I can argue with that!
To paint “the police” as law violators who think they are above the laws is a form of racism directed at an entire group of people who have a very difficult job, one that exposes them to the worst of humanity daily, and often causes them serious bodily harm and injury.
Any category of people include in their midst some individuals who abuse the public trust, be they police, lawyers, bankers, physicians, landlords, or clergy.
It is ignorant to condemn an entire category because of the “bad apples”.
It is wise to cull these from group by legal means, not by violence.
Here is the statement with which I agreed:
“We need to have some type of deterrent and real oversight to deter the police from violating the laws and to know they are not above the laws.”
Is there anything about that statement, as it stands, that is the least bit objectionable?
Now I recognize this person did not really mean what he said, that his reasonable statement is merely cover for his racist objectives. But that doesn’t make the statement itself any less reasonable.
You apparently haven't been following FR very closely over the last few months. There has been a lot of criticism of the police "as law violators who think they are above the laws" for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with race.
There ARE cops who get off on their power and enjoy pushing people around, and there are a smaller numbers who do it for racist reasons.
Now we can argue over what percentage of cops fall into these groups, but it is simply not possible to claim that none do. There are bad cops, just as there are bad people in every other line of work.
The big problem, IMO, is the esprit de corps spirit of brotherhood that binds cops together. I understand why it arises, and indeed that it is necessary for people who have to depend on their brothers in arms in crisis.
But for every bad cop who abuses his authority, there are an unknown number of "good cops" who will lie to protect him, and an even larger number who will keep their mouths shut rather than exposing him and the liars. I suspect the second group is a majority, but I can't prove it.
When the whole Ferguson thing started, I said on this forum that the problem is that this was a confrontation between two groups, tribes if you will, one black and one blue. Many members of both tribes are perfectly willing to lie about what happened to protect other members of their gang or to get members of the other gang in trouble.
For obvious reasons this makes it really difficult to determine the actual facts. It appears that a good number of members of the black tribe were willing to tell the truth of what happened to the grand jury, and forensics backed them up. Hooray for the honorable members of the black tribe!
Without this, we would have been reduced to relying on the word of honor of tribe members. And it is perfectly well known that many cops consider it more honorable to lie to protect a fellow tribe member than to tell the truth and rat him out.