[BigV]

Sarge,

You do your arguments a disservice when you clearly imply threat/intent/suspicion based on elements completely disconnected to the events at hand, going well outside the letter of the law, and then in the next breath, stand by the officers requiring the people on the other side of the argument to supply tangible, actionable, admissible evidence, by law, to support their claims, or stfu.

Pick one or the other. A strict legalistic perspective of guilt and innocence and culpability, or a more holistic perspective that includes hunches and tendencies and histories and other subjective measures to justify your conclusions. When you try to have it both ways, you just look inconsistent.

The very bedrock of our civil society depends on a predictable, systemic, shared expectation of our mutual respect for the rule of law. Let's face it, the police are outnumbered and outgunned. Why are they not all dead then? Because we, as a group, respect the system. It's not right to measure the actions of the different sides or groups by different standards. That's a recipe for trouble, for anarchy.