What the hell’s your problem? You seem bound and determined to twist everything I say into something bad. Please show me where I put words in your mouth or kindly go fornicate with your mother.
I never used the word “thug”, or even implied that the rest of the Houston cops were thugs. What I am saying is that it takes more than not attacking people for no good reason to be called a “Good Cop.” A good cop wouldn’t stand by and let bad cops pull shit like this. A good cop would step in and stop it, then file a truthful report on the matter. Again I ask-if bad cops are so damn rare, why do so many of them happen to be at the same place at the same time when shit like this goes down? Where are the good cops that should be stepping in and stopping this?
Ah I do seem to have put the word thug in your mouth. My apologies, if you scroll up you’ll notice the post I originally quoted used the phrase “95% of police officers that are thugs”. I assumed you took up arguing that position.
Look I don’t know where the good cops were in this case. I know where the bad cops, and the cowardly apathetic cops were but not the good ones. What I’m having trouble with is using this single incident to claim 95% of cops are thugs as another poster did, or that high percentage of them are bad. If there truly is a significant amount of bad cops there should be a lot more incidents like this.
Show me a filmed incident like this where the majority of cops were the good ones stopping the atrocities of the bad ones.
Hey, the first six cops I saw on the scene started beating and kicking the guy. If 95% of the cops were thugs, you’d still have a 25% chance that one of the first six would have said, “Whoa, going a little far here.” and laid off. It’s probably 88% thugs at the 95% confidence interval, but why quibble over a few percent.
Has the definition of “Good Cop” really been reduced to “Stepped aside and didn’t actively participate in a beatdown”?