That is completely true.

But the police don't arrest people for breaking ethical principles, they arrest people for breaking laws.

So also, in context, not entirely relevant.

> But the police don't arrest people for breaking ethical principles, they arrest people for breaking laws.

...Unless the police officer has ethical principles, in which case they will refuse to obey unfair laws. I remember watching an interview with a Danish cop that refused to arrest someone for smoking marijuana inside their own house. I think it's fair to say the government police system encourages unethical people to become cops.

Last time I checked extortion and making a false police report was against the law. I think context was that the police are participating in the SWATings while not putting in any effort to track down the perpetrators and at the same time they're putting a disproportionate amount of effort into shutting down otherwise peaceful markets.

What proof is there that the police are not putting any effort into tracking down the perpetrators?

Right, but the police do not decide which laws to ignore and which to enforce. They are the enforcement arm, not the legislative. No one should be alarmed that people when people are arrested for peddling illegal drugs.

> the police do not decide which laws to ignore and which to enforce

They absolutely do. For example, police in Seattle explicitly made marijuana enforcement the lowest possible priority years before Washington legalized it. It was a common sight to see policemen standing right next to people openly smoking pot on the street and completely ignoring them.

The police actually have a huge amount of leeway, and it can be a big problem. They often decide who to prosecute and who to ignore, and their decisions are often driven by race, revenue concerns, or other issues that have little to do with justice.

Actually, in 2003, the voters passed an initiative mandating that police lower their enforcement of marijuana in Seattle[1].

[1] http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/Two-years-later-littl...

That's true, but marijuana was still illegal, and some people were still prosecuted. Ultimately the ones deciding who would be arrested and who would be ignored on a case-by-case basis were the police.

You're correct. My point was directed more towards people, like the parent I was replying to, who defend government actions simply because something is illegal. It would be equivalent to defending people who returned escaped slaves back in the day because it was the law to do so at the time.

Which would you rather have? Police enforcing the laws, or police enforcing whatever they personally felt was right?

If you disagree with the morality of a law, fine - but your assertion that enforcing drug laws is as immoral as enforcing slavery laws is debatable

Actually, they do. http://thelawdictionary.org/article/police-discretion-defini...

Police officers can, and should, use their conscience to decide whether or not to enforce certain laws.

If you want a legal precedent, the Nuremberg trials somewhat settled that question.

Well, the likely continued impunity of the practitioners of "enhanced interrogation" means that it's a legal precedent that applies only to evil Nazis.