Is this truly necessary?

[1245A Defender]

Huh?

LMAO

"You don't seem very good at picking them"

Alluding to your belief that I was an anti.

Jack,,, Ive known you a long time!!! I know you are not an anti....

my post you quoted was directed at PALO..

But I still dont know what you meant by FLOOR...

BTW,,, Im glad you didnt burn down when Bastrop caught on fire last summer, I worried a little.

 

[Daylen]

Oh, I agree. I love a good debate.

What I especially like is a debate where both sides engage, and actual thinking occurs. What I especially dislike, however, is an argument where participants do nothing more than levy ad hominem attacks and, in this case, argument ad logicam distractions.

Basically, instead of a rational exchange of perspective, we've got a **** measuring contest. Real mature.

ad hominem logical fallacies used on this forum? NO can't be! What is next, will you suggest some habitually use the strawman fallacy? As Ron White said, "I thought I had won, 'cause the other kid was *speechless*. I thought that's what we were trying to do."

 

[Jack House]

Jack,,, Ive known you a long time!!! I know you are not an anti....

my post you quoted was directed at PALO..

But I still dont know what you meant by FLOOR...

BTW,,, Im glad you didnt burn down when Bastrop caught on fire last summer, I worried a little.

I was talking about when I first started really posting and was a total noob with some questionable ideas. It was mostly just a joke thinking back to the old days.

Floor was a typo, I think I was posting from my Evo? It misinterprets me a LOT. Like today a good friend text me, asking me what I was upto. I tried to respond 'nothing much' but my phone mistook 'much' for 'b****'. :lol:

Oh yeah, I almost worried too! I'll PM you so as not to take the thread offtopic anymore than I already have.

 

[XD9mmFMJ]

why is it insanity?
why?

give an actual reason, not just "derp derp derp cops with rifles derp derp"

How is it not insanity for a FREE PEOPLE to be watched over by men with sniper rifles? Why are you so interested in undermining the freedoms of Americans by having paramilitary forces watching over them?

 

[XD9mmFMJ]

except that's not the pointof contention

clearly, good people of conscience can and will disagree on the propriety (note: i repeatedly disavow they are NECESSARY) of snipers at the superbowl

the previous poster i called out on his lie, which he retracted without admitting it, that having snipers at the SB vs. not having them means that rights are being diminished in the former case

that is simply false, he (sideways) admitted it was, but didn't have the intellectual honesty to outright admit it, because this is the internet, where such a sophist could never admit error

again, i completely accept that there are good arguments on both sides of the issue vis a vis the propriety of snipers

but the fallacious claim that if there are snipers are the superbowl, that rights are being diminished .... i called that out and he skulked away, cowardly, but at least wasn't silly enough to press the issue

The fallacious claim is that someone "sideways" admitted something that they didn't. You are simply making up things and trying to carry out the hegelian dialect all on your own.

Rights are being diminished when free people are policed by snipers. Go ahead and define for us, with your lack of wisdom, how people are free when being scanned by men with sniper rifles. Being held at gunpoint is the definition of tyranny, whether it's a public sporting event, or a firing line.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

To say we don't have a police state, yet we have hundreds of thousands of government LEO and officials "proactively" patrolling is an oxymoron.

 

[PALO]

To say we don't have a police state, yet we have hundreds of thousands of government LEO and officials "proactively" patrolling is an oxymoron.

no, it's not. it just means you want to redefine "police state" so you can 'win' the argument

this is a frequent internet tactic.

that's not what the commonly accepted/used meaning of police state IS

people invent terms like "police state" to describe a certain thing

that thing is... bad

then, what happens is people will try to shoehorn NON matching stuff INTO that definition, since it then gets the cachet of being considered "bad" since by defintion police state = bad

pretty much every nation on earth has LEO's patrolling proactively

obviously, we have a lot, but we also have 300+ million people. the more relevant metric is how many patrolling PER CAPITA.

you wouldn't expect monaco to have as many cops as the USA

duh

anyway, these are just silly internet games and if you want to belive having cops proactively patrolling MAKES a police state, knock yourself out

it's not even sophistry, though. it's just silly, arguably a bald faced lie, and at a minimum intellectually dishonest

our cops are SUBSTANTIALLY restrained (and that's a good thing) by constitutional law, and in the state of WA even more so.

spend about 10 minutes in a police state, and you will realize how RIDICULOUS your claim is

you can complain that too many cops abuse their power (and obviously some do) and that the legal system isn't robust enough at punishing those who do

THAT is at least a rational argument

saying we have a police state is just complete rubbish. although, i will agree that obama's new power to execute on his decision somebody is a terrorist and they are a US citizen and even inside our borders is extremely problematic, even if only used once, that's egregious

but it is not systemic or broad enough to make a police state

heck, in WA cops can't even do roadblocks (which are very limited in other states as to how to do them) for DUI

in a real police state, cops could do roadblocks for ANY reason they want, with essentially NO judicial oversight

this kind of hysterical claim of yours just diminishes your credibility with me

THIS is what a police state means, per the dictionary...

considering that we have amongst the broadest free speech protections in the world (and far more than canada, the UK, etc.) the idea that we match this definition is LAUGHABLE

for pete's sake, we had months of local govt's BENDING OVER BACKWARDS to allow protesters (OWS) to flagrantly trespass, and violate other laws

in a police state, OWS would have lasted about 10 minutes before they were brutally beaten into submission and forcefully removed, EVNE WHEN THEY WERE LAWFULLY PROTESTING, iow not camping overnight in public parks, etc.

police state
 
noun
a nation in which the police, especially a secret police, summarily suppresses any social, economic, or political act that conflicts with governmental policy.

here's a hint: in a police state, there is no way for citizens to recall politicians. we do. there is no way for citizen initiatives to work, since they often, if not usually run counter to govt. policy. also, you can't openly protest govt, etc. the very fact that you can make such RIDICULOUS criticisms here, or anywhere else, and make any criticisms of govt you want is PROOF we are not a police state

we have journalists, ordinary people, etc. not only routinely criticize the govt here (which is good), but we have countless examples of ordinary citizens exposing truths that RUIN politicians. for pete's sake, in this country, a single person can SUE a sitting person for sexual harassment that (allegedly) occurred years earlier. that could NEVER happen in a police state

heck, in our country, it's even completely legal to lie about govt., etc. whereas in many countries e.g. italy, it's a CRIME to "libel the police" which is what amanda knox's parents were CHARGED WITH for criticizing the investigation

again, i am as fierce an opponent of govt. misconduct as anybody. but the fact that somebody can sit here and claim we are a police state, is just proof positive we aren't. you just look RIDICULOUS

fwiw, i've spent some time in a police state. e.g. nicaragua (years ago)

 

[XD9mmFMJ]

More police ALWAYS equals a police state. Palo can't stop calling people hysterical, or stop defending abuses of our rights. It's obvious what his intent is. He sounds like he is one of Stalin's best friends.

 

[marshaul]

He sounds like he is one of Stalin's best friends.

Best laugh I've had all day. :lol:

 

[ncwabbit]

Coughing up a bit of flem

PALO how can you even type your statement: our cops are SUBSTANTIALLY restrained (and that's a good thing) by constitutional law.

i noticed you did not respond to the police/federal agent constitutional law abuses i mentioned in a previous post...

quote: ...a nation in which the police, especially a secret police, unquote

what about the homeland security force roaming the countryside?

quote:...in a police state, there is no way for citizens to recall politicians...unquote

when was the last time a member of congress was recalled?


wabbit

ps: PALO a cite for police who do not abuse their constitutional authority...
http://www.injusticeeverywhere.com/?page_id=4135#_Misconduct_by_Type

pps: even something from seattle pd...http://www.pixiq.com/article/seattle-cops-caught-on-cam-threatening-to-make-up-evidence

 

[Jack House]

No knock warrants, police raids on wrong addresses/fake evidence, increasing number of government security cameras, increased number of federal agents, door to door searches, gun confiscation, paranoid level of "security", declaration that everyone is a potential terrorist, terrorist watch lists with more names than many states have residents, police brutality, illegal stops and seizures, illegal arrests, frivolous laws criminalizing ridiculous things, police and government immunity etc etc etc.

I'm pretty sure this is a police state.

Posted using my HTCEvo via Tapatalk

 

[PALO]

More police ALWAYS equals a police state. Palo can't stop calling people hysterical, or stop defending abuses of our rights. It's obvious what his intent is. He sounds like he is one of Stalin's best friends.

again, if you want to fantasize and create your OWN personal definition of "police state", it does.

except that's not what police state MEANS.

if you aren't interested in facts and truth, what's the point

you can argue that MORe police = a police state, but all that is , is a semantical wank with a REdefinition of the phrase 'police state'

i can argue you are clearly a drunk, if i define "drunk" as "a person who makes false statements on the internet"

however, that adds no value to the conversation, and it is what you are doing.

discussing issues is one thing. arguing over definition of words, where especially you are making up your own definition of a word is otoh stupid

fwiw, WA (where i live) has amongst the lowest # of police per capita of any state in the country.

what would be a RATIONAL argument, if you were interested in facts, would be to argue that more police per capita makes it easier FOR a police state to form, since the state has more personnel to implement one

however, again, the defining issue with police state is HOW the police (and usually the secret police) are USED. it doesn't have to do with #'s of cops. it has to do with their power within a system to prevent any dissent from the powers that be

and as i have explained, using actual pesky facts, we have greater free speech rights and right to criticize anything (including the fact that we do not have "hate speech' laws like most of europe and canada), which means we are, by definition NOT a police state

again, unlike your rhetoric, i have spent time in a REAL police state, where people were literally executed for dissenting/criticizing govt.

you are like a 12 yr old who calls his mother a "fascist" because she tells him he needs to be home at 10 pm on a school night

 

[sudden valley gunner]

I'll attempt to reply, I do want to mention your lack of sentence structure, capitalization, or paragraphs make it harder.

no, it's not. it just means you want to redefine "police state" so you can 'win' the argument

this is a frequent internet tactic.

that's not what the commonly accepted/used meaning of police state IS

people invent terms like "police state" to describe a certain thing

that thing is... bad

then, what happens is people will try to shoehorn NON matching stuff INTO that definition, since it then gets the cachet of being considered "bad" since by defintion police state = bad

pretty much every nation on earth has LEO's patrolling proactively

obviously, we have a lot, but we also have 300+ million people. the more relevant metric is how many patrolling PER CAPITA.

you wouldn't expect monaco to have as many cops as the USA

duh

anyway, these are just silly internet games and if you want to belive having cops proactively patrolling MAKES a police state, knock yourself out

it's not even sophistry, though. it's just silly, arguably a bald faced lie, and at a minimum intellectually dishonest

our cops are SUBSTANTIALLY restrained (and that's a good thing) by constitutional law, and in the state of WA even more so.

spend about 10 minutes in a police state, and you will realize how RIDICULOUS your claim is

you can complain that too many cops abuse their power (and obviously some do) and that the legal system isn't robust enough at punishing those who do

THAT is at least a rational argument

saying we have a police state is just complete rubbish. although, i will agree that obama's new power to execute on his decision somebody is a terrorist and they are a US citizen and even inside our borders is extremely problematic, even if only used once, that's egregious

but it is not systemic or broad enough to make a police state

heck, in WA cops can't even do roadblocks (which are very limited in other states as to how to do them) for DUI

in a real police state, cops could do roadblocks for ANY reason they want, with essentially NO judicial oversight

this kind of hysterical claim of yours just diminishes your credibility with me

THIS is what a police state means, per the dictionary...

considering that we have amongst the broadest free speech protections in the world (and far more than canada, the UK, etc.) the idea that we match this definition is LAUGHABLE

for pete's sake, we had months of local govt's BENDING OVER BACKWARDS to allow protesters (OWS) to flagrantly trespass, and violate other laws

in a police state, OWS would have lasted about 10 minutes before they were brutally beaten into submission and forcefully removed, EVNE WHEN THEY WERE LAWFULLY PROTESTING, iow not camping overnight in public parks, etc.

police state
 
noun
a nation in which the police, especially a secret police, summarily suppresses any social, economic, or political act that conflicts with governmental policy.

here's a hint: in a police state, there is no way for citizens to recall politicians. we do. there is no way for citizen initiatives to work, since they often, if not usually run counter to govt. policy. also, you can't openly protest govt, etc. the very fact that you can make such RIDICULOUS criticisms here, or anywhere else, and make any criticisms of govt you want is PROOF we are not a police state

we have journalists, ordinary people, etc. not only routinely criticize the govt here (which is good), but we have countless examples of ordinary citizens exposing truths that RUIN politicians. for pete's sake, in this country, a single person can SUE a sitting person for sexual harassment that (allegedly) occurred years earlier. that could NEVER happen in a police state

heck, in our country, it's even completely legal to lie about govt., etc. whereas in many countries e.g. italy, it's a CRIME to "libel the police" which is what amanda knox's parents were CHARGED WITH for criticizing the investigation

again, i am as fierce an opponent of govt. misconduct as anybody. but the fact that somebody can sit here and claim we are a police state, is just proof positive we aren't. you just look RIDICULOUS

fwiw, i've spent some time in a police state. e.g. nicaragua (years ago)

You base your attack on the definition of police state and then leave out many definition of police state. It is not hysteria to want to roll back the amount of policing we have in this country, and just because it hasn't reached the degree of Nazi Germany or Stalin or Nicaragua doesn't mean it isn't a police state. And you conveniently focus on the definition of police state that only pertains to your side of the argument. I can give a rat's ass that we aren't as much of a police state as other countries. You continually accuse other of fallacious arguments and then try to bring the tired explanation 'we are not a real police' state by using the fallacy of comparing us to other countries that over police their populations too. That misses the point.



You are either have blinders on or are purposefully being obtuse, to think we don't have repressive governmental control over our political, economic and social life and that these things are not "policed". You claim we have "freedoms" but how many of those choices are regulated and policed? It's as Ludwig Von Mises pointed out you still achieve socialism by legislating so many rules that you control the people and businesses and their private property with the illusion of freedom and liberty because hey we don't own your company or your property. It still achieves the goal of socialism.

Likewise you also can have a police state by saying "we let you do this and this" so we are not a police state, but if the same goal is social and economic control of the people you are a police state no matter how much you try to deny it. Big 'whoop' you can sue a politician, the average person don't have those funds. And since you bring up Washington, it is one of the worse states for citizens vs. cops. We have a very high corruption rate yet a very low punishment rate it is practically impossible to hold a cop responsible for his actions here. This doesn't even take into consideration all the other policing we have her, Labor and Industries, WISHA, Environmental, Building on and on and on just about every aspect of your life is governed by some law, and that law is policed, get it?

And you miss the point on proactive policing. Proactive policing is mostly done to catch people breaking state laws for the sake of state law otherwise malum prohibitum, most these things ordinary citizens wouldn't prosecute or bring other citizens to court for. And you try to say that isn't a sign of a police state, take off the blinders.

Most malum en se crimes are brought to the police or the police react to them after the fact, proactive policing rarely stops these. And most these crimes are solved by citizens turning in the wrong doer. For instance the snipers at the stadium more than likely won't prevent anything from happening they react to something happening.

again, if you want to fantasize and create your OWN personal definition of "police state", it does.

except that's not what police state MEANS.

if you aren't interested in facts and truth, what's the point

you can argue that MORe police = a police state, but all that is , is a semantical wank with a REdefinition of the phrase 'police state'

i can argue you are clearly a drunk, if i define "drunk" as "a person who makes false statements on the internet"

however, that adds no value to the conversation, and it is what you are doing.

discussing issues is one thing. arguing over definition of words, where especially you are making up your own definition of a word is otoh stupid

fwiw, WA (where i live) has amongst the lowest # of police per capita of any state in the country.

what would be a RATIONAL argument, if you were interested in facts, would be to argue that more police per capita makes it easier FOR a police state to form, since the state has more personnel to implement one

however, again, the defining issue with police state is HOW the police (and usually the secret police) are USED. it doesn't have to do with #'s of cops. it has to do with their power within a system to prevent any dissent from the powers that be

and as i have explained, using actual pesky facts, we have greater free speech rights and right to criticize anything (including the fact that we do not have "hate speech' laws like most of europe and canada), which means we are, by definition NOT a police state

again, unlike your rhetoric, i have spent time in a REAL police state, where people were literally executed for dissenting/criticizing govt.

you are like a 12 yr old who calls his mother a "fascist" because she tells him he needs to be home at 10 pm on a school night

You keep concentrating on the amount of police you are missing the point. And again just because we have a few more liberties than other countries doesn't mean we have to be happy about the other aspects of a police state and overcriminalization of about everything. Do you really think in Nicaragua the people said 'hey lets have a police state'. Or that it happened gradually? Just because it happens more gradually here because of legal limitations that many cops would love to do away with, (read their disgusting comments on their websites) it takes longer. Hell it took Washington over a hundred years for prosecutors with the help of judges to "outlaw" by case law the lawful right to resist an unlawful arrest.

Just because you are satisfied we are not Nicaragua (yet) doesn't mean we have to be. You do realize Germans thought they were free under Nazism right? In case you didn't read "They thought they were free", by Milton Mayer.

To deny we are a police state when we have 5% of the world population yet 25% of the worlds prison population? Either we are a very bad country or we are policed way too much, ie police state no matter what definition you insist on using.

P.S. I am still waiting for you to back up the claim Marshaul is a liar? Or are you ignoring that because as you continue to attack people and call them names and insist they back up what they say you will not do the same?

 

[Gil223]

Ask, and you shall receive...

You base your attack on the definition of police state and then leave out many definition of police state.

FWIW, the definition of a "Police State" according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary:

"Definition of POLICE STATE: a political unit characterized by repressive governmental control of political, economic, and social life usually by an arbitrary exercise of power by police and especially secret police in place of regular operation of administrative and judicial organs of the government according to publicly known legal procedures."

Does our government arbitrarily control political life? In some ways they probably do - political appointments within the administration and the judiciary come immediately to mind. But is it truly the government that does this, or a "shadow government" (the "behind the scenes" players - those who control the politicians via financial support and other - perhaps less legal - means)? I know... questions leading to more questions don't answer a thing, but they do provoke thought and, hopefully, the cordial exchange of those thoughts and ideas (as opposed to name calling, and the questioning of other peoples intelligence).

Does our government arbitrarily control "economic life"? You bet they do! (or at least, the government is the apparent active party). Unnecessary and frivolous government spending, lending, borrowing, grants, bailouts, cellphone purchases and maintenance fees for the "underprivileged" ($1.6B last year alone), unreasonable perks for our elected officials, supporting those who have made "welfare" the family business for generations, etc. Inflation is driven by uncontrolled "government spending", which is why the dollar in your wallet will buy you about thirty cents worth of goods and services.

Does our government arbitrarily control our social life? If "our" is just those of us who carry (which it ain't), I believe that the government does so to an unnecessary degree. If "our" is all-encompassing of our general population, and its social interactions, then not so much.

Which makes me wonder if these acts are truly "arbitrary", or do they have a specific nefarious intent behind them?

Do we truly have organized "secret police"? I don't think so, but that is an arguable point. Hell, even the CIA isn't a "secret"! Do we have individual enforcement officers who conduct themselves in the manner of secret police? I believe we do, but... we have people in all positions of power who choose to wield and abuse that power (I accept that as a 'fact', simultaneously realizing that doesn't make it "okay"... it's just how it is).

Have the police, as a matter of policy, bypassed the judicial system and standard legal proceedings? Not that I'm aware of, but perhaps my world-view is a bit different than most folks. Even a "No-knock Warrant" must be requested by the DA and issued over the signature of a judge, before it can be served by LE - after breaking down the suspect's door. The only general exception I know of (and, unlike some, I do not believe myself to be omniscient) is that under "exigent circumstances" a warrant may not be required.

Does our national condition meet the dictionary definition of "police state"? My personal opinion is - not technically - but it may be progressing too quickly in that direction. This whole post is "my personal opinion", other than the $1.6B statistic which, if it isn't, should be public knowledge. I await with bated breath the customary gangbang for having the audacity to post an "opinion". Pax...

 

[marshaul]

Do we truly have organized "secret police"?

The existence of the Gestapo was never secret; it was the extent of their authority, actions, detainments and executions that was so hard to get a handle on.

Have the police, as a matter of policy, bypassed the judicial system and standard legal proceedings? Not that I'm aware of, but perhaps my world-view is a bit different than most folks. Even a "No-knock Warrant" must be requested by the DA and issued over the signature of a judge, before it can be served by LE - after breaking down the suspect's door. The only general exception I know of (and, unlike some, I do not believe myself to be omniscient) is that under "exigent circumstances" a warrant may not be required.

They've co-opted the system to it completely serves their ends. Incidentally, the definition is in this regard incorrect, at least if the Nazis are representative of a police state. Hitler was big on the law. He changed it to suit his ends willy-nilly, but the Gestapo always acted with the full backing of the courts and other elements of the legal system and government.

They never had a need to "bypass the judicial system". It supported them nearly without question.

 

[Gil223]

Incidentally, the definition is in this regard incorrect, at least if the Nazis are representative of a police state. Hitler was big on the law. He changed it to suit his ends willy-nilly, but the Gestapo always acted with the full backing of the courts and other elements of the legal system and government.

They never had a need to "bypass the judicial system". It supported them nearly without question.

If you don't like the definition, take it up with Merriam-Webster. Hitler (as did England's Kings and Queens, until the late-19th century) made the laws of Nazi Germany, and therefore was "the law", and the Gestapo was his enforcement arm - of course they had the backing of the courts. (Kinda like Obama's unconstitutional "recess appointment" of Richard Cordray... when Congress was still in session) The "King" can do no wrong! Pax...

 

[PALO]

If you don't like the definition, take it up with Merriam-Webster. Hitler (as did England's Kings and Queens, until the late-19th century) made the laws of Nazi Germany, and therefore was "the law", and the Gestapo was his enforcement arm - of course they had the backing of the courts. (Kinda like Obama's unconstitutional "recess appointment" of Richard Cordray... when Congress was still in session) The "King" can do no wrong! Pax...

good point. and again, the people who (imo) are on the factually incorrect side of this argument, even if they WERE right, are still just involved in a "definition wank"

iow, instead of using questionable terminology that begs a question... just say what you think is wrong with the US system

fwiw, again, i have been *in* an actual police state. the oppression was palpable. the idea that we, in the US, with the immense freedoms we have, in areas from criticism of govt, to unpopular speech in general, to citizen initiatives, etc. are living in a "police state" is the kind of rhetoric that just results in MEGO moments for me. do i think the govt, particularly the feds have TOO MUCH POWER?

hell ya. not even a close question. they have way too much power, and the expansion of the CClause is an abomination and a complete distortion of constitutional principles

but it is a FAR FAR cry from a police state

OWS, the Tea Party et al could not even exist in a police state

 

[marshaul]

If you don't like the definition, take it up with Merriam-Webster. Hitler (as did England's Kings and Queens, until the late-19th century) made the laws of Nazi Germany, and therefore was "the law", and the Gestapo was his enforcement arm - of course they had the backing of the courts. (Kinda like Obama's unconstitutional "recess appointment" of Richard Cordray... when Congress was still in session) The "King" can do no wrong! Pax...

So are you saying Nazi Germany wasn't a police state?

 

[Herr Heckler Koch]

Y'all do know that daily reports are being made to Incompetano Big Sis of the Department of Homiez Severity? Anyone denying the efficacy of the police is per se a resistant American and bears watching. Now I just need a googley-eyed bear cartoon.

 

[Gil223]

So are you saying Nazi Germany wasn't a police state?

Sudden Valley Gunner asked for a definition of the term "police state". The generally accepted source for definitions is a dictionary, which definition I provided. Now you seem to wish to make the discussion about Nazi Germany. Where did you see the statement "Nazi Germany wasn't a police state" in my post? That's an erroneous inference by extension on your part. Hitler was a dictator, which makes him a de facto "supreme ruler". As such, his will could not be successfully challenged, and his will was definitely imposed upon the German judicial system. In April of 1933, the Nazis had transferred jurisdiction over treason cases from the Supreme Court to a new People’s Court (Volksgerichtshof), which soon became the most dreaded tribunal in the land. It consisted of two professional judges and five others chosen from among party officials, the feared Shutzstaffel (SS) and the armed forces, thus giving the latter a majority vote. There was no appeal from its decisions or sentences and usually its sessions were held on camera. Occasionally, however, for propaganda purposes when relatively light sentences were to be given, foreign correspondents were invited to attend.

In addition to the People’s Court, which handled treason cases, the Nazis also set up the Special Court, which handled cases of political crimes or “insidious attacks against the government.” These courts consisted of three judges, who invariably had to be trusted party members, without a jury. A Nazi prosecutor had the choice of bringing action in such cases before either an ordinary court or the Special Court, and invariably he chose the latter, for obvious reasons. Defense lawyers before this court, as before the Volksgerichtshof (People's Court), had to be approved by Nazi officials. Sometimes even if they were approved they fared badly. (The lawyers who attempted to represent the widow of Dr. Klausener, the Catholic Action leader murdered in the Blood Purge, in her suit for damages against the State were whisked off to Sachsenhausen concentration camp, where they were kept until they formally withdrew the action.)

If Nazi Germany didn't meet the definition of a "police state", then there is no such thing as a police state! He OWNED the courts of Nazi Germany - of course they supported him!! What didn't you understand about that? Pax...