You're making a very big assumption as to what the police officer's motives were for joining the force, and incorrectly claiming it as fact. I'm sure you're right in that some like the sense of power, but you should also realize that others take the job to ensure the safety of the public; more often than not, it's probably a combination of both, plus other reasons.
I didn't say that was this
particular officer's motivation, nor even that it's the motivation for any police officers, only that it
make sense or one could expect it to be based on the fact that police officers are generally paid relatively little compared to some other jobs. Beyond that though, my experience with people whom I know very well (both friends and family) who also happen to be police officers is that this was the motivation for several of them. I don't deny the existence of police who are good, respectable and do the job for noble reasons, I'm merely arguing that they seem to be in the minority and that they need to do a lot more to deal with and remove the bad cops than they are doing before they complain about their reputation.
That's not entirely correct. When one's argument is based entirely upon personal experience and anecdotal evidence, questioning traits of the opposing party is acceptable. A completely unrelated example would be, "You're account of a UFO encounter is highly contentious because you were intoxicated."
...Basically, this is not a formal argument because the only evidence being presented is informal evidence.
Well of course, this is not a formal argument, and I understand that, but his saying that still does nothing to advance his argument. I could just as easily say, "You obviously love cops so your argument is automatically tainted" and that would be just as valid. I don't say that because it is essentially nonsensical. I might point out that your example is not perfect either because intoxication by its very nature means that one's perception and judgement are not fully functioning. My dislike of cops does not necessarily and automatically mean that I am incapable of thinking about them clearly or that I am likely lying about or exaggerating my experiences.
In summary, my argument boils down to this:
The police officer in this video acted inappropriately and his actions seem to me to be a fairly clear cut case of assault as they would be if anyone else had done the same thing to this child. Calling someone dude, while debatably disrespectful, is hardly grounds for physical assault, especially when the assault victim in question is a child. Whether or not bad cops such as this one are in the majority, and I realize this is very much debatable and most likely impossible to prove one way or the other, one bad cop is too many. While I realize that it is impossible for police departments to ensure that their officers behave properly 100% of the time, there should be real, lasting and effectual consequences for improper actions on the part of police officers. In this case specifically, and in many others I have seen personally as well as heard and read about, the punishment meted out upon the officer in question falls well short of the punishment to be expected for a civilian committing a very similar act. This does nothing to help the reputation of police in the public's eyes.
. Did you take the job to hear people to say all day long, "...hi, you are awesome!!... wow, it's so great to see you!!... man, am I glad to see you!!..."
