4 ms·

> cause them to feel threatened and insecure in the midst of the citizenry they're supposed to be protecting, and motivating them to develop a similar and respo

> cause them to feel threatened and insecure in the midst of the citizenry they're supposed to be protecting, and motivating them to develop a similar and responsive antagonistic attitude Are we still railing against rhetoric? The argument isn't they started it, it's "they have been granted tremendous power, so they need to accept accountability."

saraid216 13y ago
> The argument isn't they started it, it's "they have been granted tremendous power, so they need to accept accountability." Yes. "Fuck the police" really captures that argument well.
- jlgreco 13y ago
  Argument that was actually made: "It's shit like this that flies in the face of all those "but most cops are not bad guys" arguments. If an organization fights to protect bad guys, I don't care how much good they do: they are complicit in furthering criminal behavior. And they're in a position of trust, at that! It's an open secret that cops lie to protect other cops. Why do we allow this? Any other person in a special position of trust and responsibility that contravenes their duty gets _extra_ punishment. Lon Horiuchi was an FBI sniper that shot Vicki Weaver in the back while holding her infant daughter in her arms: case dismissed. That cop that pepper sprayed those protesting kids at UC Davis, John Pike, was never even charged for "lack of evidence" (nevermind that video of him doing so was on every news show in the country that week). The FBI and BATFE set the Branch Davidians' home on fire, burning up the children inside. Instead of meaningful outrage, we simply let cops get away with murder, literally. Fuck the police." What you read: "Fuck the police." Is it really any wonder that you are having problems with this conversation? There is a lot of content in that comment; you appear to have ingested none of it.

4 ms·

> cause them to feel threatened and insecure in the midst of the citizenry they're supposed to be protecting, and motivating them to develop a similar and respo

by darkarmani 13y ago

saraid216 13y ago
> The argument isn't they started it, it's "they have been granted tremendous power, so they need to accept accountability." Yes. "Fuck the police" really captures that argument well.
- jlgreco 13y ago
  Argument that was actually made: "It's shit like this that flies in the face of all those "but most cops are not bad guys" arguments. If an organization fights to protect bad guys, I don't care how much good they do: they are complicit in furthering criminal behavior. And they're in a position of trust, at that! It's an open secret that cops lie to protect other cops. Why do we allow this? Any other person in a special position of trust and responsibility that contravenes their duty gets _extra_ punishment. Lon Horiuchi was an FBI sniper that shot Vicki Weaver in the back while holding her infant daughter in her arms: case dismissed. That cop that pepper sprayed those protesting kids at UC Davis, John Pike, was never even charged for "lack of evidence" (nevermind that video of him doing so was on every news show in the country that week). The FBI and BATFE set the Branch Davidians' home on fire, burning up the children inside. Instead of meaningful outrage, we simply let cops get away with murder, literally. Fuck the police." What you read: "Fuck the police." Is it really any wonder that you are having problems with this conversation? There is a lot of content in that comment; you appear to have ingested none of it.