Would You Rather Trust The Criminals And Terrorists Than Cops And Soldiers?

I remembered some time ago when I posted if the Dilawans would rather trust the criminals than the cops. Another would be that would students belonging to communist groups would rather trust criminals and terrorists over the soldiers and policemen. This really would now summarize the question for anyone who seeks to demonize the military and police for their existence alone as, "Would you rather trust the criminals than cops and soldiers?"

What's the reasoning behind them trusting soldiers and policemen? One of the dumbest reasons I've gotten is because criminals kill "for a reason" and cops they kill "without a reason". Huh? It's really illogical. So is it less heinous if somebody commits murder "for a reason" (ex. activism leading to terrorism) than if somebody just commits murder without a reason. Does a reason make murder less heinous? Murder is defined by the Legal Dictionary as "the killing of a human being by a sane person, with intent, malice aforethought (prior intention to kill the particular victim or anyone who gets in the way) and with no legal excuse or authority". Just the word "intent" here means killing with a reason. So does murder become better because the person kills for a reason?

What has to be remembered is that soldiers and policemen are necessary forces to apprehend criminals and terrorists. The big question is would they trust soldiers and policemen who abuse their authority? It's because soldiers and policemen who break the law should have their badges revoked, their positions thrown out, and they should no longer be considered to be law enforcers. By their logic then policemen and soldiers who violate the rules against abuses should be embraced and the law-abiding ones can't be trusted, right? I guess the policemen who murdered Winston Ragos should be saluted as heroes because they should be considered as criminals.

Also, what's the logic of people who would rather trust the New People's Army (NPA) than the military? The NPA has been doing ACTS OF TERRORISM which is no better than soldiers and policemen who do acts of terrorism. What's the use of hating China as a political entity for incidents like the Tiananmen Square massacre all the while terrorist groups also perform acts of a massacre? So acts of terrorism are "heroic" if it's done by civilians but only heinous when soldiers and policemen do them? Both civilians who do acts of terrorism and law enforcers who do them should be charged with acts of terrorism. Law enforcers who commit such acts of brutality should be dismissed from their post, arrested, and tried like every other criminal since their status has been stripped.

I may not agree with benign0's lack of knowledge with economics but demonizing the police is indeed a dangerous, slippery slope. There are indeed bad cops and soldiers. However, if we do get rid of the functions of the military and police then who will apprehend the criminals? Military and police should be responsible for dealing with bad eggs in their department. It's not the military and police that should be feared for their existence but only bad eggs or when both functions fail to do their duties. It's just like why I'm not for the abolition of the Commission of Human Rights because the real problem is Chito Gascon. In police and military, the real problem is when corrupt people are given positions of authority like Alan LM Purisima. But if police and military are run by law-abiding people then you only need to fear them if you're breaking the law.