Yeah, I pretty much did expect it.
Meh. Given a do-over, I’d rephrase the OP since I have zero will (or intention) of attempting to show it happens. It’s my impression based on a number of threads that there are dopers who defend cops when it’s not reasonable to do so. Problem is, it’s my head, so I get to define reasonable.
This wasn’t RO. This was a challenge. I wanted to see if anyone would defend it. That no one has surprises and pleases me.
REMEMBER this next time someone defends a cop and you automatically assume that they are an intellectual turd…
There’s no assumption. If they defend a cop doing something awful, they’re defending something awful. And by the same token, if they attack a cop doing something benign, they’re attacking something benign.
Oh, sure, just because the cops didn’t eat the driver’s brain, they don’t rate an RO thread. Hmph…
Another problem is that you won’t link to what you are talking about. I have a strong suspicion that you think that someone posting “Hey, let’s not say the cops were wrong here just yet, let’s wait for all the evidence to come to light” is defending cops.
Yet you started this thread assuming that all those cop defenders you dislike so much here would rush to the defense of the retarded cops in this event.
Yet they did not, as you thought they would.
So maybe your ASSumptions were wrong and many folks here who defend them actually have THOUGHT through these things even a little bit?
An inability to predict future behaviors doesn’t change past behaviors. It just says that there are some things everyone can agree are horrible; it doesn’t determine where the line is.
I recall threads defending the cops who shot the guy who ran from them and tried to show them his ID in the doorway of his home. 
So,
nobody here is a “cop defender” cause, as you say, nobody is predictable…
so quit yer bitching and never use that phrase here again.
I’ll use the term when I see the behavior. You are, of course, perfectly free to pout about it, widdums.
You’re being a dickhead.
There’s a thread going on right now where a couple cops burst in on a deaf, mentally handicapped guy while he was taking a dump, pepper sprayed him, tased him, and then allegedly laughed at him when they found out he was disabled. Even after getting all the details, they pompously ignored their mistakes and took him to the magistrate to be charged. The magistrate, presumably having an IQ above room temperature, unlike these cops, refused to charge the man. There are posters here, right now, defending these cops.
I can’t speak for jsgoddess, but I can make a pretty fuckin’ educated guess that THOSE are the kinds of posters she is talking about.
I suspect the same. In this case, however, the evidence is pretty damning. You don’t always get that.
Well, to an extent, you’re right. But you’d be wrong if you believe that people, other than cops, in positions of trust abusing that trust don’t ruin people’s lives. Just ask any of the victims of sexual abuse by teachers and priests if it didn’t ruin their lives.
But you’re missing the point which is that unethical cops come from the same pool as unethical teachers and Home Depot cashiers. They are human beings and some human beings are unethical. Some of these unethical human beings seek out and land jobs in which ethics are crucial. It’s not unreasonable to demand that people in these positions be ethical, but it is denying the obvious that, for some, those expectations just don’t take. It would be great if the system could reliably weed out those bad apples before they commit crimes against others, and to an extent, I would expect it does, but it’s not perfect. Some will get through and outrage you when they’re caught.
Great! Do you blindly trust them? The good ones, I mean.
Perhaps we’re talking past eachother here: to me, the issue is that public school teachers and Home Depot cashiers don’t have a track record of closing ranks to protect their own, and the institutional framework in place to do so very effectively. Cops and Catholic priests do have that–notoriously so. It’s not a problem with the individuals but the institutions and organizational cultures that support them.
She’s trying to get all philosophical because she’s one of the “cop defenders” the OP was talking about and doesn’t want to admit it.
Anyone who says they have joined the police to make the world a better place in this day and age, is either naively, or deludedly idealistic at best, or a complete moron.
My guess is that most people either join the police to fulfill their control freak ambitions, or because they know they’ll still have a job in 10 years time.
And yet, strangely enough, I won’t defend obviously unethical behavior displayed in this situation. Clearly, I’m biased. :rolleyes:
I agree with you and I think that institutional abuse of trust is much more distressing than individual abuse for the reasons I put forth above. But I don’t see the how every bad cop that gets caught doing something unethical should involve decrying the institution, especially when it’s clear the institution decries the individual’s behavior. That people expect every police department to stand by idly and allow a bad apple to spoil the barrel is infuriating. Just as not all cops are bad, not all departments are corrupt. There have been some egregious examples of institutional abuse that seems to turned some people into perpetual cynics with regard to any malfeasance, be it individual or institutional. I think that cynicism and hatred denies reality.
Of course you’d say that, Ivan. You may have retired from your life of preying on innocent bystanders, but you still think like a burglar.