General Police Abuse Thread

[Alyrium Denryle]

You bring up an interesting point. I think you're right. White supremacists have always been in law enforcement which vary among departments, however, that's more of an issue with the people that exist in this country as a whole. Have you considered that?

Yes. This is a looooong term goal. *Sighs mournfully*

Who do you think I send to prison? Most of the stuff I work on is crimes of violence and property crimes. I haven't written a moving violation in nearly seven years and the same is true for drug arrests.

I know you haven't. But it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter what someone goes to prison for, forcing them to work for the state or for a private enterprise without being paid - or with only nominal pay - is wrong. It'd be one thing to be like "Hey guys, so we're willing to pay you to help raise Hellbenders in partnership with the zoo, we figure the experience of having to take care of something will be good for you and it gives you a marketable skill in aquaculture. Any takers?"

It's another to be like "So guys, we're gonna pay you three dollars per day to fight fires in California's wilderness, and we're gonna put you in the most dangerous spots like a soviet penal battalion." Because California does that. And it's fucked up.

Like I said above you have one problem with your dream here. White supremacy might be the majority in this country. Don't get me wrong I'm not saying we shouldn't try but I think your solution to move from capitalism to communism is missing the point.

I don't think it is, because the root of the problem is capitalism. We should definitely do Harm Reduction in the interim, especially because I have no idea when or even if a societal transition is ever going to take place.

It's like the 777 Max's TCAS system. Your plane wants to plummet into the ground every five seconds, and the root of that problem is a complex system that you don't have the ability to rip out and replace at the moment. But just because there is a more permanent solution to the problem doesn't mean you don't get your co-pilot and yourself to pull back on the stick as hard as you can to keep the plane in the air.

[MKSheppard]

I mean, that could be a coincidence. But who the hell is actually going to believe that?

Definitely puts the preceding comments about juries being potentially afraid to rule against a cop in a new light.

From Joshua Brown's attire during the Botham case (A dragonball Z shirt? really? In a murder case?) and his given profession "managing Airbnb rental properties"; I think there's a solid case to be made for someone watching the trial, and going:

*points to TV*

"ISN'T THAT THE SON OF A BITCH WHO SET US UP BEFORE?"

We'll see as the Brown murder case progresses.

[Gandalf]

Self gratification in what way?

The tear is all down crowd, the All Cops Are Bastards crowd, the no good cops crowd. Those people that say those things say it for self gratification. It makes them feel good to say it.

I assume you've something to back that assertion?

[Kamakazie Sith]

I assume you've something to back that assertion?

I do. Their lack of backing their assertion.

EDIT - Anytime someone brings up those as a serious argument they either completely fail to provide evidence, disappear when challenged, or amend their statement. I have never seen someone actually support these but if you think you can then by all means.

Tear it all down - Basically these people claim the only solution is to fire all police and start over.

ACAB and No Good Cops - Redundant on my part. The title is self explanatory. Though if you need clarification then please let me know.

[Gandalf]

I assume you've something to back that assertion?

I do. Their lack of backing their assertion.

EDIT - Anytime someone brings up those as a serious argument they either completely fail to provide evidence, disappear when challenged, or amend their statement. I have never seen someone actually support these but if you think you can then by all means.

Tear it all down - Basically these people claim the only solution is to fire all police and start over.

ACAB and No Good Cops - Redundant on my part. The title is self explanatory. Though if you need clarification then please let me know.

Imagine you're a minority in the US, especially one prone to "extra police attention" to put it nicely. Add in the abuses of power like those seen in this thread, and systemic issues that have been raised. Why should anyone trust that system, much less the people who work in it?

[Darth Yan]

I assume you've something to back that assertion?

I do. Their lack of backing their assertion.

EDIT - Anytime someone brings up those as a serious argument they either completely fail to provide evidence, disappear when challenged, or amend their statement. I have never seen someone actually support these but if you think you can then by all means.

Tear it all down - Basically these people claim the only solution is to fire all police and start over.

ACAB and No Good Cops - Redundant on my part. The title is self explanatory. Though if you need clarification then please let me know.

Imagine you're a minority in the US, especially one prone to "extra police attention" to put it nicely. Add in the abuses of power like those seen in this thread, and systemic issues that have been raised. Why should anyone trust that system, much less the people who work in it?

Because people are not a monolith and like it or not there HAVE been those who have done the right thing or tried to fight against corruption. Some officers really DO join to make a difference. Police organizations in general need reform and it's going to be an uphill battle but burning the entire thing to the ground RARELY works at all. It's basically a gut reaction rather than logic

There's also the fact that being on the receiving end of abuse doesn't justify being an asshole in return.

This is where we run into a bind. Yes, you can reform the system by utilizing mechanisms that are already in place. And yes, police have a place in public safety and crime investigation I have no desire to get rid of. However, the police also exist to enforce the often-oppressive laws of the state which is controlled largely by Capital, and have never in the entire history of policing been a force for positive social or economic change. The institution of policing has always been there ready to break up strikes, disperse even peaceful protests, suppress civil rights marchers, and have done far far worse. It is inaccurate to say that law enforcement has been infiltrated by white supremacists for example. They've always been there. And even when they don't make up the majority, they still enforce the laws of a country built by white supremacists literally on the backs of black people. Hell, the people you send to prison right now are de facto enslaved - and I know you object to that but white supremacy is a tool of capitalism so... look what capitalism makes you do.

So in order to have our cake and eat it - because we do need specialists who are trained to intervene in sticky situations and investigate crimes - there's more than just the reforms mentioned that will have to be done. We have to break capitalism on the wheel for starters. So much has to change - from the economy to government, to the very culture of policing institutions... that it is highly probable that there won't be a lot of resemblance to what we have now when we're done. Except the badges.

That's gonna take a while, so by all means we need to do all the other stuff... but until that does happen, it's going to be a constant battle to keep the reforms in place, and we're still gonna be playing Racist Cop Whackamole.

Except that communism is just as much a miserable failure as capitalism is. When EVERY attempt to start a communist nation has failed miserably or dissolved into an oppressive shithole it's safe to say that Stalin and his ilk were less anomalies and more faithful end results. That capitalism is a miserable failure as well doesn't undo communism's sins.

[Ralin]

Imagine you're a minority in the US, especially one prone to "extra police attention" to put it nicely. Add in the abuses of power like those seen in this thread, and systemic issues that have been raised. Why should anyone trust that system, much less the people who work in it?

Because that system is part of the country that gives them their rights and which they've benefited from in other ways like sanitation, housing, access to education, hospitals and various welfare programs. Most of them are also US citizens. They owe it to society to trust and work with the government as much as possible, because without that system they'd be worse off and probably dead.

[loomer]

I see plenty of anarchists who will actively back up and argue the ACAB position (shit, you can't really be an anarchist without holding that ACAB or its slightly softer cousin, Some Cops Are Okay But They All Serve The State, Which Is a Bastard), so I don't get where this idea that people who say it always refuse to do so comes from.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Except that communism is just as much a miserable failure as capitalism is. When EVERY attempt to start a communist nation has failed miserably or dissolved into an oppressive shithole it's safe to say that Stalin and his ilk were less anomalies and more faithful end results. That capitalism is a miserable failure as well doesn't undo communism's sins.

And if you want to talk about descending into an oppressive shithole, Capitalism kills 7.3 million people every year due to starvation alone - using current stats, it used to be worse. Each year, the Holodomor.

Do you really want me to engage in additional side by side comparisons? Because I can absolutely do that.

Bluntly, you haven't read Marx, and are operating from a position of ignorance. You want to know why Marxist-Leninism fails? Because the people implementing it misread what Marx was talking about, and never reorganized the relationship between labor and the fruits of that labor. The workers went to the factory and instead of a capitalist there was a state official. All they achieved was State Capitalism, which was better than private capitalism, but not actually anything even close to an implementation of Marxism.

In order to actually achieve what Marx was talking about, they would have had to turn over power directly to the working class. That is what a dictatorship of the proleteriat means. Not an actual dictatorship, but an expansion of democracy not just to governmental affairs (which the soviets didn't do), but to the economic sphere as well. Where the workers decide how the company runs and how the surplus value (Defined as the value produced over and above what everyone needs to survive) is distributed.

Go read Das Kapital, admit you don't actually know what you're talking about, or shut the fuck up.

[bilateralrope]

Not sure if this goes here, as it's not the police who screwed this up but other parts of the justice system. But if you want a story about capitalism taking a simple idea and screwing it up, here you are:

GPS COMPANY REMOVES SUSPECTED KILLER'S ANKLE MONITOR AFTER HE FAILED TO PAY MONTHLY FEE

BY SCOTT MCDONALD ON 10/3/19 AT 8:50 PM EDT

A man in Texas charged with capital murder was released on bond this summer and ordered to wear an ankle bracelet for constant monitoring. Clint Walker, the accused killer, was responsible for paying the monthly fee to the GPS service provider.

When Walker didn't maintain the payments that were a condition of his $100,000 bond, the GPS company Guarding Public Safety removed the required monitor, according to KHOU, the CBS affiliate in Houston.

Harris County District Attorney Kim Ogg said Guarding Public Safety sent one of its representatives to remove the ankle monitor on September 19.

Ogg said this "loophole" in the ankle monitoring process is "troubling," particularly in cases like this one where someone charged with murder has been able to walk free for at least two weeks. Houston police arrested Walker on Wednesday.

Walker is accused of shooting and killing Enrique Garcia nearly three years ago. Enrique's son, Hugo Garcia, was already upset that Walker was released on bond. When he learned that Walker was walking free after the ankle monitoring loophole, he wanted answers.

"It's a concern to me and it raises multiple flags as to answers that I need," Garcia said.

David Mitcham, the first assistant district attorney in Harris County, said his office is looking into the matter to make sure it's not a common occurrence.

"We have identified approximately 173 cases where individuals are out on bond for murder," Mitcham said. "And if they are required to wear a GPS device, we want that condition of bond maintained. And we have notified the proper authorities to look into this matter to make sure this is not a widespread problem."

Teresa May, who is director of the Harris County Community Supervision and Corrections Department, said this is not widespread in the county, but that Guarding Public Safety violated its part of a memorandum of understanding, and that the county parted ways with them after removing Walker's ankle monitor without the department's permission.

"The vendor was immediately terminated because of serious violations of the memorandum of understanding," said May, who added this is the first time she remembers anything like this happening in her 20 years in the department.

As for Hugo Garcia, he's hoping this is the only, and last time, this happens.

"Who is watching these people that have prior records and are allowed to roam the streets?" he asked.

May said her department should have been contacted before removal of Walker's ankle bracelets, and that after the termination with Guarding Public Safety, other defendants wearing the monitors have been transferred to other GPS monitoring companies.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Imagine you're a minority in the US, especially one prone to "extra police attention" to put it nicely. Add in the abuses of power like those seen in this thread, and systemic issues that have been raised. Why should anyone trust that system, much less the people who work in it?

I empathize with those people but this is an emotional argument. I'm asking for a logical evidence based one.

I see plenty of anarchists who will actively back up and argue the ACAB position (shit, you can't really be an anarchist without holding that ACAB or its slightly softer cousin, Some Cops Are Okay But They All Serve The State, Which Is a Bastard), so I don't get where this idea that people who say it always refuse to do so comes from.

I would love to hear those arguments.

[loomer]

Imagine you're a minority in the US, especially one prone to "extra police attention" to put it nicely. Add in the abuses of power like those seen in this thread, and systemic issues that have been raised. Why should anyone trust that system, much less the people who work in it?

I empathize with those people but this is an emotional argument. I'm asking for a logical evidence based one.

I see plenty of anarchists who will actively back up and argue the ACAB position (shit, you can't really be an anarchist without holding that ACAB or its slightly softer cousin, Some Cops Are Okay But They All Serve The State, Which Is a Bastard), so I don't get where this idea that people who say it always refuse to do so comes from.

I would love to hear those arguments.

Well, before I launch into them, you just dismissed one of those arguments as 'emotional' rather than logical. Trust is always an emotional issue, so dismissing arguments about the trustworthiness or untrustworthiness of the police on that basis is frankly dumb as shit. Would you care to explain why you feel otherwise?

[Kamakazie Sith]

Imagine you're a minority in the US, especially one prone to "extra police attention" to put it nicely. Add in the abuses of power like those seen in this thread, and systemic issues that have been raised. Why should anyone trust that system, much less the people who work in it?

I empathize with those people but this is an emotional argument. I'm asking for a logical evidence based one.

I see plenty of anarchists who will actively back up and argue the ACAB position (shit, you can't really be an anarchist without holding that ACAB or its slightly softer cousin, Some Cops Are Okay But They All Serve The State, Which Is a Bastard), so I don't get where this idea that people who say it always refuse to do so comes from.

I would love to hear those arguments.

Well, before I launch into them, you just dismissed one of those arguments as 'emotional' rather than logical. Trust is always an emotional issue, so dismissing arguments about the trustworthiness or untrustworthiness of the police on that basis is frankly dumb as shit. Would you care to explain why you feel otherwise?

We aren’t talking about trust you fucking moron. Not trusting the police is a logical response backed by evidence. However, just because I don’t trust a stranger does not mean I think they are pieces of shit. The ACAB, no good cops, clearly do. It is practically in the damn name.

How about you stop stalling, you damn coward, and list your arguments. The subject is supporting the position that there are no good cops with logically backed evidence.

[loomer]

I empathize with those people but this is an emotional argument. I'm asking for a logical evidence based one.



I would love to hear those arguments.

Well, before I launch into them, you just dismissed one of those arguments as 'emotional' rather than logical. Trust is always an emotional issue, so dismissing arguments about the trustworthiness or untrustworthiness of the police on that basis is frankly dumb as shit. Would you care to explain why you feel otherwise?

We aren’t talking about trust you fucking moron. I don’t trust lots of people that doesn’t mean I think they are pieces of shit. The ACAB clearly does. It is practically in the damn name.

How about you stop stalling, you damn coward, and list your arguments.

Whoah, look at the big man in a uniform. Shut the fuck up with your histrionics. Trust is an integral component of why people spout off about ACAB (protip: If we trusted the cops, we probably wouldn't think they're all bastards!), and literally anyone with two brain cells to rub together can figure that out. I'm not stalling, either - I'm asking you to explain an epistemic position you've adopted and advanced so I can know how to explain the arguments to you, which again is something someone with two brain cells could figure out. I can make either purely logical arguments or logical and emotional ones against policing from an anarchist perspective, but since the former is incomplete and the latter is preferable, I'd like you to explain why we should magically exclude the issue of trust as 'emotional'.

You don't feel emotional arguments are acceptable reasons not to trust the police - why? How about you stop stalling, you damn coward, and justify your position. Or are you too used to swaggering around with a badge and a gun to feel like you actually have to justify your epistemic premises when a mere pleb asks?

[Gandalf]

Imagine you're a minority in the US, especially one prone to "extra police attention" to put it nicely. Add in the abuses of power like those seen in this thread, and systemic issues that have been raised. Why should anyone trust that system, much less the people who work in it?

I empathize with those people but this is an emotional argument. I'm asking for a logical evidence based one.

That's new, considering that your initial complaint was just that people don't "back up their assertion." When I came along with something that would lead people to have that position (a minority view of abuses of power combined with systemic inability/unwillingness to address them), you dismissed it because it was "an emotional argument."

[loomer]

Isn't it funny how the cop seems to feel he has a right to arbitrarily insert new terms of engagement as and when he pleases and determine 'the subject of discussion' unilaterally, without needing to justify it?

[Gandalf]

Because that system is part of the country that gives them their rights and which they've benefited from in other ways like sanitation, housing, access to education, hospitals and various welfare programs. Most of them are also US citizens. They owe it to society to trust and work with the government as much as possible, because without that system they'd be worse off and probably dead.

Isn't that entirely dependent on a government willing to work with said people?

Also, in that situation, fuck trusting society.

Isn't it funny how the cop seems to feel he has a right to arbitrarily insert new terms of engagement as and when he pleases and determine 'the subject of discussion' unilaterally, without needing to justify it?

Sounds like Tuesday back on country.

[Ralin]

Isn't that entirely dependent on a government willing to work with said people?

Do you have any response that doesn't boil down to playing dense and asking a leading question?

Isn't it funny how the cop seems to feel he has a right to arbitrarily insert new terms of engagement as and when he pleases and determine 'the subject of discussion' unilaterally, without needing to justify it?

Yeah, because saying that it's stupid and wrong to call all cops 'bastards' is totally an unclear statement and you aren't just bullshitting to avoid answering the question.

Oh wait.

[loomer]

Isn't it funny how the cop seems to feel he has a right to arbitrarily insert new terms of engagement as and when he pleases and determine 'the subject of discussion' unilaterally, without needing to justify it?

Yeah, because saying that it's stupid and wrong to call all cops 'bastards' is totally an unclear statement and you aren't just bullshitting to avoid answering the question.

Oh wait.

Hey, the moment he explains why we're suddenly discounting emotion from the list of permissible arguments, I'll answer the question - I just don't see why I should be expected to exclude the issue of trust on emotional grounds without justification, since it's a sudden shift of the goalposts by the guy. It's not like it's a difficult question to answer anyway - anarchist views on policing are well documented, theorized, and discussed endlessly, so I don't really need to stall or bullshit to avoid it. I just don't see why I should let Mr. Cop suddenly start changing the grounds of engagement, delimiting the acceptable positions without justifying that position, or dictate the subject of discussion after discussion has begun.

Are you upset that I'm not willing to indulge his nonsense, unjustified attempt to disqualify a fundamental issue in anarchist theory around police, or something? Does it make you sad that I suggested that all cops serve the state?

[Gandalf]

Isn't that entirely dependent on a government willing to work with said people?

Do you have any response that doesn't boil down to playing dense and asking a leading question?

I've worked in communities dealing with this problem. Sometimes authorities are good and keen to help, other times the response is a more polite "fuck off." So the willingness of the authorities is a pretty big variable, and saying that people owe it to society is... odd to say the least.

[Ralin]

Hey, the moment he explains why we're suddenly discounting emotion from the list of permissible arguments, I'll answer the question - I just don't see why I should be expected to exclude the issue of trust on emotional grounds without justification, since it's a sudden shift of the goalposts by the guy. It's not like it's a difficult question to answer anyway - anarchist views on policing are well documented, theorized, and discussed endlessly, so I don't really need to stall or bullshit to avoid it. I just don't see why I should let Mr. Cop suddenly start changing the grounds of engagement, delimiting the acceptable positions without justifying that position, or dictate the subject of discussion after discussion has begun.

Are you seriously telling me you don't see why switching from saying all cops are bad/evil/harmful (which is totally implicit in saying all cops are bastards however you want to finagle it) to saying that many minorities have good reason not trust cops and demanding that he justify saying the latter isn't true (when he's already said he sympathizes with minorities who feel that way) isn't you trying to change the subject?

[loomer]

Hey, the moment he explains why we're suddenly discounting emotion from the list of permissible arguments, I'll answer the question - I just don't see why I should be expected to exclude the issue of trust on emotional grounds without justification, since it's a sudden shift of the goalposts by the guy. It's not like it's a difficult question to answer anyway - anarchist views on policing are well documented, theorized, and discussed endlessly, so I don't really need to stall or bullshit to avoid it. I just don't see why I should let Mr. Cop suddenly start changing the grounds of engagement, delimiting the acceptable positions without justifying that position, or dictate the subject of discussion after discussion has begun.

Are you seriously telling me you don't see why switching from saying all cops are bad/evil/harmful (which is totally implicit in saying all cops are bastards however you want to finagle it) to saying that many minorities have good reason not trust cops and demanding that he justify saying the latter isn't true (when he's already said he sympathizes with minorities who feel that way) isn't you trying to change the subject?

What the fuck are you even on about? I haven't made any switch, numbnuts - I haven't even made an argument yet. I'm asking Mr. Cop to explain his epistemic position on why emotional arguments around trust should be excluded before I do so - that's not changing the subject or scaling anything back, it's asking him to justify a position he has suddenly inserted into the discussion that excludes a range of arguments. Take a break from polishing that boot leather and invest in some literacy classes.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Whoah, look at the big man in a uniform. Shut the fuck up with your histrionics.

You think me insulting you is me flaunting my uniform? LMAO, you should audition for drama theater. How about this. Don't expect people to be civil with you when you start throwing insults their way, got it? Prick. Also, when someone insults you they probably aren't bringing their career into it. They probably just think you are an asshole.

Trust is an integral component of why people spout off about ACAB (protip: If we trusted the cops, we probably wouldn't think they're all bastards!), and literally anyone with two brain cells to rub together can figure that out.

Like I said in the edit, which I understand you did not read, not trusting the police is a logical position to hold but we aren't talking about that. You understand that the word bastard has a meaning right? Do you understand that when you say something like "No good cops" you are making an absolute declaration?

I'm not stalling, either - I'm asking you to explain an epistemic position you've adopted and advanced so I can know how to explain the arguments to you, which again is something someone with two brain cells could figure out. I can make either purely logical arguments or logical and emotional ones against policing from an anarchist perspective, but since the former is incomplete and the latter is preferable, I'd like you to explain why we should magically exclude the issue of trust as 'emotional'.

It looks like you're stalling. I've asked anyone in this thread to justify the position that there are no good cops or all cops are bastards because without logical argument back by evidence it is just self gratification. I never asked anyone to justify why they don't trust the police and is not self gratification. That's just being smart. That is fairly easy to do and the fact that you reduced what I am asking into something so fucking simple is what makes you a coward.

You don't feel emotional arguments are acceptable reasons not to trust the police - why? How about you stop stalling, you damn coward, and justify your position.

Not talking about trust. I'm talking about holding an absolute position on a group of nearly a million people. Here's an example. Many politicians in the United States, and the world, have shown themselves to be entirely self serving. That doesn't mean, nor make it OK, for me to declare them all self serving without examining their personal record. It is self gratifying to do so but ultimately inaccurate.

Hell, using your reasoning here I could say "All Humans Are Bastards" but that wouldn't be true at all. Would it?

Or are you too used to swaggering around with a badge and a gun to feel like you actually have to justify your epistemic premises when a mere pleb asks?

We're arguing on SDN, son. We aren't in a police / citizen relationship. My badge, uniform, the gun, authority given to me by the state, and my shiny parker pens (no mustache though so you're lucky) have zero power here and you pretending like my attitude towards you has something to do with that and not the fact that you decided to insult me is just being dishonest or fucking clueless.

If you wish to return to a civil discussion I will gladly accept your apology and offer you mine. But regardless drop the "he's a bully cop" nonsense. It is probably one of the most pathetic things I've seen on this board and I don't like seeing you shamed.

That's new, considering that your initial complaint was just that people don't "back up their assertion." When I came along with something that would lead people to have that position (a minority view of abuses of power combined with systemic inability/unwillingness to address them), you dismissed it because it was "an emotional argument."

You backed up a position of why people don't trust the police but that's not what I asked for. To be clear the reasons you listed are a logical evidence backed reason to not trust the police. The emotion comes in to it when that expands into things like "All cops are bastards" or "No such thing as a good cop". That's the emotional argument I was talking about.

Another way to think about this is from the other side of the political spectrum. Many right wing Americans reacted in a similar way after 9/11. Some started viewing all Muslims as terrorists. They made an absolute declaration about an entire group of people just like the ACAB people do.

Isn't it funny how the cop seems to feel he has a right to arbitrarily insert new terms of engagement as and when he pleases and determine 'the subject of discussion' unilaterally, without needing to justify it?

I'm restating what I requested. It is you, and Gandalf, that have altered the discussion.

By the way...will both you and Gandalf tell me your careers so I can declare this a "insert your career" thing. Serious question. Are you like this because you personally had a bad experience with the police?

[Ralin]

What the fuck are you even on about? I haven't made any switch, numbnuts - I haven't even made an argument yet. I'm asking Mr. Cop to explain his epistemic position on why emotional arguments around trust should be excluded before I do so - that's not changing the subject or scaling anything back, it's asking him to justify a position he has suddenly inserted into the discussion that excludes a range of arguments. Take a break from polishing that boot leather and invest in some literacy classes.

Yeah you did you lying little shit. Kamakazie Sith started by saying that ACAB was childish and counterproductive. Gandalf replied by switching from that to the 'imagine you have a reason not to trust the police' tack and you replied saying that you know all sorts of anarchist justifications for saying that ACAB. Sith asked you to produce them and you refused by switching to the 'trust' approach.

[Kamakazie Sith]

What the fuck are you even on about? I haven't made any switch, numbnuts - I haven't even made an argument yet. I'm asking Mr. Cop to explain his epistemic position on why emotional arguments around trust should be excluded before I do so - that's not changing the subject or scaling anything back, it's asking him to justify a position he has suddenly inserted into the discussion that excludes a range of arguments. Take a break from polishing that boot leather and invest in some literacy classes.

There is a giant leap between not trusting the police <----------------------------> thinking they are all terrible people which is why doing so makes it an emotional reaction and then declaring it self gratification. I'm asking for logical evidence backed reasoning to bridge that gap.

I didn't suddenly insert this into the discussion by the way. Emotional arguments were never on the table. A discussion about trust was never on the table.

I said "EDIT - Anytime someone brings up those as a serious argument they either completely fail to provide evidence, disappear when challenged, or amend their statement. I have never seen someone actually support these but if you think you can then by all means."