Anyway, you say most cops are good and dedicated, yet there are some who are not. I say most cops are good and dedicated, yet there are some who are not. We're essentially saying the same thing, albeit with different ways of saying so, and approaching it from different directions. Just as it is irresponsible to say all cops are bad, it is even more naive to say all cops are good. People as individuals should always be aware that the possibility, remote as it is, always exists that you might be dealing with a bad cop in a given situation. That is the purpose in bringing to people's attention that abuses of the system do indeed happen. Do I really need to put a disclaimer with every post? Sheesh!
ETA: You didn't say all cops are good, but many people do, or imply so.
I'm going to expand on this a bit as some additional thoughts popped in my head this morning.
You are from the system. You have issues with the system, but you feel the need to defend the good and legitimate parts of the system. Nothing wrong with that. Perfectly natural. Perfectly understandable. As such, it is human nature to be more sensitive to criticisms of the system and interpret them (subconsciously?) as all-inclusive attacks on the good parts as well as the bad parts. Maybe even as attacks on you, by extension, as individuals. In other words, you defend the good while admitting the bad does indeed exist, albeit as an exception to the general rule. (That's also what I meant in a previous post about being "too close" to the subject. I was not referencing what an officer sees and has to deal with, but rather the feeling of being personally questioned regarding everything.)
On the flip side, others, many of the so-called "bashers", point out the bad that does indeed exist, which is not necessarily any different from what you point out, just different in presentation. We don't feel the same need to defend the system... defend ourselves, really... because we don't identify ourselves with the system, or the system with us. We're not attacking the whole system, or the good parts of the system, we're only addressing the bad parts of the system. We are more free to focus only on the issue that need addressing and fixing.
If the system consists of A thru Z, and we question A, B, and C, that doesn't mean we are also questioning D thru Z. In fact, we may be perfectly fine with D thru Z. We probably could do a better job of reassuring people that we're fine with D thru Z, but we really shouldn't have to add a disclaimer in every single post, either.
ETA: I am not including those who make blanket statements (on either side) in this discussion.
You are trolling. Stop or you'll be gone from the thread... at the least.
