I love watching these “true crimes” type videos of peaceful people pushing the alarm button on post-9/11 tyranny. It’s impossible to hold cops thugs accountable anymore because you could be a terrorist doing video surveillance. So convenient. And the judges have their backs. In this video, secret service thugs outside the white house got so much mileage out of this, it looked like they trained some new apprentices too. But this is no fun for the photographer and, sadly, he was tricked. He didn’t have to talk to them or hand over his driver’s license papers.
Questioned, not Detained
At the very beginning, one thug says the photog is being detained. But when the photog asks the supervisor if he’s indeed being detained, he evasively replies, yes, “you are being questioned.” Aha! That is totally different. But the photog apparently didn’t notice. Who can blame him? Multiple cops moving around you and asking questions is very stressful. But that was the cue to walk away. That stop was entirely voluntary. Cops can ask questions of anyone, anytime. They can lie their asses off. If the subject thinks he’s being stopped, they don’t have to disabuse him of that notion. The photog could have left right then and there.
Don’t Talk to the Cops!
But he didn’t. That was a mistake. There is no reason to talk to cops. Talking to cops can not help you. It can only lead to you self-incriminating, giving them a reason to escalate the situation or filling their databases with your personal data. Don’t talk to the cops! This is a very hard rule to follow, because the cops are trained to get you to talk, but an important one nonetheless. I myself have stupidly broken this rule.
Skillful Use of the Streisand Effect
Here are some other interesting takeaways from the conversation:
- The photog claimed the thugs needed reasonable suspicion to talk to someone. This is incorrect. Cops can strike up conversation with anyone. If the person voluntarily complies (consents) to the convo, the cops can just keep on asking questions until they find something they can use to escalate the encounter to where they actually have legal power to do something to you.
- One of the thugs said the photog was acting in a suspicious manner and was going to ask some questions. But you have no obligation to stand there (as long as you are not formally detained), listen to them or answer them.
- They take pictures for their files and databases. Nothing good can come from it so under no circumstances should you cooperate. Sometimes, however it is unavoidable. Avoid attempts to sucker you into voluntarily complying by claiming some kind of moral equivalency (e.g., if I take off my glasses, will you take off yours?). They have radically more power than you do, so your photo in their hands is dangerous. Their photo in your hands is nowhere near as dangerous. In unusual cases it can cost them their job, but that’s it.
- The photog should be commended for continuing his photography during the encounter. The foolish thugs unwittingly played into the Streisand Effect. To wit, by harassing the photog, more video of the thugs was taken and it has reached more eyeballs.
- Never voluntarily confirm your current address. That makes it too easy for the thugs to mount a campaign of harassment where you are most vulnerable. If you’re in custody, you may be obligated to do this in order to be released. But on a voluntary stop like this, there is no good reason whatsoever to confirm your current address.
- Some states have stop and identify statues. Know which arbitrary rule they have in your area. According to Wikipedia, Washington, DC does not have this. In this case, assuming this was a voluntary stop (sure seems like it!), the photog voluntarily handed over his papers. Don’t do that. Of course, I was once arrested in Pennsylvania for refusing to hand over my papers to a thug in the absence of a stop and identify statute. So take my advice with a grain of salt. What is written on the books is not the law. The law is what cops say it is.
- “We’re not going to tell you what constitutes suspicious,” said one of the thugs. I ROFLed. This is straight out of Kafka! Can these people hear themselves?
- When a cop says, “I’m just askin’,” he is lying. Every time. When you hear a cop say that, raise shields big time.
- Notice how the cops got flustered when it looked like the photog was friends with someone important. They immediately broke off contact. This is not only entertaining to watch, but it’s further proof that the whole thing was voluntary. Notice where a thug says, “We haven’t kept you, you can walk away at any time.” The photog subjected himself to this hassle.
- The photog said to his friend on the phone that he was taking pictures of X, Y and Z. In a less obvious case of police harassment, that could have constituted self-incrimination. Don’t do that. Talk about what the thugs are doing, not what you are doing. The latter is reserved for known private spaces or conversations covered by attorney-client confidentiality.
Being a Hero is Expensive
The only reason to talk with LEOs is to get good video footage and become an internet hero. There is never any other reason to do it. And, frankly, the risk associated with doing it to become an internet hero is very high. Cops are human beings, just as fallible as any other. They are not held accountable for their actions and they know it. They will initiate a personal vendetta against you for any reason. Be careful.
Photog Provided a Public Service
Was the photog just being a pain in the ass? Did he instigate this encounter? (Don’t read the YouTube comments.) Of course not. He was providing a public service. Cops are out of control. Cops lie, trick and cheat. Cops are unaccountable. They’re drunk with power. And they avoid accountability by hiding behind the victims of 9/11. That’s not only cowardice, it’s plain stupid. Now, more than ever, when these thugs have reached the height of their power and the height of their unaccountability, good people like this photog need to hold them accountable with the camera. Will you join him?
27 replies on “Cops Trick Photographer into Stopping for Them”
I recently got detained. Stupid me, I forgot to ASK if i was detained. I made a lot of the same mistakes. I got out scratch free, but I’m still really shaken. I had already planned on being less cooperative next time (God willing there won’t be a next time). Sadly I wasn’t able to record. But this just primes me for next time. Thanks for posting.
That’s the only thing you can do, is try to be prepared for next time. Glad you survived.
Acting in a manner to intentionally provoke the police by filming them, which the video intimates he was doing, is reason enough for the police to question him as to why he’s filming them.
It’s ridiculous that he went out of his way to provoke the police into giving him something to film. Get something real to film like the student from University of Maryland-College Park getting beat for no reason and I’ll be more impressed. The student getting beat is the kind of police brutality that needs to be stopped. Harassing cops just doing their job is ridiculous and destroys the credibility of the videographer and the person promoting him (that would be you, George Donnelly).
The more people film cops, the more incidents like the one you mention will be caught on tape. Of course that one was caught on a surveillance cam.
Honestly I could not care less what some anonymous person thinks of me. I know what I am doing is right. Cops are unaccountable thugs. They need to be held accountable and one of the ways left open to do that is with videotape.
George, it’s unfortunate but it’s obvious that to you all police officers are thugs. The obvious conclusion is that of course its OK to harm thugs. From what you’ve written I think you believe in anarchy.
The photographer on the other hand while saying too much as you correctly pointed out, and should have unprovocatively walked away unless detained, kept his cool and didn’t give the officers any logical excuse to charge him with anything. Your advice is quite sound but your hatred is disturbing.
Do you want to tell me why cops are not thugs? Or do you cede the point? Just for starters, cops are a coercive monopoly. They don’t let anyone compete with them. Is that how peaceful people conduct business?
It is absolutely morally correct to use violence in defense of oneself and one’s loved ones when one is being attacked. Did you disagree?
Is there any reason to exempt cops from this moral rule?
(btw I think defensive violence has to be symmetric to the aggressive violence that was initiated. IOW, you mustn’t use more violence than the aggressor used against you OR more than is required to stop the aggressor from continuing his aggression. Make sense?)
Who do you think I hate Recce1?
What sophistry. I won’t try to prove a negative other than to say humans are technological barbarians far closer to the cave than any degree of real civilization. I suggest you read Romans Chapter 13, 1 Peter 2, and Titus 3.
But from your viewpoint I suppose we should all go back to the wild West.
Your very attitude shows hatred towards the police and those in authority although you try to disguise it. You hate because you lack wisdom and are impatient. You call others thugs without proof. That or you are falling back to the Marxist ploy of using words that you’ve redefined.
Are you a Marxist or an anarchist?
Exactly what have I said that is fallacious with the intent to deceive?
What evidence do you have that I think “we should all go back to the wild West”?
Which words exactly show “hatred towards the police and those in authority”?
Which words exactly show that I “try to disguise it”?
I have plenty of proof that cops are thugs and I already showed you one piece of evidence in my previous comment. Cops are a coercive monopoly.
If I was a “Marxist,” would that mean you didn’t have to answer my questions?
First off George, where did I say you said something is fallacious with the intent to deceive? Be exact please.
As you imply we shouldn’t have police as you think they’re coercive as a general precept then the logical solution os for everyone to wear a gun and seek their own justice for alleged or imagined slights or wrongs as in the old west.
I realize you’re incapable of understanding this, but your generalization of all police as thugs is a display of hatred.
Now I tend to use dictionary definitions of words. According to Dictionary.com the word “thug” means:
1. a cruel or vicious ruffian, robber, or murderer. 2. (sometimes initial capital letter ) one of a former group of professional robbers and murderers in India who strangled their victims.
You’ve failed to show one example of either although there’re no lack of such examples. I might mention the NY Amadou Diallo case, the LA Rodney King case, the New Orleans police murders after Katrina, the Oakland Oscar Grant case, the Vince Foster and other FOB cases, the Waco disaster, and the Ruby Ridge murders. All I believe would qualify under definition 1.
Your post of “Do you want to tell me why cops are not thugs? (demanding that I try to prove a negative) Or do you cede the point? (admitting your point because I can’t prove a negative?) Just for starters, cops are a coercive monopoly (So we shouldn’t have police?). They don’t let anyone compete with them (you prove my point about resorting to the old West with that puerile idea). Is that how peaceful people conduct business (yes, peaceful people thru their government hire police to protect them)? It is absolutely morally correct to use violence in defense of oneself and one’s loved ones when one is being attacked. Did you disagree? Is there any reason to exempt cops from this moral rule? (a thinly disguised call for violence against police)” is more than adequate to show your attempt to thinly disguise your hatred of police and authority. Are you afraid to say you have contempt and animus towards police in general?
By the way, I’m not claiming the police were right in their semi detention and prolonged questioning although in light of the threat of terrorism it was OK for them to ask to see some ID. But the photographer also had the right not to provide his ID or answer questions and not to be detained unless the police had honest probable cause.
Once again I’m glad he kept his cool. I sincerely doubt you would have but you did give very good advice as to how to deal with such situations; keep one’s mouth shut so as not to give anyone ammunition and to keep on peacefully moving. I can’t emphasize enough that it’s the best approach.
So I think I answered your questions even if you don’t have the courage to say whether or not you’re a Marxist. So are you? Be a mensch.
Sophistry = fallacious with an intent to deceive. I’m surprised you don’t know what the word you used means.
You’ve fallen victim to the false dichotomy logical fallacy.
Here is one of many viable proposals for de-monopolizing dispute resolution and individual security:
http://morelibertynow.com/opinion/murphy-private-law-market-anarchy
It’s not that I *think* government police is a coercive monopoly. It’s that it is obvious on the face of it. Do the cops allow competing cop organizations? Do they use coercion to fund themselves and keep their monopoly? The answer to both is, of course, yes.
No, it is a fact. And your examples are just a few reasons why. Is saying water is wet a display of hatred? No, it is calling things as they are. Want further, daily evidence for this? See http://CopBlock.org
You suggest you have hired police through the government. Do you have any evidence of this? When I hire someone, there is a contract. Got that?
And even if you did, which you don’t, that would only make you responsible for the thuggish deeds of these cops and the fact that they coerce (other) people into funding them and not competing with them.
I have contempt for coercive cops. I have respect for cops who don’t force their “services” on people. Similarly, I respect anyone who creates a product or service and offers it voluntarily on the market. Similarly, I have contempt for anyone who attempts to force their product on people.
Are you saying people must be forced to buy certain things? Who decides what those things are? Obama wants people to be forced to buy health care insurance. Are you for that, too?
What a joke your personal attacks are. You don’t even know me.
http://morelibertynow.com/libertarian/activists-jury-rights-pamphlets
Here’s a few thugs who threatened me. You be sure to let me know how I handled it, in your opinion, Roberto.
Do you routinely make personal attacks against people you don’t even know? What do you hope to gain from this?
Am I Marxist? Why don’t you read my blog and decide for yourself. Then you can let me know.
My apologies, I meant sophistry as fallacy without intent to deceive. But if you want to feel hurt, then I’ll accept the premise that you wish to deceive.
Not answering the simple question as to whether you’re a Marxist or not is to me intent to deceive and I see no point in further answering your questions until you answer that simple one. So please don’t spew generalizations as facts. It’s very unbecoming. Well, not of Marxists, it’s their modus operandi.
So far, Roberto, you appear to be accusing and asserting more than listening. I’m not sure why I should give that kind of behavior the time of day.
Where you got the idea I am a Marxist, I don’t know, and frankly I have nothing against Marxists or conservatives or liberals or even fascists. We’re all human beings first.
If you can’t take the time to actually read what a person has written but instead want to charge in and start labeling in polarizing ways, well, I’m not going to dignify that kind of hate.
I don’t think you know the difference between a generalization and a fact.
Have a good weekend and let me know if you ever stop hating and start desiring to have a conversation. Keep in mind that in order to converse, one must first listen.
Who’s the hater, someone who rejects the idea that all police are thugs even if too many are or someone who implies they all are (later back peddling a little) and hints violence against police is OK?
By the way, what is the practical difference between a Marxists, a communist anarchist, or a far left libertarian? Also, if you have nothing against fascists does that mean you have nothing against Nazis? I realize they’re not one and the same.
For there to be a conversation there must be a willingness to answer questions and define terms. You don’t do either. I do consider that deception.
Do you just want to call names or do you want to have a conversation. The comment form is only for the latter.
What is your position on the use of defensive force? Does wearing a badge remove someone’s right to defend himself or not? Why or why not?
Roberto, I’m not here to do your research for you. If you have a question about political philosophy, go look it up yourself.
Want a definition for my terms? Look them up in the dictionary.
I think this piece is great. I can say that i cant vouch that ALL policemen/officers and the difference in between are thugs, but i would say a large portion. Everyone carries an ego and everyone carrying that will do things to make them feel more superior in whatever cases they are in. Ex. my day is bad personally, so i will take it out on a by standard. Where i live, in kansas, we have many police officers who are completely over zealous of their job. It is disgusting. I once laid in a car in a parking lot and overheard 2 police officers trading stories of how they had beaten and roughed up past, what i will call victims. Yes, we do have crime, and yes, i can feel safe going to bed at night, with no fear of intruders, but at the same time, as in the agents in the matrix, if i see one, i go the other way. I have even heard police say, i will find a reason to arrest you. That sounds like true justice to me. I have gone to court as a witness, and watched as the police officer lied on the stand. I have grown to greatly disrespect those of “authority” due to my own, and others’ experiences. Once again, as “laws” vary from region to region, i say thanks for the tips!
Thanks Damon and glad you found it useful.
Are you relatively safe at night because of the thugs or because guns are relatively legal in your area? It might be the latter.
Cops are now a threat to you in your home because of no-knock raids. Dogs and people have been killed as a result of this barbaric and irresponsible practice.
George, ultimately the people’s safety resides in a well armed citizenry. Both Jefferson and Madison believed so. Also, we have to ask ourselves the question, if we could hire enough police to react to emergencies quickly, would we be happy with the resulting police state?
As for no-knock raids, here in Omaha, we had a retired pastor die as the result of one when the police broke into the wrong house. As they had a valid no-knock warrant, the courts refused to charge the police with any crime.
Even worse is the surreptitious entry warrant. What if the police or feds miscalculate and enter one’s home when the person is home. As they do so often in plain clothes one could mistake them for burglars. Let’s assume the reason for the warrant is invalid, the person is innocent of any wrongdoing. What would happen if the homeowner met them with a 12 gauge and dispatched them? Would that person be guilty of murder?
Far fetched? In the 60’s, I’m an old codger, in Idaho the police executed a no-knock warrant on a man who was quite conservative. The police, dressed like hippies, never identified themselves. The man thought he was being robbed by drug crazed hippies and went for a gun. The police shot him in the head, leaving him crippled for life. Of course the police were exonerated.
Now I’m more than willing to say far too many police are bullies and that there have been too many instances of police misconduct. But I’m unwilling to say all police are thugs or are corrupt. Nor am I willing to say governments haven’t a right to form police forces. Our society is a long way from being civilized enough that we don’t need police.
But we must never let government disarm law abiding citizens. Hell, I think all law abiding citizens should own guns.
By the way, who are the greater threat due to no-knock warrants, the cops or the politicians who vote for such laws?
The cops are the greater threat because they carry out the orders. The politicians can only give you paper cuts.
Who said we don’t need police? They just need to be provided in an accountable, responsible and non-corrupt way.
I completely agree, police need to be accountable, responsible, and not corrupt. Add to that properly trained not only as to skills but as to purpose. They should be taught thoroughly on what constitutes legal and constitutional authority according to both federal and state constitutions. Today it seems our police are paramilitary forces with the attitude that it’s them against the citizens.
Consider SWAT forces. They’re armed and trained like military troops. Are they deployed to enforce the law or to administer justice by killing suspected law breakers? All too often it’s combat for them.
As the Scriptures say, to whom more is given, more is expected. That goes doubly for power. As for politicians, don’t they also give us ulcers? Seriously, I believe that those who give the orders are just as responsible if not more so. Leadership must start from the top. Take it from an old retired disabled veteran, we must stop excusing those who give orders from the consequences. But I can understand your point. It’s a close call.
Well done! There ARE good cops out there – but they are getting fewer and farther between every day. The “anti-terror” statues and especially unwritten practices allows even cops in two-cop towns (an unlikely place for a terrorist attack) to verbally assault and abuse whomever they like, and to escalate an encounter and physically abuse people simply because they can. There are so many lies, setups and tricks they use against non-police (only military should call people “civilians”) – that you need to be half a lawyer at least to know what rights you have left, and even then you can end up hospitalized or in prison because the thug decided he wanted you there. You’re very right that they are unaccountable, and THAT is what angers me – well, not most, but close. What angers me most is that when they go totally off the rails and attack someone physically, the victim can only hope he survives and can later obtain “justice” and recompense, something vanishingly likely. THAT is not a “free country,” and is to my mind somewhere between evil and insane. When cops cross that line and one’s health/survival is at stake, one should have every right to defend himself against attack by what is now a criminal. With the aggression so many cops now show though, defending yourself against an attacking cop would instantly become life-or-death. The thugs are SO aggressive, armed and armored, the threat is deadly.
I have a file folder: “Thugs With Badges” that has hundreds of entries. Over and over we see them brush up against someone deliberately, react as though they’d been deliberately struck with a fist and charge them with assaulting an officer – after head-stomping and pounding them bloody. And I’ve personally watched cops set people up, lie on the stand and land innocent people in jail or even prison. These days though, what matters is busting SOMEONE, and too many cops don’t care who it is as long as they “get the bust.” I’ve also seen them go after the RP when the perp was gone and jail THAT person – and get away with it. The overuse of SWAT teams is causing ridiculous numbers of deaths, maimings and so on too, and those cops are oriented toward “action” – they want to use all those lovely military toys they keep getting. Another major issue.
I’ve known cops who retired proud they’d never had to draw down on, much less shoot, anyone, and they detested the thugs. They said that kind of behavior is what got a lot of cops hurt or killed; this is known, yet now it’s almost standard behavior. Cops and citizens are being, I believe, set up so that we, in order to survive, have no choice but to view police as the enemy. These uniformed schoolyard bullies are unaware of the actual law much of the time, and seem to be there for the purposes of intimidation and criminalization of more people for the private prison industry. In just a few short years, the fake “War On Terror” and the militarization of police has lost them almost all of the tremendous respect they once had – and deserved. These setup artists should never, never be allowed police powers, for reasons the government once understood. They still apply, and this situation, escalated much more, is going to become deadly on both sides.
This is now a fascist police state in the correct dictionary meanings of those words. I’m very grateful that there are courageous people like you there doing what you’re doing – thank you! Efforts like yours, and the refusal of good cops to back the thugs is the only way out that I see. Failing both of those, it can only become yet another needless, wasteful war.
Ian
Ian, you make some very good points. I was concerned about George’s initial implication that all police were thugs and that government police were unconstitutional. He’s backed off those implications and I have to agree with his view that too many police officers are bullies without a firm understanding of the limits of their authority.
I wonder about the hiring philosophies of some of our police departments. You mentioned schoolyard bullies. That hits the nail on the head. Departments often hire those who were bullied and now have a need to prove themselves by being bullies. Candidates with higher IQs, most police are not dumb but just above average, are often passed over because they “think” too much.
Another factor is police unions. When a complaint is filed against an officer, he calls for his union rep and even the victim is often never allowed to find out the disposition of a complaint. Personally, I think we need to get rid of all public service unions while instituting strong civil service commissions and a merit based pay and promotion system with some longevity considered.
Also there’s another concept we must disabuse ourselves of. It’s called sovereign immunity and is used from the federal on down to city governments. But as the Constitution points out, the people are sovereign. No government should be able to claim sovereign immunity and no government should be allowed to claim it’s not responsible for the misconduct of its employees…period.
That doesn’t mean we should allow people to sue anyone and everyone in the government, such as the president. But we need to put back the teeth in what the Constitution meant in the impeachment clause concerning “other high crimes and misdemeanors” In English law, from which our laws were derived, it meant far more than the commission of a crime. It allowed for impeachment for bad behavior, which means whatever the House says it means. Of course the House is kept in check by the Senate which decided the case.
By the way, while many Democrats deny it, Pres. Clinton was impeached, in other words indicted, but not found guilty. but the reason he was impeached also. Good intentions are no excuse for disregarding the Constitution.
First off, all cops are thugs to one extent or another. I have not backed off of that. It is sadly a fact.
I don’t remember ever saying government police were unconstitutional.
Training will not fix this problem. What a typical government solution. We’ll just tell them what to do … again. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.
Cops are broken by institutional design.
Even the proverbial “good cop” is still a recipient of stolen goods. That makes him corrupt and a thug.
Why should anyone be immune from a lawsuit? That only puts them above the law. I thought we were all created equal?
Thanks for your comments Ian and Roberto.
George, like most people with serious prejudices of one form or another you demonize a whole class of people, in this case police officers. You’ve now made it quite clear you believe all police officers are cruel or vicious ruffians, robbers, or murderers.
So what I see is an example of left-wing paranoia, whether you’re a progressive, socialist, Marxist, or so-called leftist libertarian, a euphemism for end game Marxist anarchist. Like most with paranoia you even refuse to address what you are politically. As I’ve pointed out, I’m a constitutional conservative republican, small “r”, who believes in free market capitalism under constitutional and contract law.
By logical extension of your arguments government police are unconstitutional in your opinion as you don’t seem to believe in the Constitution to begin with. You didn’t have to say it outright. You have a problem with institutions, particularly governmental, of all kinds, unless designed or controlled by you and your compatriots I suppose.
As for training that will fix the problem, no training will ever fix all problems or even most. That’s the trouble with life. We’re imperfect human beings, i.e., we have a sin nature. So you moan about the problem but are unwilling to even take the first steps necessary to addressing the problem. You want all or nothing, a typical anarchist position. Do you honestly think that without those “dastardly and corrupting” institutions of society humans would become peaceful, cooperative, harmonious, and charitable? If so you have very little understanding of human nature. We’re technological barbarians playing with fire far closer to the cave than any real degree of civilization.
As for why would anyone or thing be immune from lawsuits, it’s because they are by government degree. Some people, corporations, and institutions are more equal than others or didn’t you know that? I’m not condoning that but that’s what we have now in spades. But tell me, in what society in history has there ever existed a large population under peaceful anarchism? The real goal must be in reversing the trend towards loss of personal freedoms to a fascist/socialist government and increasing freedoms with a much smaller and less intrusive government.
By the way, being created equal was meant by the Founders as all having equal unalienable rights under God, not equal abilities, possessions, wealth, or opportunities as leftists dream of instituting, by government institutions of course. But did I attempt to justify sovereign immunity or did I acknowledge its existence and the need to severely curtail or eliminate it? Sovereign immunity of one sort or another has been around since humans formed groups. We need to stop it in governments and corporations which by the way are legal persons giving shelter to their officers.
When it comes to lawsuits over their job decisions against the president, VP, or cabinet members, does it mean you favor unlimited lawsuits or just those for personal civil misconduct? If the former, the government would grind to a standstill. Oh, I forget, you’d probably favor that. In any event, under the Constitution we have the impeachment and removal process for serious misconduct by the president and others, although Congress seems to have no stomach for such. Clinton was impeached for lying to a grand jury about an affair when he should have been impeached and removed for treason for giving China sensitive missile and guidance technology, subsequently used against the US, in exchange for illegal foreign campaign donations.
Unfortunately, what I see is a child railing indiscriminately and ineffectively against the system. It’s unfortunate because there’re a lot of problems with the system, particularly the justice system which you well point out when not trying to blame all police or government official en masse. But alas, you’ll be dismissed as a crank because of your extremist absolutism. What we need is real solutions, not leftist libertarian fantasies.
You continue to strawman because you don’t understand or want to acknowledge my argument. Please come back when you have thought about it sufficiently to cease engaging in logical fallacies.
I’m not engaging in logical falliocies George. I’m calling you a liar and a fraud. I’ve directly addressed your assertions yet you haven’t yet had the courage to answer my questions. You see, I do understand what you’re saying and I don’t agree. You claim ALL policemen are cruel or vicious ruffians, robbers, or murderers, i.e., thugs. In my book that makes you mentally unstable and perhaps dangerous.
You can call me all the names in the book until your face turns blue but ad hominem and strawmen will still not constitute a rational argument.