“No but you have to understand, All Cops might Be Bastards but they’re could be way worse bastards!”
This strawman isn’t even properly put together; it’s falling apart. If English isn’t your first language, skip the following: Write better.
Do you not understand that things are clearly immoral should lead to law enforcement refusing to enforce the laws. It doesn’t mean they get to decide which laws to enforce or not, willy nilly, but if someone says “go an arrest every minority out there” they can say ‘that’s unconstitutional and I won’t do it, you can fire me and then I’ll sue you’ or whatever it is you do there.
Evidently not, because my understanding of your argument is that it is an oxymoron: Cops should use their own moral judgement to selectively enforce the law, but also, cops should not use their own moral judgement to selectively enforce the law.
I’m not a Harry Potter encyclopedia so maybe your perception of Harry being a loose cannon is much more arbitrary than mine, but in the context of someone refusing to enforce a law on moral grounds, you’re making zero sense to me. It seems like you’re assigning “willy nilly” to selective enforcement you disagree with and “refusal” to selective enforcement you agree with.
This strawman isn’t even properly put together; it’s falling apart. If English isn’t your first language, skip the following: Write better.
Evidently not, because my understanding of your argument is that it is an oxymoron: Cops should use their own moral judgement to selectively enforce the law, but also, cops should not use their own moral judgement to selectively enforce the law.
I’m not a Harry Potter encyclopedia so maybe your perception of Harry being a loose cannon is much more arbitrary than mine, but in the context of someone refusing to enforce a law on moral grounds, you’re making zero sense to me. It seems like you’re assigning “willy nilly” to selective enforcement you disagree with and “refusal” to selective enforcement you agree with.