The 2020 George Floyd/BLM/Police Brutality Protests Discussion Thread

[Famine]

What did the man actually have in his car at the moment the situation arose?
So far everything points to at least a knife.

What does that have to do with what he's convicted of? You describe this chap as being "criminal(s) who didn't want to go back", but what was he convicted of to be a criminal? I assume from "didn't want to go back" it was something he was imprisoned for?

Did you miss where he was tased twice?!

That's quite scary. An effective taser deployment will have you twitching on the deck as long as it's sparking - it's involuntary and there's no avoiding it; even folk off their gourd on PCP will eat floor with an effective taser deployment.

Two hits and still going is either two really crappy taser deployments or two really crappy tasers (or one, then the other). Better equipment and training needed. Including the training not to shoot a man seven times in the back while he's leaning into a car full of his own kids.

 

[ryzno]

How is it that you & others repeatedly seem to find yourselves in the last 72 hours justifying death where it's not necessary in multiple scenarios.

I guess I have my answer from before wondering if the Patriot Prayer man deserved to die then.

He's not dead, he's paralyzed from the waist down and there was even outrage in the news a criminal was handcuffed to his hospital bed...
Sad times when convicted criminals on paper can run around and do as they please and get defended by the community.

I'll gladly look at a link saying otherwise.

Other than that, good day y'all. I got a 150 miles to cover in 3 hours. I'm done wasting my time.

 

[Tornado]

It's also interesting that when an NYPD officer drives his Explorer into a crowd of protestors, the protestors should have listened to the officer to disperse; but this guy getting in his car might have maybe led to him going all Carmageddon on people so by all means light him up.

Did you miss where he was tased twice?!

I'm well aware of that, just like I am that you didn't answer my question. I'll provide just the setup to better convey the point since you didn't seem to get it when Danoff asked earlier either:

Multiple cops are following you at arm's length all the way to your car door and even let you open it to get in, and they are completely powerless to stop you from doing what you want unless they let things escalate to the point where they think it is justified to shoot you seven times in the back? Taze him first, and if that doesn't work (despite tasers being so dangerous that cops are apparently allowed to shoot you for having one of those too) dump half a dozen rounds into him at point blank range?

 

[Famine]

He's not dead, he's paralyzed from the waist down

I believe rule two of firearm handling is "do not point the barrel at anything you do not wish to be destroyed" (rule one being "the gun is loaded unless you have checked and cleared it yourself"). The outcome of the chap not being dead isn't relevant to the intent of pointing the barrel at him, putting a finger on the trigger (rule three) and sticking seven into his back - which was to kill him.

Hopefully the cop used hollow points so he didn't have to be aware of rule four, about what's beyond the target...

there was even outrage in the news a criminal was handcuffed to his hospital bed...
Sad times when convicted criminals on paper can run around and do as they please and get defended by the community

But what was he convicted of? Again, I've not kept up with this case but I can't find any information anywhere that says he was ever a convicted criminal.

 

[Danoff]

He's not dead, he's paralyzed from the waist down

Again, if this were the sentence handed down from the judicial system, death would have been more acceptable. Not less.

Sad times when convicted criminals on paper can run around and do as they please and get defended by the community.

I think I remember saying he should have been arrested. You're strawmaning us into saying the he should run around and do as he pleases, and then flipping the table and leaving the conversation over something nobody said.

 

[ryzno]

(despite tasers being so dangerous that cops are apparently allowed to shoot you for having one of those too)

Seriously man?
The dude here in Atlanta took the officers taser and fired it at the officers...
Come on!

Edit: I'd like to apologise, I think I'm starting to get the recent cases confused.

I seriously do need to get rolling. I'll respond this evening. Sorry y'all.

 

[McLaren]

He's not dead, he's paralyzed from the waist down and there was even outrage in the news a criminal was handcuffed to his hospital bed...

So now it's okay to shoot as long as the person doesn't die?

And I'm guessing the outrage is handcuffing a paralyzed man to a bed. What's he going to do? Get up and run?

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

He's not dead, he's paralyzed from the waist down and there was even outrage in the news a criminal was handcuffed to his hospital bed...
Sad times when convicted criminals on paper can run around and do as they please and get defended by the community.

I'll gladly look at a link saying otherwise.

Other than that, good day y'all. I got a 150 miles to cover in 3 hours. I'm done wasting my time.

I think the broad point is you either have an impartial justice system or you don't. It can't be "sort of" impartial. Should wanted subjects resist arrest? Of course not. Can you expect criminals to adhere to the rules? Again, by their nature, probably not. So where does that leave us? If we want to have a impartial, dispassionate justice system, we have to also accept the fact that there are going to be frustrations that go along with that. We have to accept that criminals will attempt to abuse the latitude afforded to them by the impartial justice system - we have to accept it otherwise the alternative is to give in to a potentially satisfying but ultimately self defeating prejudiced justice system - extrajudicial killings, police taking bribes, police preferring some enforcement over others. Mexico has this problem and it's not a good one.

I think it's probably pretty natural to want immediate, satisfying, no loose-ends justice - it certainly makes for good TV. But our system of impartial, messy, often unsatisfying justice cultivates a better society...one in which all of the people can trust they will be treated with fairness.

Nobody here is saying they love it when wanted subjects flee or fight or resist arrest - it's that they are willing to tolerate it if it means that we can have a system of due process & impartial justice. What's not tolerable is police bypassing that system and taking justice into their own hands.

 

[Liquid]

You can argue the toss about fault or blame all day but the simple fact is that the United States has a violence problem, both with its civilians and with its law enforcement.

Accepting that, bottom line, this problem exists, and acknowledging it without prejudice, is seemingly still too great a hurdle.

 

[killerjimbag]

Since we're now apparently playing the "could have" game, one of those 7 bullets could have missed Blake and found a home in one of said 3 children in the car instead. If anything the children being in close proximity makes the police look worse since they were putting them in far more danger than Blake was.

Unless the kids were sitting on his back,probably not.
I will leave this to all of your interpretation. You tell me BLM.
https://heyjackass.com/

 

[TexRex]

What do you think the pluralized "democrats" means? The mayor is more than one person?

Not so much grammar policing as pointing out an obvious reading comprehension failure. That's why I replied to you and not @Chrunch Houston.

"Haters gonna hate," a phrase commonly offered in response to the words or actions of an individual, is grammatically correct in its use of the plural to refer to a singular entity as that singular entity is said to exhibit characteristics typical of those of a specified group. Similarly, "Democrats democrating" may be applied to the singular despite the use of the plural because the individual (singular) is said to be exhibiting characteristics typical of those of the specified group (plural). Because it may be applied to the singular, it isn't unreasonable to inquire about the target of the remark.

If you're going to be pedantic about the use of language, it'd be prudent to make sure you're not wrong before doing so, but then your opting to engage this individual in the manner that you've chosen strikes me as having been motivated by the individual typically holding views with which you disagree. In these circumstances, people are less inclined to think rationally and instead succumb to emotion.

Lol, you harped on the font in a post and you're accusing others of nitpicking?

So you're saying Comic Sans is the only font you consider acceptable.

/s

The "/s" is used above to indicate that the preceding remark was sarcastic in nature and that the use of sarcasm has ended. The use of sarcasm in this instance is intended to reflect your propensity to misrepresent the remarks of others as something more easily argued against or merely to smear the individual whose remarks you've misrepresented as irrational. This behavior is itself irrational (and simply dishonest), though no correlation (much less causation) between irrational behavior (or dishonesty) and skin color has been established.

Oh that's right it's really about the money...

Or, you know, the "Benjamins." But wait, isn't the suggestion that decisions made based solely on concerns about money considered anti-Semitism because Jews are stereotypically associated with such decisions?

/s

Sarcasm has been used above again in a callback to an earlier discussion in which the solicited individual used the invocation of anti-Semitism to shut down criticism of the State of Israel, but repeatedly disregarded solicitations for an explanation as to how the criticism was explicitly anti-Semitic.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...ondemned-violence-linked-protests/3317862001/

I'd wager it must be hard to Google these claims for yourself, but you're more worried about the Trump kool-aid ending up tasting sour.

That's already been accounted for; Sean Hannity soaks in the stuff immediately prior to distribution.

"Don't worry about the chewy things, they're just beads of congealed smegma."

Also, Rand Paul, after he was "attacked" (miraculously, not a single hair on his head was out of place...I think), alleged Joe Biden has never condemned the violence, though Biden released a video the Wednesday prior in which he did precisely that. He also issued a statement early amid the unrest following George Floyd's murder. I mean...I don't even like Biden, but the patent falsehoods are ridiculous. Republicans* gonna Republican.

*Referring only to the singular Republican Rand Paul, though he's said to be exhibiting characteristics typical of the specified group.

I don't care if that's actually true or not, but I figured I'd just edit your post for you since you're already 10 lines deep in sharing nonsense.

"Propoganda." I don't recall seeing him spell it any other way, and accuracy should be strived for.

I live in Utah, just outside Salt Lake City.

I liked how he casually slipped Nancy Pelosi in there. It actually made me laugh.

Trumpism, man.

Stop moving the goalposts.

That wasn't moving the goalposts.

It may or may not have been a specific strawman in which a response addresses a misrepresented remark.

I say may not have been because it seems you've chosen this issue based solely on the NBA not having taken it up, be that sufficiently or even at all. It's become clear that the alternate issue isn't itself as important as the fact that the NBA's addressing of it is lacking. It could have been literally any issue other than the issue they have ventured to address, but this is the one you've chosen.

Uyghur's

Uighur's (sp)

misspelling of ethnic group's name while pretending to care

also spelled Uygur or Uyghur

That, uh...that wasn't a case of moving the goalposts either, bud.

It was actually whataboutism, and while whataboutism can be and definitely has been employed in bad faith (e.g. "but you don't feel the same way about this other thing," which ought to sound familiar) to suggest hypocrisy, it can also be employed in good faith, as @Eunos_Cosmo employed it in his solicitation to you, to delve into whether or not a particular argument is fair or even relevant.

One is said to have moved the goalposts when they've rejected a response on the basis that it doesn't meet requirements set after the response was received. Repeated rejections when subsequent requirements have been met is often referred to as a "goalpost on wheels."

You really ought to be much more familiar with the meaning of moving the goalposts given the lesson you received when you rejected my counter to your assertion that Trump had never attempted to shut down free speech on the basis that the counter didn't meet requirements that you set after I provided it. For whatever reason (likely because it was simply a legitimate counter to your assertion), you didn't think a judge's ruling on a matter qualified, despite her being...you know...a judge. I kind of thought that was sufficient, though no requirement had actually been set at the time that I presented the counter.

This is getting off-topic, so I'm wrapping it up, but you may recall that when you realized your goalpost moving wasn't actually going to cut it, you decided that the fact that the ruling was being appealed (as is the prerogative of the losing party in a court ruling) was enough to reject the counter. The cool dude that I am, I actually said I would concede and withdraw the counter in the event that the lower court's ruling was overturned. Well, in March of this year, a Federal Appeals Court upheld the lower court's ruling and it's looking like further appeals aren't going to be ventured. It may be time for you to take the "L" on that.

@Groundfish @DDastardly00

The ad hominem line of argumentation is transparent and uncompelling. Want to try something more substantial? Reason perhaps?

As I recall, it wasn't so long ago that one of those two inappropriately proposed you and I be referred to as "the ad hominem brothers" (though it may have been "twins"). I think that's funny.

You already know someone is gonna say that the officers shouldn't be the executioner...
Shhhh, they don't care he was a wanted, violent criminal...

"Justice for me but not for thee."

Law enforcement aren't the end all be all of the criminal justice system. This is a good thing, because they're often not particularly good at playing their current role and the last thing they need is more roles to play.

Are there any conservative talking points here that don't rely on questionable/biased sources that are quite clearly targeted towards 1 view point? I mean for ***** sake, 1 of the sites has a Police Misconduct page that argues for the police officers involved.

Don't you know the source isn't important when it says what you want to believe?

I think murder, rape and pedophilia all deserve the death penalty.

Ah, yes...good old thought crime. Pedophilia is the primary or exclusive sexual attraction of an adult or older adolescent to prepubescent children. Attraction is not action. In the absence of action, no rights are violated.

If the attraction is acted upon and there is a victim of the action who is a child, that action is then termed child sexual abuse. This is an actual crime deserving of criminal prosecution as it violates the rights of another.

The attraction may also not be acted upon at all, or may be acted upon through sexual roleplay with a consenting adult that exhibits characteristics similar to those of a prepubescent child, either naturally or...erm...groomed...and neither of these are deserving of criminal prosecution or vigilantism as no rights are violated.

One who perpetrates the act of child sexual abuse may not actually be a pedophile, either. The overwhelming majority of individuals tried for the act are related to the victim, and the act is one of violence against one deemed to be beneath the perpetrator. It's not sexual in nature despite instances involving actions shared with consensual sexual intercourse. It's about power. It's rape.

Sadly we don't give it out anymore and when we do they sit there for decades wasting tax money.

Who is "we"? Georgia has it, as you said. Indeed Georgia is one of 24 active death penalty states, and there are four more that haven't abolished it but have a moratorium on it. The Federal government and Military also have it. Who is "we"?!

Excessive force is warranted...

This may be the most hilariously stupid thing I have ever seen. I...I think I peed myself a little.

Think about those four words in that order for a moment.

Excessive. Force. Is. Warranted.

Lethal or near lethal force in which gross bodily harm results in the subject of that force being maimed, with the latter likely being preferable to the former, is deemed to be warranted when all other options available to law enforcement officers have been exhausted. If not all options short of lethal or near lethal force have been exhausted, the lethal or near lethal force is deemed to be excessive; the force exceeded that which was necessary.

Excessive force is never warranted.

Why does the trial take 2 years yet it takes 30+ to kill them?

It's part and parcel with the criminal justice system. It's intended to prevent miscarriages of justice, as not everyone who goes through the system has a fair time of it and death is final. There are numerous instances of individuals having been found to not be guilty after their execution, and even more who may or may not have been guilty but justice wasn't delivered because individuals involved in proceedings violated standards to which members of the criminal justice system are held. Sadly, countless wrongful executions aren't revealed at all, as efforts to ensure justice are typically redirected to cases where the convicted is still among the living. The miscarriages of justice post execution are usually discovered when pressed by family or when new details about the crimes for which the executed were convicted are brought to light.

It doesn't always take so long, either. Texas managed to kill a man just eight years after his conviction, and developments since that execution have been made to cast a very high degree of doubt on that man's guilt of the crime for which he was convicted and executed. That's better than 30 years, right?

Anywho, I don't see a "monetary amount" stopping me from wanting to kill the person that god forbid was stupid enough to even try to harm my son.

You and your son have been invited to a picnic. Maybe it's a church picnic. Upon your arrival, a church representative greets you and hands you a ringpop to give to your son if you wish.

You've eaten. The chicken was good but the macaroni salad had too much onion and it's making you burp with an unpleasant aftertaste. You give your son that ringpop and one of his toy trucks to play in the grass within the immediate vicinity so you can reasonably ensure his safety.

You're sitting at a picnic table talking with someone you've since met about your job and how frustrating it is when a waterheater that needs to be changed out is too big for the door it's behind. Your son's not making a ton of noise, so you have no concerns and you're enjoying your chat.

The dynamic changes completely in an instant. Someone shouts something behind you but you don't catch it because you've been engaged in conversation. You turn around to see someone grabbing your son in what appears to be a violent manner. The law isn't going to protect him and you know all too well that some people with a connection to church do some pretty horrible things to children. Maybe you're armed, maybe not, but you manage to subdue the apparent assailant and, though it wasn't your intent, you killed the man. You were protecting your son.

You look over and see your son's blue, lifeless body. "He was choking," a bystander says. There are sharp crystals of candy attached to the stem of the ringpop but the main chunk of candy diamond is broken off. He chewed through and the candy was lodged in his throat. On the ground between you and the body of the man with whom you've just fought is a laminated badge. There's a picture of the man's face on it. There are letters on the badge that read "Fire Rescue." On the other side of his body is a mess of stickers that he'd had in his pocket to distribute to kids. He was an emergency responder. He wasn't on duty, though; he was enjoying a church picnic.

In that moment, you realize he probably yelled behind you that the boy was choking. He was likely attempting to save your son's life. The violent attack was actually the Heimlich Maneuver, which can indeed appear quite violent.

Was the man's death justified? Who is responsible for your son's death?

I'm not talking about the law. The law wasn't going to protect your son. You acted on instinct. Parents flip out when they fear their child is in immediate danger. I know this too well. There were lots of witnesses who saw a horrible situation and blame can't reasonably be laid on anyone. You probably won't be held accountable and face criminal prosecution, though there may be a civil suit from the wife of the firefighter/EMT because she can't afford to raise their two kids in their current home without his income to supplement her own.

I don't really expect an answer. It's a hypothetical situation intended to inspire some critical thought, and I obviously don't wish for such a horrible situation to befall you and your son. I also sincerely hope the imagery wasn't too much, but I really wanted to drive home the fact that life is super complicated at times, even in the total absence of malice.

When a "normal" person kills someone in self defense it's up to them to show that the use of force was justified.

I'm pretty sure this also applies to leftists.

This is the most absurd post I've seen.

That phrase has no meaning when it leaves the fingertips of the guy who literally said "excessive force is warranted."


Edit: Holy hole in a donut, that's a long post. Apologies.

 

[TexRex]

Unless the kids were sitting on his back,probably not.

Breonna Taylor was struck by nearly half of the rounds intended for the armed Kenneth Walker. Kenneth Walker was permitted to carry the registered gun he was holding in his apartment when armed intruders broke the door open. Those intruders were police. Neither Breonna Taylor nor Kenneth Walker were indicated on the warrant that those law enforcement officers were executing.

 

[UKMikey]

Unless the kids were sitting on his back,probably not.
I will leave this to all of your interpretation. You tell me BLM.
https://heyjackass.com/

White people kill each other all the time.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u....016/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-3.xls

Still not sure how this justifies shooting someone in the back seven times for carrying a knife in his glovebox while black, though.

Think about those four words in that order for a moment.

Excessive. Force. Is. Warranted.

[EDIT] The lyrics to the BGM for this brief clip ("Back to that same ol' place... sweet home Chicago") are completely coincidental.

 

[killerjimbag]

White people kill each other all the time.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u....016/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-3.xls

Still not sure how this justifies shooting someone in the back seven times for carrying a knife in his glovebox while black, though.

Yeah people kill people all the time. Your point being what? Stop the narrative, there are people getting slaughtered in Africa,Syria,Iraq,etc. If someone in a free democratic country does not understand to put your 🤬 hands up after all the atrocities committed by cops by now. Your an idiot. Cop has a gun says put your hands up. Do what you want and suffer the consequences. Pretty simple don't ya think. I mean how dumb are people?

 

[DesertPenguin]

Cop has a gun says put your hands up. Do what you want and suffer the consequences. Pretty simple don't ya think. I mean how dumb are people?

I get what you're saying but it's not that black and white in the real world.

 

[McLaren]

You can't protest police brutality against blacks without protesting black-on-black crime.


Brought to you by the people who don't actually care about either, themselves.

 

[Famine]

I get what you're saying but it's not that black and white in the real world.

 

[UKMikey]

You can't protest police brutality against blacks without protesting black-on-black crime.


Brought to you by the people who don't actually care about either, themselves.

Hey, don't forget about the Uyghurs Uighurs...

 

[killerjimbag]

I get what you're saying but it's not that black and white in the real world.

No your forgetting Asian and Hispanic. How ironic.

You can't protest police brutality against blacks without protesting black-on-black crime.


Brought to you by the people who don't actually care about either, themselves.

I guess you don't live in Chicago. Evidently they don't give a 🤬 about anybody!

 

[UKMikey]

Have Kenosha PD released a statement justifying the shooting besides telling us about the knife or are they just leaving it to internet blowhards to make excuses for it until the investigation concludes?

If Officer Rusten Shesken was in the right then why has he been placed on administrative leave?

Why did no other policemen besides Shesken see fit to discharge their service weapons at the time if this was a justifiable course of action?

And what do all the homicide victims in Chicago have to do with this incident?

 

[Groundfish]

One irrational danger when looking at these events is falling into the propoganda position...ie whit cop shoots black guy = racism
That’s a false equivalency or some such.
Further if you are fighting the cops armed with a deadly weapon I think you might be a deadly threat.
You might end up dead doing that stupid crap.
Could you imagine making a decision to fight police with a deadly weapon?
Not good

 

[UKMikey]

Many white cops shoot many black guys. Whether it's racism or not, it's not based on an isolated incident, let alone on "propoganda".

How deadly was the weapon?

 

[killerjimbag]

Have Kenosha PD released a statement justifying the shooting besides telling us about the knife or are they just leaving it to internet blowhards to make excuses for it until the investigation concludes?

If Officer Rusten Shesken was in the right then why has he been placed on administrative leave?

Why did no other policemen see fit to discharge their service weapons at the time if it was a justifiable course of action?

And what do all the homicide victims in Chicago have to do with this incident?

The homicide victims in Chicago? Are you serious? 9 year old boy shot in the back of his head at his grandmothers. Dude Jesus h christ man. Are you kidding me. Do you not get what is going on in inner cities in North America? There are innocent people of colour getting "murdered ever day" . Where the 🤬 is BLM protesting this crap? Dude just stop man. I visited my daughter in Toronto on Saturday. 5 shootings in 4 hours. I'm not going to go into what colour the jackasses shooting guns were. You look up the police report your self.

 

[McLaren]

Further if you are fighting the cops armed with a deadly weapon I think you might be a deadly threat.
You might end up dead doing that stupid crap.
Could you imagine making a decision to fight police with a deadly weapon?
Not good

Jacob Blake wasn't fighting any one with a deadly weapon, though....

Where the 🤬 is BLM protesting this crap?

You're not protesting it, either, so what do you actually care if someone else does or doesn't?

 

[UKMikey]

The homicide victims in Chicago? Are you serious? 9 year old boy shot in the back of his head at his grandmothers. Dude Jesus h christ man. Are you kidding me. Do you not get what is going on in inner cities in North America? There are innocent people of colour getting "murdered ever day" . Where the 🤬 is BLM protesting this crap?

Right here: https://blockclubchicago.org/2020/0...r-safer-neighborhoods-all-the-time-heres-how/

It sounds like they give more of a "🤬" about the victims than you do since you're seemingly only interested in them as deflection to take the heat off a trigger happy cop in Kenosha.

Dude just stop man. I visited my daughter in Toronto on Saturday. 5 shootings in 4 hours. I'm not going to go into what colour the jackasses shooting guns were. You look up the police report your self.

No, I won't stop. Your rant answers pretty much none of the other questions. Do any of those murders give a police force in Wisconsin a free hand to shoot an unarmed man in the back? If so, how?

 

[huskeR32]

Yeah people kill people all the time. Your point being what? Stop the narrative, there are people getting slaughtered in Africa,Syria,Iraq,etc. If someone in a free democratic country does not understand to put your 🤬 hands up after all the atrocities committed by cops by now. Your an idiot. Cop has a gun says put your hands up. Do what you want and suffer the consequences. Pretty simple don't ya think. I mean how dumb are people?

In the same post where you yourself say that cops commit "atrocities," you also say that it's on everyone else to just fall in line and obey those same cops? That's really the stance you want to take? Where do you think that road leads to?

 

[Northstar]

One irrational danger when looking at these events is falling into the propoganda position...ie whit cop shoots black guy = racism

I really don't care what the motive is, at the end of the day by not holding police accountable everyone suffers no matter their race. I'm not even talking about actual police violence either, even just them failing to do their job of removing children from dangerous homes seems to go unpunished as I've witnessed locally very recently.

 

[killerjimbag]

In the same post where you yourself say that cops commit "atrocities," you also say that it's on everyone else to just fall in line and obey those same cops? That's really the stance you want to take? Where do you think that road leads to?

Ok so let me understand this. All cops are bad. If I fight with cops or disobey cops ill get shot or whatever. I'm not dumb,so i won't do anything to provoke them. Hmm. I see bear in the woods with cubs. I know if I go near the cubs,she will probably kill me. Get the point!

 

[UKMikey]

Ok so let me understand this. All cops are bad. If I fight with cops or disobey cops ill get shot or whatever. I'm not dumb,so i won't do anything to provoke them. Hmm. I see bear in the woods with cubs. I know if I go near the cubs,she will probably kill me. Get the point!

Yeah, there's no difference between cops and out of control wild animals in your eyes.

 

[huskeR32]

Ok so let me understand this. All cops are bad. If I fight with cops or disobey cops ill get shot or whatever. I'm not dumb,so i won't do anything to provoke them. Hmm. I see bear in the woods with cubs. I know if I go near the cubs,she will probably kill me. Get the point!

So you're choosing the road where we just let "bad cops" who commit "atrocities" do as they please? I ask again; where do you think that road leads?