but border agents who come in and do their job are.
Indeed.
but border agents who come in and do their job are.
Nuremberg trials is not a "Godwin's Law violation. It's history. We learn history so we are not doomed to repeat it. Would you feel better if I bring up another examples?
Now, if you were a cop, would you ignore the order and try to get in the school? Keep in mind that the 19 cops were already in the school. Also would you have prevented and/or even handcuffed and tasered parents? Keep in mind that a woman escaped the police custody, jumped over a fence to save her two sons.
![]()
Other than the Godwin's Law violation, it may not work here either. I'm just pointing out that much of the police response that was fucked up was due to bureaucratic inertia. It isn't a matter of "I was just following orders..." so much as it was one of management being unwilling to make a decision without perfect information and following every procedure they had in place. Like I said, I've seen this mentality repeatedly in big bureaucracies and government agencies are particularly at fault for this sort of mindset.
It invokes Hitler and or the Nazis inappropriately. Uvalde is hardly a case of "war crimes." It is a case of bureaucratic incompetence.
Indeed.
Nuremberg trials is not a "Godwin's Law violation. It's history. We learn history so we are not doomed to repeat it. Would you feel better if I bring up another examples?
Now, if you were a cop, would you ignore the order and try to get in the school? Keep in mind that the 19 cops were already in the school. Also would you have prevented and/or even handcuffed and tasered parents? Keep in mind that a woman escaped the police custody, jumped over a fence to save her two sons.
![]()
they should arrest this vigilante. do you agree?
Like they should arrest Batman?
No it is not inappropriate. The "I was ordered" is not a valid argument as you are trying to make it out to be.
Now answer my question.
So, the rank and file officers should just ignore their chain of command whenever it's inconvenient for them hum?
Yes when it comes to children being killed. Should firefighters follow orders not to enter a burning building where there are children inside?
So, the rank and file officers should just ignore their chain of command whenever it's inconvenient for them hum?
when childrens lives are at stake and command has it's head up its ass, yes....
they can refer to their oath if they are questioned.
So, you expect them to have perfect knowledge of the whole situation and be clairvoyant enough to predict future events with perfect accuracy hum? Should firefighters enter a burning building to rescue people when it's obvious it's about to collapse and they'd be killed in the attempt? Should officers charge in to be shot and killed then the shooter goes back to killing innocents?
Hindsight is 20-20, foresight is far harder to get right.
And yet a parent was able to get her two sons out just fine.
It seems that you have never had children.
And what if that parent ended up shot and killed instead? Just because it worked for that parent doesn't mean it would work every time, or even most of the time.
The problem with that is, Does the rank and file know this or not? What if what they know is that the bad guy is barricaded and there are no lives at immediate risk?
And what if that parent ended up shot and killed instead? Just because it worked for that parent doesn't mean it would work every time, or even most of the time.
So, you expect them to have perfect knowledge of the whole situation and be clairvoyant enough to predict future events with perfect accuracy hum? Should firefighters enter a burning building to rescue people when it's obvious it's about to collapse and they'd be killed in the attempt? Should officers charge in to be shot and killed then the shooter goes back to killing innocents?
Hindsight is 20-20, foresight is far harder to get right.