In this case, majority of this board are anti cop and since "Cops beating ____" fits their preconceived view of cops they don't bother to review it and operate on the assumptions its true. It really doesn't matter if it's true or not and they figure their buddies on the page won't bother to look at it either so its a safe assumption. Just my 2 cents
I don't think that's a fair assessment and, logically, this statement has fatal flaws (for fun, see how many logical fallacies you can identify - I could three). What strikes me the most about your analysis is the assertion that people are "anti-cop." Once you've branded them with this scarlet letter, then the rest proceeds from there: people are anti-cop, therefore they'll be against cops and thus, their criticisms can be disregarded. But it never asks
why are these people "anti-cop"? I submit that a more careful and deep analysis would show that most people aren't, in fact, anti-cop; they are, however, anti-abusive-cop, and, as I am sure you'll agree, there is a big difference between a cop and an abusive cop.
So the question is _why_ do most people perceive cops as abusive? I suspect that the answer is twofold:
- First, I thnk that most people have experienced cops flex their muscle (to varying degrees) and have heard friends and family suggest the same, which leads them to believe that this is commonplace; and
- Second, I think that as audio and video recording become more prevalent, more people see instances of abuse - often egregious - since a "by the book" stop doesn't garner much attention.
Taken together, these two things paint a picture of most cops as egregious abusers, armed with guns and on the brink of going postal. Perhaps this picture is inaccurate. In fact, I'm willing to concede that most cops - even when flexing their proverbial muscle when someone commits the horrible offense of contempt of cop - are unlikely to beat people hard enough to rupture spleens or crack skulls open.
But the reality remains that even if they don't rupture splees or crack skulls open, the a large percentage of cops today routinely demand respect and deference by the serfs and are willing to punish, to varying degrees, those who don't live up to that expectation.
I'll give you an example: I was once stopped by a cop. He said that I was going 30 in a 25. I may very well have been - I wasn't focused obsessively on my speedometer. I was polite and courteous, and he was very professional. He handed me over a speeding ticket, before explaining that signing it was not an admission of guilt but a promise to appear. I replied with "Yes, I am aware. And even if I wasn't, it says so in bold letters, right above where I'm supposed to sign." All of a sudden, it was like I was teleported to bizarro-world. He grabbed the clipboard with the ticket from my hands and ordered me to step out of the vehicle. I complied, closing and locking the door behind me.
At this point, he got maybe an inch from my face and yelled point blank "IT SAYS SO RIGHT THERE, DOES IT? ARE YOU LOOKING FOR TROUBLE OR DO YOU THINK THIS IS A JOKE?" I replied with "Are you detaining me or am I free to go?" which infuriated him even more. He proceeded to demand that I produce my keys so that he could unlock my vehicle and search it because, suddenly, he could smell alcohol on my breath. I explained that I don't consent to any search. He told me I was being detained, before storming off into his cruiser.
Four more cruisers arrived and I was kept there for well over two hours (the law in my State prevents officers from detaining anyone for over 60 minutes) while he and his buddies chatted. Finally, he came back, handed me my ticket (now for 45 in a 25) and said "Your signature is not an admission of guilt, just a promise to appear." I signed and turned the ticket in, which, I guess, made him feel like an alpha male that had finally asserted his dominance.
When I asked for his business card and the name of his superior officer, he replied with "my name is on your fucking ticket, now get back in your fucking car and don't let me catch you speeding again." Later that day, I filed a complaint which was "investigated" and summarily dismissed in less than 24 hours.
Over the next 3 or 4 months I would get pulled over repeatedly by the same group of three cops for "swerving" or "not signaling for a lane change" or for having "worn tires" or even for "possibly illegal tint" on a vehicle with no tint at all. This, of course, resulted in significant frustration for me, as it resulted in a waste of time not only during the stop, but later when I had to take time off to go to the Courthouse to pay bail to schedule my trial, then take time off and attend the trial, whereupon, charges were summarily dropped when the ticketing cop wouldn't show up in Court.
Now, again. I'm willing to believe that these cops are the exception, but only in the sense that the length they went to isn't typical.
P.S.: You seem like a nice and reasonable guy and I'm willing to take you at your word that you're a good cop and the people you work with are good cops. I'm not suggesting that all cops are rotten. I'm only suggesting is that one rotten cop can wreak a lot of damage and the culture that is cultivated - a band-of-brothers against evil - makes it easy for the rot to spread and the system is rigged in such a way that punishing the bad apples is exceedingly difficult barring an exceptionally egregious case.
And I will ask you to ponder one simple question: if the average cop has an "us-vs-them" mentality, then what mentality do you expect the average citizen, that interacts with this average cop, to have?
