Archives for posts with tag: Justice

This Blog “The Philosopher on Politics has been combined with “A New Paradigm in Christian Thinking”.  All new Posts will appear on effective 12/12/2016.

Thanks for your interest in these topics.

The Philosopher


We got Trouble, Trouble, Trouble, Right here in the U.S.A., It starts
“I-W-Y-L” and that stands for “I Win, You Lose” ver. 1.0.1
The Top Gun National Crises Troubleshooter, Retired


The police forces of the U.S.A. are retaining officers with the attitude that “I win, you lose”. This attitude has made the news in recent events where the officers clearly had this attitude that they were going to win and the alleged suspect is going to lose. It has shown up in Fergusson, Missouri, Chicago, Illinois, and North Charleston, S.C. There are several possibilities for the origin of this attitude of “I win, you lose,” for this attitude has been observed in many circumstances many times.

    Communication Styles:

Communication professionals have identified four different styles of communication and actions: “I win, you lose,” “I win, you win,” “You win, I lose,” and “You win, I lose, but I will get you back.” These styles are also identified by names: Aggressive, Assertive, Submissive, and Passive Aggressive. These styles of communication have also been labeled: Parent to Child, Adult to Adult, Child to Parent, and Loser to Winner. These styles of communication have been characterized as: Tyrant, Adult, Door Mat, and Snake-in-the-Grass.

    The Origin of I Win You Lose:

Psychology has chimed in on this situation of “I win, you lose” origins. Adlerian Psychologist has attributed these tendencies of aggression to their family of origin. For example, the older of two brothers, close in age, could produce a male with aggressive tendencies in the older male developing the “I win, you lose” attitude. The younger brother, having experienced bulling from his older brother, will have the tendency to bully others as well, thinking this is how to treat other people. Therefore, these aggressive “I win, you lose” tendencies could have their roots in the family of origin.

    Military training is all about “I win, you lose.” The transition from being taught to destroy an enemy (“I win, you lose”) in the military to “I win, you win” in civilian life is not always an easy transition to make. We could see many of our war veterans, struggling with this transition to civilian life; it is not easy to reeducate one’s communication style once indoctrinated into an aggressive style, or any of the other dysfunctional styles, of communicating with others.
    The environment that one grows up in can influence their communications and actions. Even one’s formative years in grade school and high school is often shaped by their teachers, who have this “I win, you lose” attitude. If this is how we are going to train our children, can we really expect them to grow up and invent their own assertive “I win, you win” communication style which will precede their actions towards others?

Some of us then send or have sent our children to Sunday school, where hopefully they will learn how to relate to others as equals. But, even in church setting, this writer has witnessed “I win, you lose” attitudes. It seems as if our missions in life can take precedent over our relations with others.


C. G. Jung observed a change in men’s lives between the ages of 35 to 39 years. Working with the general population, he surveyed men of various ages and in this survey he asked them one question: “Is God important in your life?” He received responses like, “God has no meaning in my life” to “God is the most important person in my life.” He plotted this data on an X-Y Cartesian coordinate graph. The results were nothing short of amazing; there was a huge spike in the curve between the ages of 35 and 39 years where the responses changed from God having no influence to God being the most important person. Therefore, it can be concluded that men will often see a transition in their life during this mid-life time period. It could prove to be a very interesting follow-up study to see if these men who transitioned from God having no influence to God being the most important” attended Sunday school in their youth.

We are What We Fight Against:

    Psychologists have also observed that a person will become like what they are fighting against. For our police officers, this is a warning sign. In order for our police officers to maintain their perspective, they need to be associated with a group of people who are not fighting against the behavior that our police officers see every day. If our police officers associate mainly with other police officers, it will be difficult for all the officers to maintain the proper perspective about other people, and a culture of “I win, you lose” can spread throughout the police force.

      The Solution to “I Win, You Lose”:

    It appears that the most effective change we could make in our police forces is to require our officers of the law to participate with a group of people that see a more friendly side of life in our society, such as a church, a charitable nonprofit organization, or a club with charitable objectives. The basic premise for these types of programs can be found in Paul’s writings in I Corinthians Chapter 13 that ends with verse 13: “And these three remain, Faith, Hope, and Love/Charity, but the greatest of these is love/Charity”.

The Shooting in Ferguson, Missouri Ver. 1.0.0


The people, who are demonstrating against not indicting the officer for the death of one of their own, may have a legitimate complaint.  According to the officers own testimony, “He shot at a retreating suspect” an act, at least in California, is forbidding by the law.  Once a threat to your life has turned into retreat, you cannot shoot at this fleeing suspect as they are no longer a threat to your life.  The Grand Jury in this case probably did not know of this law and the Prosecutor in the case did not inform the Grand Jury of this law, or Missouri does not have a law regarding the shooting at a “Retreating Threat”.  Whatever the case may be the Justice System in Missouri appears to be broken.

It looks to this Philosopher that this is a case of differing attitudes.  The Victim’s attitude is that “I know the law and you cannot shoot at me if I am retreating”.  The Police Officer’s attitude is “I win-You lose”.

The demonstrators say that our justice system is broken.  As one who has served on one shooting incident jury, I could not agree more.  My conclusion after serving on this jury is that “I hope I never have to come before a Jury”.

In this case that I served on, a couple of decades ago, some of the Jurors would have convicted this person, not for what he had done, but for who he appeared to be “a member of a gang”.   They were instructed to find this person guilty of something by the Judge in the case because he carried a concealed weapon illegally; therefore, “Self-Defense” was not an option.  With these instructions from the Judge, the accused was either guilty of something he confessed to doing or he was not guilty of something he confessed to doing.    In this case the two neighborhood gangs, actually just a group of friends of different ethnicity, met at a street corner near the victim’s and his friends’ homes.  The gang of friends of the suspects group thought they were going to a gun fight, the gang of friends of the victims thought they were going to a knife fight.  When the Victim ended up chasing the Accused with a large Butterfly knife, the Accused pulled the concealed hand gun from his waist band and fired at the pursuing knife wilding Victim, unfortunately hitting the Victim in the heart along with two peripheral wounds.

Since the two or three preceding ballots, taken no later than our arrival in the Jury Room by this Jury Panel resulted in eleven “Guilty” of something votes and one “Undecided” vote.  And since I had earlier in my answers to the ADA, disclosed that I had formed a neighbor gang in my youth and after high school we had joined larger gangs known as the US Marine Corps, Army, Navy and Air Force and known to one female Juror to be a member of a national laboratory known for its close attention to details, she tried to have me removed from the Jury Panel as being biased to the Accused.  When asked by the Jury Chairman what I thought about this, I stated that “I did not think I was the one with a problem”.  Several of the other Jurors agreed with me.  The female making the removal request recanted and asked that she not be removed from the Jury panel and she would not show prejudice anymore.  I think, since it was Friday and all wanted to be done with this Jury responsibly and return to their own lives next Monday, they allowed her to stay on the Jury Panel.

After I had led a reviewing through the scenario that had taken place on that day of this terrible loss of a young seventeen year olds life, It became evident to me that there was enough responsibly for the death of this young man to go around.   The young man had earlier in the day consumed a six pack of beer with a couple of friends.  Who sold this minor the beer?  The young man was still a minor and needed the supervision of his parents; his father was more interested in watching daytime television than in supervising his son.  His son owned and was in the possession of knives with blades that exceeded the legal limit in form and function.  The suspect was a new immigrant exile of only a few years from a war torn country, where carrying a weapon was probably normal behavior, the suspect most likely new more of our laws from watching Western Movies than from actual classroom instructions.  Is our own Immigration Department responsible for not instructing new immigrants on the laws of our land?  We allow these new immigrants to live among us when they are more likely to behave according to what was “Normal Behavior” in their country of origin than in the laws of the USA.  In the end we, the Taxpayers, “foot the bill” to incarcerate people who should have been taught the laws of our land by the Immigration Department.

When the “Shooting in Fergusson, Missouri” demonstrators say that our Justice system is broken, based on my personal experience in the Jury system, I could not agree more.

Next case: “Death by Cell Phone” A young Black Male Twelve Year Old is in the park playing with his toy gun pointing it at people, who mostly ignored him, with one exception.  A woman calls 911 on her cell phone and reports the incident stating “She didn’t know if the gun was real or not”.  This doubt did not reach the police that responded to her call and when the twelve year old was ordered to raise his hands and instead reached for his waist band, where he had his toy gun, he was shot dead by the police.  Total time of the shooting after the police arrived in their squad car, about two seconds.

It will be interesting to see how this case unfolds.  Was the young Black Make responding to the news reports of the shooting in Fergusson, Missouri?  Was this young man under the supervision of his parents?  What role did the breakdown in communications play in this incident?  Do we have too close a connection, with our cell phones, to the Police for our own good?  Do we set in motion a panic, with our cell phones that result in a tragedy to a family? I’m sure the news rooms will keep us informed of the results of this incident.  Hopefully we will not have a mass revolution on our hands to deal with these injustices.