This morning I was reading The New York Times, and this article caught my eye. It described a police chase that occurred in the early 1900s. The police were chasing a car that was speeding up the road. When they got to the point of impact, the driver of the car had crashed into a tree. Unfortunately, the officer who captured the scene said, “Well, that’s just the way things were.
Yes, that’s how things were. This officer was a cop at the time and he was upset at the cop who caught the driver, who happened to be the cop’s commanding officer. The cop said that the driver was just a madman, an insane man who’d committed a crime. The driver had a gun and told the officer that if he was going to kill him, it would be with his own gun.
This officer’s view is the one that most people have about the police. The officers on the scene were outraged that the officer wasn’t able to stop the driver because of the gun. They believed the driver was a murderer and had no remorse for what he had done. But they were also annoyed that the cop told the driver they were just the same old cops who were doing the same old thing.
Yes, the cop is the same old cop. And yes, they are still doing the same old thing. But the cop who made the mistake is now in a position to put them in their place, and it is their own responsibility to learn from their mistake. While the cop may be more lenient now, they were never lenient. When they had the opportunity, they were going to shoot the driver.
That’s what makes this case interesting. You have a cop who was caught in the act of doing something he shouldn’t have done. And you have a cop who was trying to do something that violated their own rules and regulations. If they weren’t both being treated like adults, then they could have handled the situation differently. It’s the difference between being a person who is in charge and a person who is in charge.
I agree that its more complicated than that. But I do think the cop’s use of violence in this case was reckless. And yes, if there were no witnesses, then it would be a different story. But the cop who was acting in a way that was not in line with the law, which is essentially the first rule of any case – you can’t mess with someone who is doing something you have no right to be doing, is acting with recklessness.
The problem here is that the cops on this island don’t know the law. And the law doesn’t care about them. The cop who is running around with his pistol drawn is not in line with the law. He’s acting in a way that is not in line with the law. The cop who has his gun pointed at a cop’s head is not in line with the law. He’s acting with recklessness.
So the cops have the right to shoot anyone they deem necessary. The problem is that the cops have no right to be doing anything whatsoever. The cops are not in line with law and the law doesnt care about them. They are acting in a way that is not in line with the law.
This is a discussion that I feel is very relevant to society. Law and order are very important in society. People should know when they are breaking the law, and should be held accountable. As a society we should have a right to be safe and protected. But we have a right to protect ourselves. What is the difference between us and the cops? The police dont have a right to be in a place with guns pointed at them.
Police departments do. We have a right to be armed. There is a difference between police and the military. We do not have a right to be armed. We have a right to be safe. Law and order doesnt care about that. They are acting in a way that is not in line with the law.