I think police should be held to a higher standard than the public: their training and their power (monopoly on violence) warrants that.
Something else: "provocation" is usually forbidden to law enforcement.
I think law enforcement needs provocation in order to catch certain bad behaviors. But certainly not for a victimless crime like dealing dope.
Where I think provocation is needed as a law enforcement tool: sexual harassment in the streets (like cat calling) and govt corruption.
Authorities aren't equal in the eyes of the law. They are held to a higher standard. Do I have to quote fucking Spiderman (Uncle Ben Parker)?: With great power comes great responsibility.
They should be charged with manufacturing schedule I drugs, selling schedule I drugs, AND conspiracy to defraud the {federal government,state of Florida,people of Florida,police}, and a bunch of other crimes. I would go so far as to say that such acts are those of treason. They acted in a way to undermine the trust of the American people, to undermine the justice system, to undermine the government that they are representing. It is unquestionable that they have caused a betrayal of trust.
I think this is a problem that we let slide due to apathy. But that's why I'm so pissed about this kind of stuff. It's because treason can build slowly, and even be explained away with "best intentions." But it is this slow slide that sows distrust to the institutions we have. It gives legitimate reason to be distrustful of these systems. And without going after bad actors or without holding them to a higher standard, this too undermines the entire system. I don't think you have to be draconian, but I do mean that if you get charged for selling drugs (as one charge of possibly many) you should be receive higher punishment than any non-authority person in a similar setting.
I don’t disagree but the events in question took place and were discovered over 30 years ago. https://www.upi.com/Archives/1992/01/04/Appeals-court-Sherif...
For those still impacted thats a problem. Not the same level of shock though.
> Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
I still haven't come up with one.
- Maintenance of roadways and bridges - Governments don't create wear and tear, vehicles and weather do.
- Food safety standards - Governments aren't harvesting lettuce with e. coli or selling diseased meat.
- Public healthcare - Governments don't create disease, but they ensure access to healthcare (at least the good ones do).
- Building codes - Governments rarely build houses themselves, but they do enact requirements for acceptable building materials, wiring standards, safe insulations, and so on.
- Environmental regulation - It's not entirely accurate to say that governments create zero pollution, but it's an insignificant factor compared to the industries for which they control regulations.
I'm sure some could try to argue each of these points with very narrow counter-examples, or try to stretch the meaning of "have a hand in creating" to be so wide as to encompass everything. Governments are a major part of society, after all. But on the whole, these are solutions created in response to problems in society that emerged naturally, without government oversight, programs, or committees behind them.
- being invaded by another country - food safety - being robbed - being paid by my employer
Many more. They are not completely solved but vastly improved. Try places like Sudan or Somalia and see how life is without a functioning government.
Reagan’s “nine most terrifying words in the English language” works just as well when you replace “government” with “corporate” or “church” or “mob” or even “next door”.