It seems to me focusing on eliminating corruption within the organization responsible for protecting us from crime (well, at least if you believe in "protect an

It seems to me focusing on eliminating corruption within the organization responsible for protecting us from crime (well, at least if you believe in "protect and serve" as a judge actually ruled police are not supposed to protect us https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2018/12/19/parkland-shooting-judge-school-cops-no-duty-protect-kids/2360683002/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2018/12/19/parkla...) is more important than being stricter on the criminals that don't happen to be wearing uniforms. Police getting away with murder is a much, much, much bigger problem than non-uniformed citizens getting away with murder. I'm not saying this to be belligerent, but because I want to better understand your perspective. I truly do not understand how you could feel that trying to curb police corruption and letting them get away with murder is a smaller problem than trying to go after more regular criminals (who are being pursued by the corrupt cops and justice system). What do you think is the hierarchy of issues and how should we approach these problems? Or to put it another way, how do you plan to enforce the law when the enforcers are criminals?