I still can't believe that some people seem unable to grok what I'm saying. I am not defending some fucking stupid cop who got taser-happy. That was not and is not my purpose. My purpose was to point people in the direction of instances where NO DOUBT exists that the cops exceeded their authority. Where their statements have proven false and their actions have been extremely egregious - even leading to murder. Of course, if you want the current functioning of our system to continue the way it has been, then by all fucking goddamned means keep harping about cases where it is only arguable that police brutality occurred. Yeah, that makes a lot of fucking sense. Let me spell it out for you in even simpler terms. As you mention, it is indeed often a matter of a cops word against someone else's. Unfortunately, many people - probably older and who think all cops are andy griffith - will believe the cop over someone who can be characterized as a punk. Note, you fucking idiot, this is not a value judgment, but an assessment on how things work. So, the better strategy is to talk about cases where no reasonable person would support the abuses which the cops have done.
Its no wonder that cops have lost respect. Part of it of course is their own problem, the other part comes from people like the above AC who in their "righteous rage" focus on cases that reasonable people can disagree about. Thus, when these types of public debates do occur (which only happens rarely) people use the latest alex jones/alternet/wacko idiot cause cÃ©lÃbre to argue their point - instead of instances where only the most jackbooted thug would see any justice. Then, people who are reasonable as well as fence sitters on the issue think less of the point you're trying to make - which I assume is that cops lack serious oversight and that their cowboy tendencies need to be reigned in. Why, please tell me, is this simple concept so hard to understand?