>> What’s that got to do with anything?
>
> You stated, “just because he’s a uniformed officer doesn’t mean he’s a good-guy.”
> Do you believe Dorner asked his victims if they were good guys before murdering them?
Irrelevant to my points — I’m not justifying Dorner, I’m questioning the legitimacy and trustworthiness of the police.
>> Um, honestly, where would you even get that idea?
>
> You brought it up for what reason? To justify Dorner’s killing of 4 innocent people?
No, because you seem to have the “police = good-guy” mentality ingrained — it certainly looks like that from the way that you phrase things.
>> It was an illustration of the point that just because someone is wearing a uniform doesn’t make them not-a-thug
>
> Nor do those relatively few incidents make all LEOs thugs. Does it?
Relatively few incidents?
Wow — You utterly fail to realize the amount of corruption, and its effects by being unaccounted for.
Let’s take that Costco incident, I think the “perp’s” name was Scott, it might not have been but let’s say it was. Eyewitnesses said that he was given conflicting commands, their recording cell-phones confiscated, and the security tapes were taken — all of this evidence disappeared or was hushed up. How many were involved, not in Scott’s shooting, but the clearing of evidence thereof? And that’s just one incident. How many “good cops” have to keep their mouths shut to allow something like this evidence-corruption to happen? (Or is tampering with evidence not a crime?)
>> I do not trust the police
>
>Under present day circumstances why would the police trust you?
Well, I’m a former serviceman... so the government says they _shouldn’t_.
(After all, I might be a terrorist.)
Do the names McVeigh, Hassan and Manning mean anything to you?