Also, shoot the intruder dead. None of this holding at gunpoint nonsense.

Nothing like a sweeping generalization of all police:)

/agree.

There are probably millions of people worldwide employed as police officers. Obviously this means there is the potential that a small percentage of them may be corrupt / abuse their power. Clearly this is a very bad thing and we must constantly be aware of this and ensure that our political representatives scritinise the conduct of our police and maintain high standards. But I am sure most police officers try to do a decent job.

What Tolstoy is saying here is basically:

"Here is an example of police officers behaving in an incompetent and corrupt manner. This one example proves that ALL police officers are incompetent and corrupt."

...which is of course bullshit. "All cats have four legs. My dog has four legs. Therefore my dog is a cat."

Affirming the consequent is def. not the fallacy at issue.

Sorry Acosmist, you lost me there w/ the last post.

Jamie confused hasty generalization with affirming the consequent.

He was right that there was a fallacy in the air, though.

It was an absurd generalisation and Tolstoy should have known better than to make it.

@ Tolstoy: What is your solution, anyway - do you think we should abolish the police? Who would maintain order?

Alternatively, instead of getting your "news" from a blog that is apparently sponsored by the gold standard and advocates "Never call[ing] 911," you can read what a legitimate newspaper says about it.

http://www.azcentral.com/community/phoenix/articles/2009/03/18/20090318shotsue0318.html
http://www.azcentral.com/community/phoenix/articles/2009/09/25/20090925phxarambula0925.html

I imagine that one's preexisting opinions about the police will control your thoughts about what this is about. Was it a tragic accident? Or police incompetence and the Blue Wall of Silence?

Wait for Sicarius to turn up and tell us what to think. He's wired to the Man Upstairs.

He thinks he does, at least.

Think only what I tell you! Otherwise the government will kidnap you, global warming will flood your state, and civilization will collapse! be afraid! auuuuuggghhhhh!!!!!!!!

I firmly agree w/ Jamie on this one. I will assume that the police in this case are guilty of criminal behavior. Punishment should definitely fit the crime (questioning the dollars in lawsuits is a separate dialogue completely). However, to head the thread w/ "For those who still think Officer Friendly is there to help you", Tolstoy was definitely trying to infer that police are not to be trusted. That's a pretty broad brush to paint with. Now, had he stated the specific officer(s) were not to be trusted, I'd have no quarrel - but that is not how it was communicated.

Also by that logic, no human should ever trust another. And for that matter, I no longer trust anyone in any game I'm playing with, as it sounds like you've all backstabbed someone else in a previous game.

First off, all of you who are so upset about my sweeping generalization seem to be making some sweeping generalizations of your own - that this is an aberrant event, it is highly unusual for police officers to cover up each others' crimes, nearly all or most police shootings are good, etc. I'd like to know why your sweeping generalizations are any more valid than my own.

Sadly, this story is not an aberration. Bad police shootings happen all the time (we don't know how often, since police agencies refuse to keep track), and the shooters' fellow officers, the agency they work for, and the municipality that owns that agency *always* act to cover it up, excuse it, blame the victim, and generally circle the wagons for the inevitable lawsuit. I know of two exceptions - but the only reason they're exceptional is because bystanders caught the murder or attempted murder on film and released it to the media before the police got a hold of it.

@groverleaf, your 'legitimate' newspaper gives the same facts the blog does (although the newspaper, unlike the blog, needs to hire a proofreader :-D ). As for the police board finding the shooting 'within policy', I have yet to hear of a police board convening and *not* finding a shooting 'within policy'. These boards exist for the sole purpose of greenlighting all police shootings, giving them a stamp of official approval that attorneys can then carry in to court when the inevitable lawsuit is filed.

@jamiet - I think abolishing the police would be a good idea for rural communities where the local coppers have nothing to do but write speeding tickets for city slickers who're just passing through. There are also plenty of anarcho-libertarians who believe order could be maintained by private protection and investigatory agencies. For big cities though, unfortunately, I tend to think government police forces are the only practical way to go - although there is obviously a need for serious and far-reaching reforms to address the rampant corruption and abuse of power that occurs with law enforcement here in the states. Unfortunately, law enforcers have a great deal of political power and clout (not to mention they can arrest their political enemies!), bad practices and traditions are difficult to get rid of, and there is a culture accustomed to privilege and reflexively opposed to any oversight or criticism.

@LanGaidin - I see no indication anywhere that the officer who shot an entirely innocent man in the back six times is going to be prosecuted or held accountable in any way (aside from the customary paid vacation)