zlacker

>>srames+(OP)
[EDIT: For context, this was detached from post_break's comment: "When a 75 year old man is trying to return a police helmet to them, and they push him down causing him to bleed from his head and ears, and they fire two officers who did it, and the rest resign from the riot group in purpose in support of the two who pushed him, what else could you possibly expect?"]

You can only have one absolute moral principle; everything else must ultimately be contingent on not violating that core principle.

I am usually bringing this up on HN in the context of free speech, because I think free speech is a poor choice to make your absolute moral principle.

In this context, there's another example of a poor choice for an absolute principle.

Brotherhood, fraternity, loyalty to your group is frequently a good thing. Many things only work with trust.

But this is what it looks like when brotherhood -- loyalty to your fellow police officers, in this case -- is your absolute moral principle. Upholding the law and protecting the innocent come second to protecting your own.

>>saalwe+w6
This is a very good point.

To me, the cops quitting in solidarity is a far worse problem than the cops pushing the old man.

We need to grasp that in a national eruption of 1000's of interactions, some of them will be bad. There will be emotions, stupidity, even racism and true bad acting. I fully expect that even in a highly professional and well-trained police force ... that stupid will happen.

BUT - the cops quitting ... this is 1) not a decision made 'in the moment of passion in the blink of an eye' and 2) as you say, it arguably contradicts the very nature of their oath.

My cousin, a Marine, said to me that a common creed is 'Unit, Corps, God, Country'. I don't know if that's official, colloquial, or even widely true ... but ... I found it really deeply wrong to put 'unit and corps' above 'god and country'. But I never got the chance to discuss it with him.