4 ms·
The point is that it tells us nothing. Once again, just because you provided more details to the story does absolutely nothing to verify those details. We have
by bena 7y ago
The point is that it tells us nothing. Once again, just because you provided more details to the story does absolutely nothing to verify those details. We have only your word.
You're more paying lip service to the idea that you take "huge issue" with police unions and departments sheltering bad actors. You say the words. But you're also here defending them with the whole "they're not all bad" shtick.
And pulling the whole "replace X with Y, well aren't you a racist" card.
There's far more instances of them protecting each other than there are of them protecting us from "the bad actors".
If it were "deeply frightening" to you to think about abusive people being given license to commit violence with impunity, then I don't see how you so readily leap to the defense of law enforcement officers.
- JPKab 7y agoI disagree with you on some points, and therefore my story is made up and I don't have concern about abuse of power. I'll halt my comments now. I'm arguing with an ideologue, obviously. Nice how you didn't debate my points, you just doubled down on your blind, juvenile tribalism, and positioned me as being partisan to the enemy. Ideological possession personified.
- bena 7y agoNo. That's what you're doing here. I even clearly explained why your anecdote was pointless to any argument you might want to make. It's unverifiable and simply an appeal to emotion. I think it's fair to question the motives of someone who would not only do that, but fail to acknowledge it when it was pointed out. You're the one labeling people as "ideologue"s and refusing to bring anything resembling a fact. It's just straight to defense of the police. With the occasional "Oh, I hate abuse too, sure" when called on it.