As a local cop, I quickly learned a powerful truism, “there are two sides to every story and somewhere in the middle is the truth.” When sussing out the real world events leading to the volcanic eruption of violence between family members, a careful examination of physical evidence, and thoughtful listening to both parties usually leads to the truth.

The magic exists in allowing for analysis — thought. Within the context of a “he said, she said” battle royale, with frying pans flying thick within the fray and squabble of domestic dispute, you can understand the important balance between the forensic (bruises, scrapes, and bumps), and the nuance the parties themselves reveal within their stories. If a cop were to perform ideologically, thought, experience, and the amalgam of both — judgement — would become mere artifacts pulverized under bulldozing dogma and injustice.

An ideological perspective looks like this: Social justice demands I prioritize the female narrative, despite logical explanation or even the overwhelming presence of physical evidence. Robotically, the facts get compressed to fit the ideological mold. But, if you apply a principle, like “there are two sides to every story…” then the miracle of analysis is possible. Usually, the truth shakes out, and justice prevails.

For the ideological, justice isn’t a factor. Equity (in the jurisprudential sense, not the social) has no part to play. It’s far too difficult to implement justice or equity. Better to just........

© Townhall