Your ability to block out the underlying problem, the one that necessitates police departments and such, is either admirable or annoying. Possibly both.

Actually, I was discussing whether it’s appropriate to accept as final word an agencies report on its own conduct.

Eric replied: “It’s a small part of my practice, but I do take some criminal cases.”

I respond: Thank you, Eric for answering my question directly.

Eric’s reply: “I’m still not clear on what it has to do with the discussion at hand, namely that whether the objectivity of a police investigation can be guaranteed when it involves one of their own.”

My reply to Eric: How excellently disingenuous of you, Eric. My complements to your alma mater.

We are discussing issues relating to police and criminality. Don’t tell me we must only discuss “bad cops” and not “bad Criminals.”

That’s not my experience. There are a few “whores” out there who will testify to anything for money, but they are discredited in the industry pretty quickly and are of no use to anyone within a short amount of time.

There was a famous case a few years back in which the prosecution wanted to impeach a defense witness who had been a gang member. The prosecution attempted to introduce an expert who would testify that gang members’ testimony is always suspect because of a code in which they would never testify to hurt each other. The defense objected and also proposed to introduce an expert who would say the same thing about police. I don’t know how the case was eventually resolved.

When was the last time you parsed the acts of Paul the Perfect

I believe it was September. Maybe October.

Well, Eric, they certainly fit into the world we live in. They certainly restrict our ability to walk freely without fear in certain places. They require us to lock everything we own, which is not how it used to be. Their activities in the field of Identity Theft force us to shred all our household bills, something our parents and grandparents didn’t have to live with.

I’m still not clear on what it has to do with the discussion at hand, namely that whether the objectivity of a police investigation can be guaranteed when it involves one of their own.

Oh, wait! Did I hear that you are a criminal defense attorney? Is that true, or merely a blogside rumor?

It’s a small part of my practice, but I do take some criminal cases.

Well, Eric, they certainly fit into the world we live in. They certainly restrict our ability to walk freely without fear in certain places. They require us to lock everything we own, which is not how it used to be. Their activities in the field of Identity Theft force us to shred all our household bills, something our parents and grandparents didn’t have to live with.

But these are mostly inconveniences. Except that thing about not being able to walk around without fear of being assaulted by some criminal who feels he is beyond the reach of the law.

If criminals are not part of the discussion, maybe we should include them, since they so dramatically degrade the quality of life for the rest of us in matters of personal safety and freedom from fear.

We and our parents and our children should not be living in fear of criminals. Really, it should be the other way around. The criminals should fear us and those who are sworn to protect us.

Oh, wait! Did I hear that you are a criminal defense attorney? Is that true, or merely a blogside rumor?

I suppose knowing the answer to that question would help me ascertain whether your statements are any less corrupt than, say, the multi-milliion-member AFL-CIO, for which you carry such disdain.