Look, I appreciate the current political situation, but I DID NOT describe them in that fashion. That was a value judgement that you imposed on a couple of gentlemen that I went to school with, in 1981. You did not meet them or interact with them; I did. They were insular, and I cannot call them "friends." That's fairly typical for police, but they were incredibly polite, and everyone in the class liked and respected them (it was an extremely mixed class, in a very tough town).

The people that engineered that scenario (and are probably still engineering it, to this day), were the state legislature. The officers that commanded that barracks were the ones that established the model for their officers.

These were two electronic technicians. They happened to be trained and uniformed officers, but were not particularly interested in the "pithier" aspects of their field. In fact, they had volunteered to spend their careers in a basement, fixing radios.

In that particular state, there is a giant world of difference between the State Police, and the various county and municipality cops. The State Police held themselves, and were held to, a much higher standard than regular cops. I know of at least one county in that state, where the cops were renown for rather gratuitous violence; especially against minorities. The State Police had nothing to do with that.

As for me, and my views...seriously, dude, you have no idea. If you thought that you learned something untoward about me, you are wrong. Dead wrong.

This world is missing something fundamental: basic, human respect. That goes for people in authority, that abuse that authority; whether for personal gain, animus, or to be a "team player." It also goes for people that have appointed themselves "Guardians of 'The Truth'" (Whatever happens to be the flavor of the day).

We might want to consider that not everyone in the world is an evil person.

Just a thought.

> One of them explained to me, how the state code was written, so that everyone is breaking some law, at any given time, and a lot of their training involved learning all these little violations, so they could pretty much justify pulling someone over, at any time.

> I suspect these bar owners did something to piss off someone in some authority. It could have been as mild as their main clientele.

In colloquial speech, like that used on this forum, these sentences in combination imply:

* My friends, state policemen, knew how to pull over people at any point

* This was an act that was commonly performed

* My friends also participated

It isn't explicit in the text, but that is the natural inference in colloquial speech.

I only mean this in a descriptive fashion. There are all sorts of reasons you may want to continue communicating the way you do, but it will get you into situations like this where you feel compelled to respond in outrage to someone else who has made that inference. Up to you how you act, but if you weren't already informed, you are now.

In no way is that a natural inference in colloquial speech. Those are your own (incorrect) inferences that you're justifying post-facto, and you are (not so) subtly implying that your interpretation is the correct one and in the majority, even though it:

a) Might not be

b) Involves you making an interpretation and inferential leap that isn't contained in the text of the original poster.

In a similar fashion, you may want to continue making inferences that go beyond what people actual say or write, but it will get you into situations, like this, where you feel compelled to put things into the speaker's mouth that were not written, things that were not said, that will put you in opposition to the original speaker/author unjustifiably and based on your own interpretative error, and which generally make people less inclined to share their opinions in the future.

Additionally, your writing style appears to be one of passive-aggressive condescending superiority. This does not influence the person on the other side round towards adopting your view-point, but actually makes them bristle up and more likely to reject participation in the conversation.

Up to you how you act, but if you weren't already informed, you are now.

And I will continue to communicate the way I do. I'm a real stubborn S.O.B., and don't respond well to being pushed.

BTW: I never called them "friends." I guess half of communication is reading it properly.

> so they could pretty much justify pulling someone over, at any time.

But didn't clarify that your associates did not do that. In human language, people make inferences from what is said to natural extensions, in order to make utterances more compact. Sometimes those inferences are in error.

The state cops here have that kind of power yet they are way more professional and do a hell of a lot less fishing than the locals.

Curious how you justify this.