G20 demonstrations

@horatio

Right, I see where you're coming from. You're twisting my words to fit your viewpoint. I didn't say Police officers should never be convicted for misconduct, you jumped that conclusion yourself. And you have clearly quoted me out of context. I said "If this case would have gone through and the police officer had been prosecuted, every dickhead with a gripe ...." If this case. We're not talking about a Rodney King style beating here are we. Just to re-iterate: I'm not sure that policing at protest will improve if 50% of the protesters are journalists filming everyone's movement at all time. I believe this could encourage the crowd to goad the police, especially in tense, difficult situations, which may lead to an increase in police violence. The more policemen that are convicted (for what I believe to be quite small things like this) the less the police will be respected and feared.

I don't think I'm twisting your words. If I am, I apologize. Here's where I'm coming from.

I ignored the "if" because it's irrelevant (ah! that argument again!). I'm arguing against your position that comes after - the part that starts with "every." That is, that public trials and convictions of police officers is a bad thing because it results in the undermining of the police.

Let's break down your argument.

"On a wider level, if this would have gone through and the police officer had been prosecuted, then every dickhead with a gripe against any policeman would feel encouraged to take any officer to court for misconduct. It would have seriously undermined their authority"

I see three parts to what you said:

A) if this would have gone through and the police officer had been prosecuted, then B) every dickhead with a gripe against any policeman would feel encouraged to take any officer to court for misconduct. C) It would have seriously undermined their authority.

That is, you are arguing/argued that A could have caused B, and you think B is bad because of C. Yes?

I am arguing that B is not bad. A doesn't matter (the "if" statement), because B is not bad. In fact, what you argued for instead (internal investigations) is much worse than B.