Concerned Citizens has a very interesting post up about defining ‘law abiding’ The debate reminds me of similar dissension – what defines ‘supporting the troops’? Do you have to support the mission to support the troops?
These questions always bring up the usual accusations of ‘coward’ or ‘traitor’ toward those of us that separate US forces from US foreign policy. Often, energy is spent defending these accusations rather than focusing on keeping the troops safe and bringing them home. Since both camps want the best for the troops it is hard to understand how accusations benefit anyone.
The same tactics are being employed by those who feel concerned citizens should not voice their objections to police conduct. When advocating for the troops most of us have found it best to stay focused on the goal and ignore the detractors. Concerned citizens wants to establish a citizen review board or some such mechanism to ensure fair and humane policing and improve relations between citizenry and the police.
City managers, police chiefs, police officers are paid with tax dollars and are subject to public criticism when those dollars are ill spent. This is part of the job and they are paid for it. Someone suggested over at concerned citizens that if you ‘can’t take the heat, get out of the fire’. The statement is really only valid when applied to public employees, particularly in leadership positions. Certain publc figures who ‘can’t take the heat’, have launched a smear campaign and threatened lawsuits and maybe they should just ‘get out of the fire’.
It isn’t always easy but I believe it is best to ignore insults and stay focused on the goal.