Those aren’t real cops (the Scotsman thing). 
Please give us the cite or link, I want to see and enjoy that.
Yeah, can’t have people being critical of Police who abuse their authority, are incompetent, and through incompetence or malice end up cutting people’s lives short.
'cause that’s what most people “critical” of police on this board do.
You weaselly, low-life scum-bucket.
Missed the edit window:
Also, a statement, probably vetted by their legal departments and meant for the media, has fuck all to do with what the average cop out there actually thinks.
For a more accurate picture of that, all you need to do is look at all the gleeful, smiling faces in the video as the cunt in chief tells them they should abuse their powers.
Even if that’s true, what we have here is the police being explicitly told by the president to abuse their authority, and refusing. So, they should be happy with what’s actually happened.
My complaint was not about those “critical” of the police, but those “ridiculously over-critical”. That you seem to identify with that, to the point of feeling the need for silly insults, is rather telling.
We have some police being told to abuse their authority and applauding. We have police PR organizations saying they won’t. I don’t think there’s any cause for celebrating.
For the record, I believe the vast majority of police officers are decent people who work very hard to serve the public. The problem comes when the small-but-significant minority of bullies and/or incompetents in the force overstep the line and that majority choose to defend them unquestioningly even in the most egregious cases.
So yes, I give credit to the police departments and officers who are disavowing Trump’s views. Here’s hoping that they put their words into action the next time another prisoner dies in custody under questionable circumstances.
It’s nice that various police chiefs and PR organizations said, “Whoa, fuck that.” At the same time, the fact that the crowd behind Trump so openly and clearly was behind him the whole way is chilling. You’re usually not going to interact with the chief of police. Usually, the people you’ll be interacting with are the beat cops. Which group was represented in the people who complained about this? And which group was represented in those who cheered? 
It’s good to see some pushback from the higher-ups, but it’s still disturbing. The cops who cheered that line should not be cops.
Then suppose the atheist posts on Tumblr: “I hate religious people who are rabidly certain that the world was created in seven days or that all their enemies will burn in Hell, and try to justify it through ‘faith’. You know, the sort of people who think that the Bible has all the answers and who hate anyone who tries to think for themselves.” Now there’s practically no implication that these people are typical. So that’s fine, right?
On the other side of the world, a religious person is writing “I hate atheists who think morality is relative, and that this gives them the right to murder however many people stand between them and a world where no one is allowed to believe in God”. Again, not a straw man. The Soviet Union contained several million of these people. But if you’re an atheist, would you just let this pass?
How about “I hate black thugs who rob people”? What are the chances a black guy reads that and says “Well, good thing I’m not a thug who robs people, he’ll probably love me”?
And as far as I can tell, you’d consider me part of the latter group, because I think Michael Slager got away with murder - this doesn’t really qualify as a controversial opinion; not even BlueLivesMatter will defend this guy.
Yeah, we seem to see this sort of thing a lot from police officers and their authoritarian backers.
You don’t bother to identify who is being ‘overly critical’ or what they’re saying is wrong, you just spam the complaint without merit and then watch who reacts so that you can attack them.
We’ve had a lot of that crap in the past from the local police union leaders. Complain that politicians who have legal authority over their departments are ‘too critical’, ‘hurting moral’ and ‘interfering with the police doing their jobs’ (:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:). Accuse anyone and everyone who criticises their departments as being pro-criminal, or being criminals themselves. Spew hyperbole about how we all want criminals to overrun our cities. :rolleyes: Claim that the police will quit en masse because of more restrictive policies - while at the same time acting like they have a god given mandate to BE police officers and that anyone suggesting that they actually DO quit is out of line, a criminal, etc, etc.
A great deal of the criticism of the police is trying to prevent the police doing their jobs. I’ve seen people here saying the police shouldn’t be able to ask people to identify themselves, shouldn’t be able to restrain people they’ve been arrested, that moving people back to a safe distance is infringing on their free speech, and many other idiotic complaints.
If this happens it must happen very infrequently, but I’m sure you’ve got a great deal of current examples to show us, right?
And do those “idiotic complaints” make up “a great deal of the criticism of the police”? Or are most of the complaints actually about legitimate abuses of authority and lack of accountability, and you’re just choosing to focus on the most extreme examples?
Nope.
Nope. I’m not sorting through close to 11,000 different posts for you to find possible examples-Do your own homework.
And I have proof that we never landed on the moon right here!
I think all three of those examples are likely your misinterpretations. If I squint, I can see how you’d be talking about stop-and-identify laws, improper use of force, and the right to record the police, but in none of those examples do people say the police aren’t allowed to make requests, restrain people, or move people safe distances.
Okay then. Well, I disagree.
LOL.
Yes, the anti-cop crowd is being overly critical about this (as usual).
Trump’s statement can’t undo agency policy nor state laws. Trump cannot legalize assault under authority of a peace officer.