3 ms·

There's no evidence that even 1% of all police are complicit. What is your standard for "large enough"?

• mikepurvis 9y ago
  Is there evidence of 99% of supposedly non-complicit officers standing with victims, insisting on justice for those guilty? Because that's the standard I'm calling for.
  • weberc2 9y ago
    "Is there evidence of 99% of supposedly non-complicit muslims standing with victims of terrorism, insisting on justice for those guilty?" "Is there evidence of 99% of supposedly non-complicit blacks standing with victims of black crime, insisting on justice for those guilty?" If you assume that everyone in a group is guilty of some crime committed by a tiny fraction because there isn't evidence that 99% of them condemn the guilty, then you're participating in a conspiracy and you're validating a dangerous line of reasoning that can be weaponized against anyone, including groups that you care about and/or belong to.
    • mikepurvis 9y ago
      But police _as an institution_ are entrusted with the public safety. The relationships between the officers and the institution and the institution and the public are both totally different than for the other groups you named. It's not the same at all.
      • weberc2 9y ago
        First of all, police in the U.S. aren't an institution--they're beholden to local governments (and state governments in the case of state patrol). Ergo you can't [reasonably] generalize about police nationally based on a handful of malfeasants. The idea that police nationally get together and conspire violence against the public or even a particular racial group is beyond absurd. This is among the most dubious of conspiracy theories, and I don't know how such theorists can hope to be regarded as credible, reasonable people.