"I hate anyone who would use violence against peaceful protesters."
" It's also an essential part of the role of the police officer."
Is that in the job spec? Or just in your imagination?
Your edit misses out a very important point.
The role of the police officer is to enforce the law. (The additional role that's accepted is to enforce obedience to their will, but let's stick to the principle). Laws are invented by politicians and handed down to police. They are instructed to use whatever coercion it takes to enforce the laws.
It is not the officer's role to defy this. If the laws do more harm than good, if they invent or exacerbate trouble, they enforce them nonetheless. Most especially, if the laws change - even to the exact opposite of what they had been - the same police use the same power and coercion to enforce the new law. The example that sparked this thread was deployment to use violence against peaceful protesters. there are many others we could cite, but I'm sure we all get the idea.
The role they take on says 'give me rules to enforce, I don't care what they are as long as they are rules and I get to enforce them'. I cannot see how that is anything other than morally bankrupt; I cannot see how anyone can deny that is the essential role of the police officer.
If you can, please explain it to me.
I've got colanders with fewer holes than this drivel. I haven't really got the time (or inclination) to properly dissect this but I'll happily chuck in a few observations...
About the only thing you make sense on is that "the role of the police officer is to enforce the law" - do you have an issue with this? Presumably (outside of some Nirvana-esque utopia) someone has to?
Then it goes a little bit doolally methinks...
"The additional role that's accepted is to enforce obedience to their will" Accepted by you (and maybe even some of your mates) but you have any evidence of any wider acceptance of this point?
"They are instructed to use whatever coercion it takes to enforce the laws"??? I'll take your word for this alleged 'instruction' but even if this is true coercion doesn't equal violence. Here's one of many definitions to this effect
coerce - to cause to do through pressure or necessity, by physical, moral or intellectual means
The police could 'coerce' speeding drivers to slow down by shooting their tyres but they don't as a rule. You're conveniently ignoring the fact that coercion can be achieved by moral means (namely that of upholding the law) presumably as it doesn't quite fit your 'all coppers are psychos' mantra.
My involvement in this thread arose when you blithely stated that you "hated 99% of the police" with the implication that they'd use violence against peaceful protesters. I know a couple who tell me they wouldn't (not over 1% of the force I acknowledge but possible as statistically meaningful as your insight into 99% of the police) and that's why I'm saying you're wrong on this.
Then you state "The role they take on says 'give me rules to enforce, I don't care what they are as long as they are rules and I get to enforce them'" If that's the case can you explain the reams and reams of archaic law on the statute books that isn't actively enforced?
Anyway I'll draw to a close here - from what I've observed in other threads you're not likely to acknowledge that there's any mistake on your part anyway – but I do hope your myopic ‘hatred’ other humans you’ve yet to meet doesn’t churn you up too much.