That would be nepotism and a breach of justice. It would be a 'conspiracy' and it would be 'significant'. You shouldn't be treated differently because you are pals with a judge. A different judge should handle the trial
And here you just demonstrated the error in your logic. You see, here's the thing. Just because there is a connection does not mean it would effect events. If I would get let off it would be because I was not guilty, not because of my relation to the judge. You just assume that because I have a relation with the judge then that would effect the result. That is simply false. Here's another example. My parents own the business that I worked at over the summer. I'm going to ask one of the corporate managers to write a recommendation letter for me for a college job. Your logic would imply that because my parents own the company, then I would obviously get a good reference. There's a connection. However this is a false assumption. I don't know for sure if I will get a good reference letter, but the person I'm going to ask is someone who often times saw the work I specifically did and when I interacted with other people. He often times complimented the jobs that I would get done. Now you might try to dismiss that as him kissing up to the bosses son, and again you would be wrong. When I would screw up, he would make sure I knew about it as well. Now this isn't to say that connections with people are never used. In fact, many times it is. However, it's also wrong for you to think that if there is a connection, then it is obviously used.
If you think about how our society works....the higher up you go the more wealthy/powerful people become and they are all mingling with other wealthy and powerful people; this would mean that they are friends with judges, politicians and bankers and are by the standard you present above are above the law
And that is the error. You assumed that if there are connections, then they are used. That is simply not correct. Sure, in some or many cases they are used, but it is not correct to say all. Therefore you need to also prove that the connections where taken advantage of. Since you can't do that, you simply assume that it is used. Makes it easier for you to believe what you want to believe.
You're being vague...what is it i see that isn't there?
Supposed connections between certain people. You assume that people intend to do certain things and that certain things are happening without any actual evidence for that to be the case.
Wrong about what?
Try to be more specific, you are slinging accusations but not saying what they are based on
Most of our previous discussions. You don't even consider the possibility that you might be wrong. You hold your truth as closely as a zealot, and because of that you have error.
When?
Present an example please otherwise you are just slinging mud
To name two, the graphene and vaccine discussions.
Which jumps?
What are you talking about? What are these 'jumps' you talk about? How about actually presenting some examples of these things you are accusing me of?
I have pointed them out, and you didn't consider what I said for the reasons I listed above.
I think if you are not 'paranoid' at this point then you are not paying attention
That's your opinion based on your perspective of the world which is inherently flawed. I'm not sure if the paranoia comes from your flawed perspective, or if your flawed perspective comes from your paranoia. My guess is the latter.
What planet are you on?
They are giving them armoured vehicles and apache helecopters!
And that is where you are very wrong. First off, Aircraft, Rotary wing does not mean apache. It only means helicopter. There are WAY more helicopters than just the apache. Also, the apache helicopter is priced upwards of $52 million dollars. The helicopters your referencing where bought at $18 million. That seems to imply that it wasn't an apache. You just believe what you want to believe don't you? lol. Classic muir. Again your confirmation bias is showing.
Now, as for the vehicles, all they have gotten are mine resistant vehicles. APC like vehicles. NOT TANKS AND NOT HUMVS. That video made it look like that's what they had, but I cannot find record of actual war machine vehicles being sent to the police. Those vehicles are made more to transport people rather than wage war. SWAT teams have had such vehicles for a long time, these are just more effective and efficient at moving personal. The guns they are buying, the M14 and M16 have also been held by SWAT for a long time. Personally I don't like the AR models. Too forward heavy. I prefer the Tavor or other bullpup rifles. Easier to hold and shoot as long as you don't need as long of range as the AR. As for body armor, they where deployed with standard or slightly better than standard body armor. That's the only thing you got actually correct here, lol.
Even if the people protest peacefully the government can still plant 'agent provocateurs' amongst the protestors to incite violence if they want to escalate things
So by this argument, even when the people start the violence, its actually the government. Well sure, there is a way for the government to do that. However, that doesn't mean they are going to do that. It is wrong for you to assume that they would. It is good to question if they did, but there is no evidence that such is the case. To assume that it is the case is another example of your faulty logic.
Now that I have discounted your fear mongering, the actual point that you are trying to get across in a completely incorrect and hostile way by using false facts and trying to scare people with facts that seem worse than they really are, can actually be addressed.
Now my opinion is the same as yours. That the police don't need what they are being given (except for smoke/flash/stun grenades and other crowed control weapons as those are non-lethal). Perhaps the occasional helicopter or the occasional armored vehicle, but not in the numbers they are getting them in. Ammo doesn't matter for them to buy in my opinion as well as some armor or guns for SWAT type personnel, however I don't agree with giving them to all police. SWAT have extra training for such weapons. I find it hard to rationalize the quantity being bought, however that does not prove the malintent of the police. If you want to suggest that this is a problem, it is far more accurate to say that the Ferguson case shows the police response in the event of what they are using. It is my perspective that they are not using the most effective method to disperse hostilities. The simple idea of not dressing up in a way that is so associated with war would probably help. However I am hesitant to criticize the responses because I don't know the details as well in that area. There could be variables not being shared over the news due to the biased media or other possible complications. What if the public is actually shooting at police, or are actually hurting other people? I know I've heard that there is wide spread looting and I think something about other robberies. That's the extent of my knowledge on that though. As for if the response is acceptable, I would need better detail. However as it seems to me, it does seem to be an overly aggressive response.
Now if it turns out to be the case that the police did respond in an overly aggressive manor, then I would say the militarization of the police is a really bad idea because of the potential of developing into a police state. However I find that extremely unlikely. But since it is a possibility, it must be accounted for. That is my analysis muir. Notice we reach a similar conclusion, however I don't use fear mongering and false information or persuasion to explain my perspective. Of the facts I have, I actually make sure of their reliability or I state that I do not know for sure when I give another opinion. Perhaps this comes back to the discussion in another thread of conspiracy theorists versus rational skepticism. Quite a big difference between you and I muir I think.
You don't need to apologise...i'm stressed as well!
I'm stressed because of school and the fact that I am going to have to write a multiple page paper on the philosophy of some physics question, probably something about quantum dynamics or black hole physics for a 400 level course taught by a noble prize winner. Your stressed because of your paranoia.
Edit:
To clarify my example with the judge, I'm sure there are some people who might get let off because they are friends with a judge, however I know that in my case, that would not occur. I'm not saying that it is always where a person gets let off because of friendship and I'm not saying a person always gets let off because of they where not guilty. There is some combination of the two. It is impossible to prove which is more common.
