Freddy

Yea. A labour union is there to look after and protect your best interests, lobby government, negotiate contracts, and put forward grievances when we feel things are unfair. Do that but instead of protecting us from employer exploitation. This union would protect us from all government branches.Call it the united citizenship of America. Citizens United is a group like that isn't it? We can all join and donate financially.

Here you are with your tongue in cheek again. I'd love to take credit. Unfortunately for me women fought and won that freedom all by themselves.

What if you made it more like a Union?

A well articulated post on a very difficult subject to address. I applaud you for opening such a complicated thread.As a society I don't think it has improved our situation. But women have more choices, and I don't think we can keep them from having that.

Still is justice policing justice. There is a conflict of interest.

Cause you misunderstand the way I see things and have jumped to conclusions based on those assumptions you have made.I said the reality of nature is might makes right.

In this case the "legal"( court) system is responsible for policing the "legal" (police)system. It is a obvious conflict of interest.

The tools are at our disposal to start and lead such a political party.

Personally knowing how practically impossible it would be to eliminate corruption am willing to accept what we have now. I call it as good as imperfect humans can achieve.

That or policemen were acting within their guidelines. Guidelines may need to be changed. People who make laws are the ones who need to review guidelines.

I doubt a politician will want to make that his election platform.

I don't think any politician has the balls to make that a platform to run a election with.

I've observed over the course of my life, that it is often at these top enforcement position where Rule of law seems to fail. Because of lack of accountability it often becomes rules of what's best for my own interests. And that can explain why Judges seem to rule in police favor, more often.I've observed the same from politician. High military positions. And I believe that it is the majority of humans, that , if put in this position of power with little accountability would act in the same way. When the corruption is so bad it outweigh the benefits of Policing. Then the people have the right to bear arms and hold them accountable. But this is for extremes. When the corruption is so bad that it outweigh the benefits. So the question is. Is the corruption so unbelievably unbearable that total anarchy would be preferable until a new system can be put in place?

and who enforces the court?

At one point someone needs to be at the top of enforcement, and without someone to enforce him how can we keep him accountable. Unless he was yoda the Jedi.

and who enforces the enforcers of the enforcers?

We do , but who enforces the enforcers?

All I know is it made no sense when I read it seriously, so I changed my approach.

I just understand it's not realistic, to believe they can be enforced,it gets especially hard to enforce them at the top.

I hope so, I just don't expect it to ever be perfect, Even though it has to be on paper.

care to explain the gang comment that I didn't understand.My guess is it's part of the article. The women and children in the article.

This is why I keep saying it all looks good on paper but it's unrealistic. Unless you had a Jedi council overseeing things then it would work just fine.You have to take the good with the bad.our system can only be as good as humans. Unfortunately we are not perfect.

Well if he had any doubts it wasn't a gunshot I don't think he would have done that. What you need is a Jedi to read his mind and make sure he is telling the truth.

The only way you could hold police accountable, is with a ruling Jedi council.

No such thing, Even royalty lie about their blue blood.