engr wrote:I used to live in Russia during 1990's which weren't exactly the most crime-free time (to put it mildly). One of the reasons the public (or, at least, part of the public) really distrusted police was because it was not enforcing drug laws well enough and drugs became a huge problem after the collapse of the USSR. The common sentiment was "these bastard cops know who sells drugs and don't do anything".
engr wrote:In the States we have significant evidence about various things that our police are doing wrong.
Because everything police does falls under scrutiny, whether on or off-duty. A crime, once committed by a police officer, even off-duty, is going to be all over the news. This will create the perception of police misbehavior being more common than it is. This is similar to how nuclear energy is feared by the public because a nuclear accident which killed no one will be all over the news because "Gee Willikers it's nyukelar!!!" while numerous deadly accidents at coal mines are like "meh, whatever".
I knew a police officer who was accused of beating his girlfriend, while off-duty (his story was that she was drunk and was taking a swing at him, so he physically restrained her); she called cops, they arrested him; charges got dropped, but he was still fired, and an organization he was a member of, while off-duty, was basically disbanded. If he wasn't a cop, how much coverage would that story get?
If misconduct by, say, engineers was covered as well as police misconduct, people would be fucking terrified of us.
So you argue that our evidence is flawed because it is anecdotal, and your argument comes in the form of an anecdote?