc but don't kill people. The so called threat to the police from the individual would be removed without there life being removed.
I understand that the problem would still be there where civilians will be carrying lethal weapons. I know this will never happen but the only way to remove the lethal guns from the streets if anybody is carrying one they get an instant life sentence sounds crazy but it would drastically reduce deaths from guns!! A few years ago we would have thought a smoking ban in public places would be crazy and would never happen.
My main point from the above is the design of a non lethal weapon that is effective.
I'm pretty sure it could be done but then that same technology would would be hard to regulate.
The best idea I've seen so far is requiring all gun owners to carry liability insurance including all cops.
The insurance companies would end up eating the trigger happy cops for lunch and dinners main course would be the NRA.
4
silverIn the beginning there was nothing, and then it exploded.USA, Left coast.Veteran
@Cinorjer said:
I get the impression that a cop who actually takes "to serve and protect" seriously anymore would quickly run into dire trouble with the other cops and superiors...
The Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly over the last thirty years that police at all levels of government have no duty to protect. Their job is to arrest criminals. For protection, we're on our own.
For police officers who violate the "code of silence" retribution is sure to follow. I am old enough to remember when Frank Serpico(NYPD) narrowly escaped assasination in a station house filled with cops. He exposed the multigenerational pad in that station house.
I think life is really really complex in the US, and getting access to needed help can be incredibly difficult. Even if you can figure out where to go, the process is way more complex and difficult than it should be for someone suffering mental illness or other diminished capacities. The key isn't to lock them up. The key is to get them help. We expect people to help themselves, whether they are capable or not. People who are suffering and in need of the most help are often the least able to realize they need it or, or unable to go through the millions of hoops necessary to gain it. It is incredible the expectations placed on people in need, and often very difficult to find answers or solutions. It is overwhelming and exhausting even if you do know where to go. If you've never done any of these processes you have no idea how difficult they can be. Punishing people who are already suffering isn't the answer to protecting the rest of us.
Guns should be treated like cars. They are a privilege, you must carry insurance, and if a medical professional believes you can no longer safely manage it, your privileges are revoked. There should also be different levels of licensure, just like cars. Just because you can drive a Toyota Corolla doesn't mean you can drive a school bus or a hazardous materials vehicle. You have to get extra training, extra insurance, and extra licenses to do that. Guns should be the same. If you misbehave with your gun, you get it taken away, including leaving it available to people who shouldn't have them, like children or criminals, because you don't lock it up.
@yagr said:
The Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly over the last thirty years that police at all levels of government have no duty to protect. Their job is to arrest criminals. For protection, we're on our own.
Dunno about all the silly rulings our High-Mucky-Muck Court might be capable of, but this just doesn't ring true to me. You call the police when you need them and they come. They do not come just in order to arrest someone. Heck, sometimes there's absolutely no cell room in which to detain people.
@Cinorjer said:
[1] I get the impression that a cop who actually takes "to serve and protect" seriously anymore would quickly run into dire trouble with the other cops and superiors, because [2] the Buddhist way tells us the decision to keep silent or do nothing is to share karmic responsibility for bad actions. The few cops who have stepped up and complained were punished, and somehow for once the police unions didn't offer their blanket protection.
[1] I hope things aren't that bad anymore that people are prohibited or feel inhibited from following the dictates of their own conscience.
[2] We know that police "ethics" is a little different from everyday ethics. They don't rat on each other over procedural matters. A homicide or a brutal beating, however, is no mere procedural matter. There SHOULD BE higher standards.
@grackle said:
For police officers who violate the "code of silence" retribution is sure to follow. I am old enough to remember when Frank Serpico(NYPD) narrowly escaped assasination in a station house filled with cops. He exposed the multigenerational pad in that station house.
I think that one must certainly be "Wise as a Serpent, but Innocent as a Dove" to be a bodhisattva-like police officer, but I think that it can be done by someone dedicated to a community and the people in it. For one thing, I'd think you'd choose your venue wisely and it wouldn't be full of crazies in the first place; and if that landscape changed you'd move on.
The police do have a certain ethic of watching the other guy's back; it is a sacred trust which a few small crimes should not be able to weaken. But I do not believe one carries one iota subscript's worth of Karmic Influence for what one of his "work buddies" does. It's all in the Intent, and the Intent of the bodhisattva-influenced cop would be lacking in any harmful content.
I think that it used to be that most people who became cops did so to help others. obviously some people still make that choice. But increasingly, people are becoming cops to fight bad guys and if that is what they think and how they operate then the mentality of doing the job primarily to help people has become skewed. Or it seems that way anyhow. Sometimes, helping means protecting people from bad guys. But it's become so prevalent that it seems cops are making up who the bad guys really are to maintain that mentality of fighting bad guys. Even here, the cops have gotten away from helping. Last winter, my 9 months pregnant friend was shoveling out her van at 7am after a snowfall in -30F temps, and instead of offering to help, the cop gave her a ticket and drove away because her van wasn't moved for calendar parking by 7am. I've seen them drive by cars stuck in the snow and so on. They do not set good examples of humanity much of the time when given the opportunity.
I absolutely think Buddhists can be cops. Most cops never kill someone, and there is allowance within Buddhism for doing that. If all cops used "Buddhist logic" to make that choice it would happen far less often. I think military is harder (though not impossible) because the very nature of the military is to kill people. At least so far, that is not the nature of the police system.
Thanks, Karasti, for that. However, it seems that the High Mucky-Mucks don't think the police had the duty to arrest the bad guy here, either. But what do you expect from a court full of political appointees who HASTILY interfere in federal elections and declare that Money IS Speech?
If you wanna find out what's wrong with the world, don't forget to look into the places where High Power is Seated.
Comments
This morning, I read a story on aol news about a man, who in one of his many common drunken, violent states, had shot and killed 3 people including his spouse who was bed-ridden due to a stroke, his son's girlfriend and a man who was just visiting the home. His son, wrestled with him for the gun, and shot him dead.
The crazy part of the story is this: "The sheriff’s department arrested Morey, the only survivor, for the killing of his father. He was booked at the sheriff’s Walnut Station. His bail is set at $1 million. Corina said Morey could face charges if he shot his father when the man was no longer a threat."
It was said that they don't know yet if the gun went off and killed him during the struggle or not...
Now, nobody with half a brain would believe that just because the gun was taken away would stop the man's violent rampage; to me, it appears on its face, that it's all about feeding the justice system with any tidbit they can get their hands on. It's sick to the nth degree and is what will destroy this country as we know it - if it isn't already dead.
Well, I probably have not been harassed much by police because I'm white, but there are times where I've been asked where I'm heading etc. when I've gone through a roadside checkpoint. I kind of thought, you know, it's really none of your business, why are you asking me? But I've been honest, upfront and said where I'm going. It's happened to Mrs. Walker and I a few times when we've been on a camping trip and had a carload full of stuff. And we've actually had a couple of pleasant conversations once the cops realized we weren't up to anything untowards and were just out having fun.
I suppose to tie Buddhism into it, we probably all agree that police or some way of enforcing social behavior is necessary in some form because there will always be someone preying on others. In the wild frontier towns, they ended up forming a vigilance committee if they didn't have official law. Do you feel a police officer is in an occupation that is a problem for a Buddhist? Many Buddhists would say a soldier isn't a proper occupation. But is there that much difference?
The police officer is only human....
They may be 'only' human, but wouldn't a conscientious individual - police or otherwise feel that as humans...we can do better.
True...However my point was @silver, they (the police) are only human and have all the flaws that come with the human package...
Example 'fear' 'worry' 'anxiety' 'impatience' etc etc...It's hard enough to deal with for those of us (Buddhas in training) who are aware we are inflicted with them...
Hence my comment re: mindfulness training for the force would be a good idea...But it's possible some authoritative figures would be opposed to such measures, perhaps it would go against their Christian values, threatening Christianity in some way....
I remember the time when some meditation instructors first tried to get meditation into the prisons in the US and the troubles they had trying to convince the authorities they were not trying to convert the inmates .....
Yeah. I know.
Then you added stuff: I appreciate what you're saying. When I first came to CA and found my first chiropractor, the topic of yoga was brought up and he seemed unnecessarily wary about it -- seeming to be concerned about some sort of religious conversion, as well -- he did advertise as a Christian chiropractor so that explains that...
I would suggest that Buddhist lay practice is open to all. It is possible for a soldier or police officer to be on the path.
The karmic repurcussions of professions are dependent on how they are practiced. It is difficult to be unaffected by emotional conflict in a killing profession.
So it is possible - just more difficult.
What really bugs me about situations like this is the first thing that pops into my mind - i.e. why wasn't the father locked away a long time ago? There are all kinds of people like this walking the streets. The legal system can't or won't put them away where they aren't going to hurt anyone. I personally know a woman exactly like that. She's consistently on the Crime Stoppers Most Wanted list. But she gets off on bail, and goes about her drug-induced way, only to be picked up again a few months later, and released again. She's going to kill or severely injure somebody some day, it's just a matter of time. Why isn't she locked up at least until she's gone through a drug rehabilitation program? I'm sure a judge could have required her to do that somewhere along the way. But, no, they can't be bothered with actually trying to get to the root of the problem. Maybe there's a shortage of prison cells? Beats me.
Long Live the 'Love Police' [oops]
https://vigilant8.wordpress.com/2010/09/03/charlie-veitch-the-end-of-the-love-police/
What can we not so overt dharma bunnies do?
In other words moving from 'isn't it terrible' which it is, to skilfull means ...
I think they should figure out a way to categorize folks who are a clear and present danger to society and themselves, druggies etc., and be able to confine them and treat them with the most progressive ways at their disposal. I mean, heck - they don't confine people in 'insane' asylums any more, all that sort of labeling is best swept completely away and base it on the most practical, logical means. I mean, where are the people who come up with this stuff.....there's no longer any authorities who are willing to move ahead with the latest innovations. Why is no one doing this work? It's because of pure politics - $$$.
No, I do not believe that it should be a problem; especially if the police are committed to sound principles of fairness and humanity. Indeed, being familiar with ideas such as reverence for life and Simon the Pilgrim's engaged Buddhism * would help make any "copper" a better community servant —nay a bodhisattva of sorts.
I took a minicourse in college that dealt with the corruption in the Philadelphia Police Department way back when (the 1940s, I think). They had to make so many vice arrests or, failing to make their quota, they'd be suspected of being on the take. Well, anyhow, the writer of one of the books postulated four types of police mentality. Two of the types believed that people were basically good and should be helped along, while the other two believed that people were to be punished. (I forget all the ramifications.) Anyhow, the writer called the worst policeman "The Enforcer," the type who took no pity, had no remorse, and threw the book at you. I forget the name of The Advocate, who would spend time getting to know a little bit about you and would be very unlikely to jump the gun. (I'd really like to find some old college books and revisit this issue.)
I'm not sure that being a soldier is a very good career choice for a serious Buddhist, but as a temporary occupation for a couple of years I see no real issue. But I do think it is a serious mistake to confuse the police with the military. If a military force is needed, call out the reserves, regulars, or National Guard. The police should be civilians, Full Stop.
http://newbuddhist.com/discussion/19680/service-in-engaged-buddhism
The US spend billions of dollars on the best weapons to use in there wars on foreign soil while thousands of Americans are killing each other at home. Surely they could put some of that vast amount of money towards research inventing a weapon for the police that does everything they there current guns do interms of range accuracy etc but don't kill people. The so called threat to the police from the individual would be removed without there life being removed.
I understand that the problem would still be there where civilians will be carrying lethal weapons. I know this will never happen but the only way to remove the lethal guns from the streets if anybody is carrying one they get an instant life sentence sounds crazy but it would drastically reduce deaths from guns!! A few years ago we would have thought a smoking ban in public places would be crazy and would never happen.
My main point from the above is the design of a non lethal weapon that is effective.
In a previous life I worked for some years as a paramedic in a big city ER. Our city had a fairly active "knife and gun club" (medical-speak for violent crime) and our hospital was a designated Trauma Center, so we interacted with cops quite a lot. I was intrigued by the similarities and differences between health care workers and law enforcement. What we shared was that the people we encountered were, to say the least, generally having a bad day. Often they were having the worst day of their life, and some were having the last day. We could commune and commiserate with the cops on that commonality. But where we differed was that, in general, health care workers usually want to help others. Cops want to dominate others.
As Earthninja points out, it's a job. We need cops. A civil society requires that the function must exist. So, knowing what personality type is drawn to this field, how can we have a law enforcement function but not have police abuse?
First, we can't expect the police to solve it. They need to participate and self-monitor, but they are not in the right position or in possession of the right perspective or personality to create an effective system by themselves. It is incumbent on society to create a system that recognizes the predilections of the participants. We can't expect cops to be nice. We have to recognize that they are not, and design their jobs, their environment, and their oversight accordingly. Only then will we have an effective, manageable system.
I've always thought that almost any job can be done by a Buddhist, if the person uses Buddhist values to conduct their job with compassion. There are some exceptions. If the company or organization you work for makes a living taking advantage of other people's suffering, then you'd probably be fired quickly anyway. I get the impression that a cop who actually takes "to serve and protect" seriously anymore would quickly run into dire trouble with the other cops and superiors, because the Buddhist way tells us the decision to keep silent or do nothing is to share karmic responsibility for bad actions. The few cops who have stepped up and complained were punished, and somehow for once the police unions didn't offer their blanket protection.
I'm pretty sure it could be done but then that same technology would would be hard to regulate.
The best idea I've seen so far is requiring all gun owners to carry liability insurance including all cops.
The insurance companies would end up eating the trigger happy cops for lunch and dinners main course would be the NRA.
We need an "Amen!" button.
Where better than a Buddhist forum to have an Amen Button!
The Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly over the last thirty years that police at all levels of government have no duty to protect. Their job is to arrest criminals. For protection, we're on our own.
For police officers who violate the "code of silence" retribution is sure to follow. I am old enough to remember when Frank Serpico(NYPD) narrowly escaped assasination in a station house filled with cops. He exposed the multigenerational pad in that station house.
I think life is really really complex in the US, and getting access to needed help can be incredibly difficult. Even if you can figure out where to go, the process is way more complex and difficult than it should be for someone suffering mental illness or other diminished capacities. The key isn't to lock them up. The key is to get them help. We expect people to help themselves, whether they are capable or not. People who are suffering and in need of the most help are often the least able to realize they need it or, or unable to go through the millions of hoops necessary to gain it. It is incredible the expectations placed on people in need, and often very difficult to find answers or solutions. It is overwhelming and exhausting even if you do know where to go. If you've never done any of these processes you have no idea how difficult they can be. Punishing people who are already suffering isn't the answer to protecting the rest of us.
Guns should be treated like cars. They are a privilege, you must carry insurance, and if a medical professional believes you can no longer safely manage it, your privileges are revoked. There should also be different levels of licensure, just like cars. Just because you can drive a Toyota Corolla doesn't mean you can drive a school bus or a hazardous materials vehicle. You have to get extra training, extra insurance, and extra licenses to do that. Guns should be the same. If you misbehave with your gun, you get it taken away, including leaving it available to people who shouldn't have them, like children or criminals, because you don't lock it up.
Dunno about all the silly rulings our High-Mucky-Muck Court might be capable of, but this just doesn't ring true to me. You call the police when you need them and they come. They do not come just in order to arrest someone. Heck, sometimes there's absolutely no cell room in which to detain people.
[1] I hope things aren't that bad anymore that people are prohibited or feel inhibited from following the dictates of their own conscience.
[2] We know that police "ethics" is a little different from everyday ethics. They don't rat on each other over procedural matters. A homicide or a brutal beating, however, is no mere procedural matter. There SHOULD BE higher standards.
I think that one must certainly be "Wise as a Serpent, but Innocent as a Dove" to be a bodhisattva-like police officer, but I think that it can be done by someone dedicated to a community and the people in it. For one thing, I'd think you'd choose your venue wisely and it wouldn't be full of crazies in the first place; and if that landscape changed you'd move on.
The police do have a certain ethic of watching the other guy's back; it is a sacred trust which a few small crimes should not be able to weaken. But I do not believe one carries one iota subscript's worth of Karmic Influence for what one of his "work buddies" does. It's all in the Intent, and the Intent of the bodhisattva-influenced cop would be lacking in any harmful content.
It's true that SCOTUS has ruled more than once that cops don't have a duty to protect someone, but that was a constitutionally-based issue and not one based on morals or the expectation of the public.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect-someone.html
I think that it used to be that most people who became cops did so to help others. obviously some people still make that choice. But increasingly, people are becoming cops to fight bad guys and if that is what they think and how they operate then the mentality of doing the job primarily to help people has become skewed. Or it seems that way anyhow. Sometimes, helping means protecting people from bad guys. But it's become so prevalent that it seems cops are making up who the bad guys really are to maintain that mentality of fighting bad guys. Even here, the cops have gotten away from helping. Last winter, my 9 months pregnant friend was shoveling out her van at 7am after a snowfall in -30F temps, and instead of offering to help, the cop gave her a ticket and drove away because her van wasn't moved for calendar parking by 7am. I've seen them drive by cars stuck in the snow and so on. They do not set good examples of humanity much of the time when given the opportunity.
I absolutely think Buddhists can be cops. Most cops never kill someone, and there is allowance within Buddhism for doing that. If all cops used "Buddhist logic" to make that choice it would happen far less often. I think military is harder (though not impossible) because the very nature of the military is to kill people. At least so far, that is not the nature of the police system.
Thanks, Karasti, for that. However, it seems that the High Mucky-Mucks don't think the police had the duty to arrest the bad guy here, either. But what do you expect from a court full of political appointees who HASTILY interfere in federal elections and declare that Money IS Speech?
If you wanna find out what's wrong with the world, don't forget to look into the places where High Power is Seated.