So, who or what is a “criminal.” This phrasing makes it seem like “criminal” is the essence of a certain group of people. Once you are born or become a “criminal,” you will always be one. They can be easily separated from the “law-abiding citizens.”

On the other hand, there are the “law enforcement officers.” They are different from the “criminals” because they are “law enforcement officers.” This is the essence of who they are. One can never become the other.

If you think about it for two seconds (something I doubt many people will ever do) the argument is nonsense.

Committing a crime is something people do, not something that they are. You are a law-abiding person. For some reason, you commit a crime. Maybe you’re in debt, they’re about to take away your house, and you decide to run a load of cocaine across the Texas border to cover the mortgage. Okay, now you’re a criminal. But then, lets say you get away with it, they don’t find the dope, you make the drop, get the money, pay your mortgage, and go back to your job on Monday, and never commit another crime the rest of your life. Are you a law-abiding citizen again now? Or are you still a criminal?

Same with cops. You “serve and protect” for years. But then you falsify one piece of evidence. Or you break the arm of one suspect and blame it on a fall. Or whatever.

You get the idea. “Cop” is a job. It’s something you do. It is not who you are. Similarly, “criminal” is not who a person is, either. You can’t walk down the street and point out, “law-abiding citizen,” “cop,” “criminal.” It just doesn’t work like that.

The other is within us, and vice versa.

By an apologist, I meant he is a person that is willing to turn a blind eye towards police misconduct solely because they are officers.

If anything, we need to be harsher on these officers because they give a bad name to all officers.

Cops should have no special rights or protections from the law, but neither should someone based on their race, religion, or sexual orientation. “Hate crime” laws do just that. Assault and battery is still A&B regardless of what is going through their mind when they commit the crime or the person’s skin color who is being assaulted. That should be enough.

The word alleged should be used when referring to a specific individual who has not been convicted but I am using it in a very broad manner which doesn’t single anybody out.

In some of the cases that appear on the feed, the officer has been convicted and in others they have not.

The term “police misconduct news” describes the general theme of the articles whether there has been a conviction or not because the subject matter is still police misconduct.

So the term describes the subject matter, not the individuals.

Duane if it’s a conviction you can drop the alleged because we know he is guilty, especially if it’s a jury that convicted him.

Even if he had been “disciplined” or “convicted” it would probably be a one day suspension WITH PAY.

what if the story is about a conviction?

This is the Twitter news feed compiled by Injustice in Seattle. It will offer us non-stop police misconduct news.

I think you meant alleged misconduct news

This is the Twitter news feed compiled by Injustice in Seattle. It will offer us non-stop police misconduct news.