The “GOOD” effect

We have, regrettably, devolved into a world where divergent opinions are vilified and the people who have a different viewpoint are personally attacked. Using facts to support a viewpoint ignores those facts and results in a personal attack.
This country was formed on Freedom of Expression, so much so that is in the United States Constitution in the First Amendment. But many feel that freedom of expression only applies to their point of view.
They vilify Chalie Kirk, who was assassinated on a college campus for hate speech even though his tent was adorned with the slogan, “PROVE ME WRONG!” Or the fact that he allowed people to spew whatever nonsense they chose and treated those people with respect, no matter what they said. That is Freedom of Expression at its best.
People who have no respect for themselves would have no reason to have respect for others. Their existence hinges on being able to intimidate others.
The recent incident involving a Federal law enforcement officer killing a thirty-seven year old woman is a perfect example. One side called the shooting a murder of an innocent and unarmed woman. The other side says the use of deadly force was reasonable as the officer was struck by a 3,500 pound vehicle.
There is nothing peaceful about blocking intersections, throwing objects at vehicles or law enforcement officers or destroying property. That conduct has no constitutional protection and violates criminal laws.
There were also hundreds of demonstrators that only made local news for seconds. Those people lawfully lined streets standing on the sidewalk holding signs to show their outrage. That is their right and violates no criminal statutes.
People who support the actions of the officer make perfectly clear that the loss of life is a tragedy. She chose to ignore the lawful commands to exit the vehicle and chose to drive away. She knew the location of the officer and his proximity to her direction of travel.
The Supreme Court of the United States has made it clear that the use of deadly force must be assessed from the eyes of the officer using the force. Graham v Conner 490 U.S 386 1989
In the 19770’s there were nationwide protests by religious groups protesting abortion clinics. They would use their bodies to block the entranceway to prevent women from entering to obtain an abortion. When police arrived, the protestors would either allow themselves to be arrested or go limp to force the officers to carry them to police cruisers. There was NO violence involved. Compare that to today, and you will find people violently resisting arrest or attempting to escape being taken into custody my running away or driving to escape.
There are screams for officers to employ de-escalation techniques. But that is a two-way street. A 4 year old child walks into the kitchen where a pot of soup is heating an a gas stove. The child is mesmerized \ by the dancing flames and moves towards the stove. The mother calmly tells the child to stay away from the flame. The child ignores the mother and continues to move closer. The mother becomes more authoritative, but the child continues to move closer and extends his arm to touch the dancing flame. When the child reaches the point of actually touching the flame, the mother grabs the shoulder of the child and forcibly pulls the child away. The de-escalation techniques clearly failed and force was necessary.
Law enforcement officers, like every other adult citizen, only vote the people into office who then make the laws. They take an oath to enforce those laws. Failure to do so constitutes a crime of Dereliction of Duty.
Two questions which need to addressed by people are:
What constitutes a weapon?
What is a “peaceful” protest?