>>47468393You assumed that by "some apples" I meant all of them? That just means you want to take the opposite stance and claim there's not a problem at all.
So you ARE on the deep end where you see a guy kneeling on a dying guy while everybody else on the scene realizes
>Fucker you're killing him!but you refuse to see it as murder. It being part of the training doesn't excuse anything, it just means he either executed it wrong or it's a move that should be taken out of said program, and you obviously ignore that he never cared to check he was killing the guy. Why so many defenses for a random cop? That's precisely how they get away with everything, if anything you proved my earlier point that these obvious deaths rarely get ruled as "killed by a cop" when even a random anon defends them.
You are abandoning common sense to fully trust given data but that won't work since that data also follows a narrative (protecting their own asses).
You need to apply your own judgment and trust common sense, but that might be shaped by your own bias.
Mind you, even if the drug thing was true it's a cheap attempt to redirect blame while the cop never cared for the safety of the agonizing guy.
At this point you could see a video of a cup gunning down someone and you'd say
>Yes but the cause of death was malfunction of the lungs because the victim smoked too much 
