reply to post by beezzer
You said.
I figured people would use this as an example. But if we're to apply a basis for their actions on ONE indivdual, then why not use a cop who saved a
life?
Oh yeah, because then it wouldn't support your argument.
Sure, we could use a cop that saved a life. We can also use an individual who was framed by a cop as a basis for an argument against them...
Than you said.
Again, when you apply specifics to support generalizations, then I can say that because you disagree with me, and in the past, someone who disagreed
with me was a drooling moron, you must be a . . . . . .
You should get your arguments straight. You berate people for applying specifics to support generalizations. However, you posted a specific
generalization to support your argument:
But I'm not going to take the word of a rock-thrower that some cop overstepped his bounds when he clubbed some punk that broke the law.
Laughable. It is obvious that you support collective authority over individuals. Also, why is it that you do not answer the questions directed at
you regarding the Oakland incident? I assume that you have nothing of substance to offer - which is why you blow the question off and spout nonsense
about specific generalizations.
To address your OP: It would be impossible for police to be baited into violence if the authorities would refrain from making controversial arrests.
The protesters would have no where to go in regards to an argument if authorities arrested only people that are blatantly breaking the law. It would
be a win-win for both sides. The police making good and legitimate arrests. The protesters having the trouble making, possibly violent elements
removed. It is just too bad that most authorities believe their power is absolute and refuse compromise or mediation.