Where does ANYTHING I wrote suggest I don’t understand that? There is a difference you learn, if you’re aware of people and learn from your experiences in “the greatest social science lab class” you can take, in enforcement of the law that there is a difference between hard core criminals and people at crisis.
This guy, who was here legally, served his adopted nation and did it well, got majorly injured in that service and involved with drugs reads like the latter, not the former.
I was a good LEO. I didn’t just enforce the law, I literally tried to serve my community by learning about its people in that service. I let that learning, within the scope of the laws and my general orders, guide that service.
What you think of me makes no difference. You want to attack my opinions, have at it. If you can make a case I’ll acknowledge it. Always have with others who did so. If you want to attack me, especially without possibly knowing a thing about me, like I said on that (no reason to repeat it). Go all ad hominem. I figure you’re only hurting your own reputation with it.
That’s a misunderstanding and if I contributed to that I sincerely apologize.
My comment in ‘esprit de corp” was about your opinion in regard to a fellow military person. I thought, and still do think, it lacks empathy for your own kind and that is part of “esprit de corp”. It wasn’t a comment on the value of your service. I thought that was clear but if it wasn’t, again, sorry for not making that clearer.
I clearly stated I thought you were violating ethics of Golden Rule Ethical Thinking in treating one of your own differently than you’d have yourself treated under like circumstances. That is what the “esprit de corps” comment was in reference to.
That’s not gibberish. You don’t think others give it a passing thought as they read past it. I doubt they give it more than a second or two but they do judge.
And so you double down. Nice.

.