[hga]

And more often right, at least in the tapes I and people I trust have analyzed. In theory (yes, I know, you can stop laughing), per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_v._Garner police can only use lethal force in self-defense and in defense of others, no shooting a non-violent fleeing criminal, they have no more rights in that area than us armed civilians.

I wonder if you grok the concept of per-capita statistics, or comparing like demographics, and I'll note that one of the hallmarks of modern police states is slaughtering a lot more people than they publicly acknowledge.

[shit_parade2]

Its bizarre how people will say something when it flies in the face of observable reality.

the US police state slaughters more people than is acknowledged, it requires a UK newspaper to get the correct amount.

Cite court cases all you want, they directly contradict what the police get away with everyday, you plainly see on tape them beating and killing people, planting evidence, destroying evidence and private property, and it happens without consequence.

You are a police apologist, defending murderous thugs.

[hga]

I guess it's too fine a distinction for your tastes; in my book you might say there are are:

Good cops in a few rural places where they're too busy to be bad or thugs.

Bad cops who don't directly commit crimes but are part of the Blue Wall of Silence that covers up for:

Thug cops who assault citizens and their dogs (and see elsewhere in this discussion for a cat executed by a cop, but that seems to be rare).

(There's also dirty cops who e.g. get paid to do stuff like look the other way, but we're not talking about them and I don't think they're now hardly as bad a problem as thug cops, but they are another argument for ending the War On Drugs.)

I believe the majority of cops are "bad cops" per the above, which does not mean there aren't a lot of thug cops, neither of whom I make apologies for their crimes.