Police gang criminals in America

That's not how it works. The OP is taking one example of three officers and (with the presumption that they're in the wrong in the first place), attributed the negative to police officers in general. It is a blatant logical fallacy.

I'm not claiming all police officers are perfect (far from it). I'm not claiming all police officers are any one thing. I suggesting that police officers are fundamentally no different to everyone else, subject to the same flaws and foibles as any of us. After all, why wouldn't they be. They are just human beings after all (and I know the ultimate aim of such threads is to dehumanise the police).

If you wish to present the idea that all or most police officers are corrupt thugs, you need to provide evidence implicating most or all police officers. You can't present evidence of a relatively small number of negative incidents, ignore the millions of positive or neutral ones that never make the news and slander hundreds of thousands of people.

 

My quote in this thread before you even showed up here:

 

You made the claim that "there are not "gangs of police criminals in America who can just beat up people without stopping each other"".

I realize that there is no way that you can prove that statement, which is what I was trying to point out. You made a claim for which you have no proof.

 

Sorry, but that is dangerous trash. You're asking us to work on the assumption that police officers are all violent thugs unless proven otherwise. There is zero justification for that unless you wish to extend such negative thinking to everyone in general.

I no more need to prove that there aren't gangs of police beating people up than I need to prove I didn't shoot JFK. The OP made the positive accusation, I am merely challenging it on the basis of the (lack of) evidence he presented.

 

Dangerous trash? Dangerous trash would be to make a blanket statement like "there are not "gangs of police criminals in America who can just beat up people without stopping each other"" when there are numerous instances of cops acting like gangbangers while other cops stand around and watch.

The OP tempered his statement, you did not. You merely made an unfounded and naive statement.

 

Furthermore, your assertion isn't the equivalent of claiming that you never shot JFK. It is the equivalent of asserting that JFK was never shot, period.

 

I'm not asking anyone to do any such thing. I'm merely asking you to stop making asinine and naive assertions that you cannot prove.

 

Thanks................

 

I... wasn't... making... an... assertion.

I was taking the assertion the OP made (and has still failed to back up in any way what so ever) and turning it around to challenge it. I'm explicitly not making any statements about what "the police" do.

The fact remains that even if the officers shown in the OP were entirely in the wrong, the statement made would still be nowhere near being supported.

You have the choice of recognising that and, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, accepting that police officers in general will be no better or worse than any other human being or you can continue to support the anti-police hatred (and all that can lead to) barely hidden behind posts like this.

 

Did you or did you not type this statement?

"Ultimately, that there are not "gangs of police criminals in America who can just beat up people without stopping each other"".

That is an assertion that "gangs of police criminals in America that beat people up without stopping each other" do NOT exist. It would take me only one example of such a thing happening for your assertion to be falsified. Such a task would be too easy.

 

Just put it this way: if you would see your wife, kid or your grandfather handled like that for no reason, you would be most likely very upset at that bunch of cops. and you wouldn't be inventing any possibilities to justify their actions in this case.

 

I'm on the police officer's sides.

People hate on the police for no good reason. You can't enforce the peace without doing this stuff and the guy obviously DID have a weapon.

 

I didn't see a weapon. He had one earlier in the day, a two foot piece of steel if I recall correctly. Did you see that in his possession when he put his hands in the air and then turned around as ordered by the police?

 

I finally got around to watching the video. He didn't have any weapon in his hand and was looking pretty non-threatening to me. He was walking over there kinda like he owned the place (and what do ya know, he did! Read the story). I agree with you though, the police need to beat citizens mercilessly to assert their dominance over the population. Better that then them raping everyone to assert their dominance, right?

Really though is it any wonder the droogs became cops?

 

Yes, as a direct reversal to challenge the accusation in the OP. The intended point (if not entirely clear) was that the incident shown in the OP in no way supports that scale of accusation.

Well, two at least given the plural and really more given the implication behind the words. You would also need to demonstrate them going out with the intention to beat people up rather than the intention to arrest legitimate suspects but sometimes using excessive force (the OP, even with the worst interpretation, didn't depict someone being beaten up).

My real issue is the emotion and rhetoric behind the statement though. The ease of the drift from one example of a questioned arrest leading to a more generalised and escalated statement about what the police do. It was, in my view, a quite deliberate attempt to slander the police in general and that I object to.

 

lol ......................