diaamondsforeyes
New member
An officer in the Chicago police department is under investigation for shooting Robert A. Russ during what he intended to be a routine traffic stop. The officer tried to pull over Russ for driving "erratically."Russ refused to pull over. A five-mile pursuit followed culminating when Russ spun out of control forcing him to stop. When approached by the Police officer he refused to exit the car. The officer then smashed the car's tinted window and with the motivational prowess of a 9-mm handgun asked Russ again to exit the car. Russ, in an attempt to take the weapon away from the officer, was killed when the gun fired. Authorities saw that the officer's actions were appropriate because his life was in danger. However, with pressure from "three dozen chanting protesters . . . demanding a public investigation," Mayor Daley told the superintendent of the police, Terry Hilliard, to investigate. This is an example of Aristotle's feared democracy – selfish rule by the poor and needy. Aristotle promoted instead, government by constitution -- rule by many heading to the neeRAB of the state instead of striving for personal gain. The founding fathers of the United States heeded Aristotle's advice realizing the fallibility of the general population, thus starting our country as a Republic. A republic is similar to a mixture of both aristocracy and constitutional government. It uses the good qualities of each and attempts to shirk off the possibility of perversion mentioned by Aristotle.
This situation is not only an example of the perverse democracy, but it also shows, by Aristotle's definition, tyranny. Tyranny is, "a kind of monarchy that has in view the interest of the monarch only." Obviously, Mayor Daley is not a monarch, but he is in the most powerful person at the city level. He perverted his authority to remain in power. His action was not the expression of his personal feelings, but instead a selfish attempt to gain popularity for reelection. He was trying to please the "chanting protesters." This can be construed as either tyranny, or democracy. It reserables democracy in that the government is being run by the mobs for their own self interest. Also, it is similar to tyranny in that the single monarchal ruler is ruling for his self interest instead of for the good of the state.
Another anomalous fact the article stated was that the driver was African-American, and called him a victim. The United States is attempting to spread equality throughout the nation. This is a major change to society. The media is trying to force this equality issue to make people feel as if it is their duty to avenge this death to preserve freedom for African-Americans.
This spurns to the execution of Socrates for promoting different ideas and change. It is apparent today that Socrates had good ideas. Knowing what we do today we would not have executed Socrates. Now society looks upon change as sacred. Whenever it is possible that someone may be going against the change, people get scared. They do not want any possibility of oppressing change like the Greeks did by executing Socrates. Today's society views change, itself, as sacred. Any reserablance of traditionality or the old-fashioned ways is shunned as terribly wrong.
"No weapons were involved. [It was a] traffic stop, just [a] traffic stop. It just so happens [he was a] college graduate. No drugs. No guns. Nobody stole anything. Something is terrible wrong." The article also goes into some detail about his college football accomplishments. How does that concern someone trying to disarm a police officer? This is similar to the story of Euphiletos and his trial of murder. By law, Euphiletos clearly did the correct thing. However, he still had to defend his actions because Eratosthenes' family wanted to do anything to hurt Euphiletos for (legally) killing Eratosthenes. Apparently selfish attitudes are just the same today as they were more than two thousand years ago.
This situation is not only an example of the perverse democracy, but it also shows, by Aristotle's definition, tyranny. Tyranny is, "a kind of monarchy that has in view the interest of the monarch only." Obviously, Mayor Daley is not a monarch, but he is in the most powerful person at the city level. He perverted his authority to remain in power. His action was not the expression of his personal feelings, but instead a selfish attempt to gain popularity for reelection. He was trying to please the "chanting protesters." This can be construed as either tyranny, or democracy. It reserables democracy in that the government is being run by the mobs for their own self interest. Also, it is similar to tyranny in that the single monarchal ruler is ruling for his self interest instead of for the good of the state.
Another anomalous fact the article stated was that the driver was African-American, and called him a victim. The United States is attempting to spread equality throughout the nation. This is a major change to society. The media is trying to force this equality issue to make people feel as if it is their duty to avenge this death to preserve freedom for African-Americans.
This spurns to the execution of Socrates for promoting different ideas and change. It is apparent today that Socrates had good ideas. Knowing what we do today we would not have executed Socrates. Now society looks upon change as sacred. Whenever it is possible that someone may be going against the change, people get scared. They do not want any possibility of oppressing change like the Greeks did by executing Socrates. Today's society views change, itself, as sacred. Any reserablance of traditionality or the old-fashioned ways is shunned as terribly wrong.
"No weapons were involved. [It was a] traffic stop, just [a] traffic stop. It just so happens [he was a] college graduate. No drugs. No guns. Nobody stole anything. Something is terrible wrong." The article also goes into some detail about his college football accomplishments. How does that concern someone trying to disarm a police officer? This is similar to the story of Euphiletos and his trial of murder. By law, Euphiletos clearly did the correct thing. However, he still had to defend his actions because Eratosthenes' family wanted to do anything to hurt Euphiletos for (legally) killing Eratosthenes. Apparently selfish attitudes are just the same today as they were more than two thousand years ago.