Police brutality does not exist

Testing 123 Testing.

My position is there is no such thing as police brutality.

By definition, law enforcement officers which are police officers, they enforce the law.

So, it is an oxymoron with an officer that enforces the law and at the same time doesn't.

I know it's a contradiction to what the law is for which is supposed to keep civility and order.

Officers supposed to protect and serve the people in emergency and police related type matters.

To use the expression "police brutality" is a perpetuated colloquial usage of phrase.

It's really a misnomer like the phrase "civil war". Is anything about a war which is killing folks and destruction , is any of that "civil"?

Now you can call it civil because it's happening in your own backyard. Bloodshed and slaughter is bloodshed and slaughter when you get down to it.

There is no law that I know that mandates brute force.

Now once a police officer that acts outside of what is to be enforced, that person by nature is no longer an officer.

That person is no longer operating within the law within the jurisdiction that they are expected to carry out.

Now for instance if you are a catholic or christian or muslim, once you stop practicing what makes you one to belong to any of these sects, you're no longer of that.

That's another point. Many people say that they're something they're not even practicing to make themselves be that.

You can't be a practitioner without practicing really.

This points us back to the police. People tend to still refer to individuals that don't practice justice as them that enforce justice.

A person by the name of Neely Fuller Jr. put it this way. He's the author of the code book. A short title because it's actually a long title to that book. He says a person with the title "police officer" that acts to mistreat you based on the color of your skin is actually what's called a "race soldier".

Basically a "race soldier", basically who can be referred to as a "white" supremacist. That is basically the identification of these "race" soldiers, typically.

So it's not a police officer. A person with the title doctor that performs euthanasia or even abortion of all kinds is not a doctor. A doctor in origin is to heal. Not to treat with drugs to live life drugged up or drugged into lethal sleep.

I can yield right here but for more information regarding "race soldier", upon doing a search on the Google search engine, it's in the urban dictionary, the website shows the following:

"Race soldier, any white racist who shows an unusual diabolical zeal to engage in the practice of white supremacy. These actions are likely to but do not necessarily include direct violence against black people or people who are not white. It's likely that race soldiers will violently oppose any civil unrest that stems from the police brutality protest."

I say don't protest police. I understand there's a lot of protest going on and down through history.

The police are the ones who come to your aid and your protection.

Now someone posing and impersonating an officer will be revealed when exclaiming " police brutality".

We see that person as just an imposter of an officer.

I'll leave it there.

The simple straightforward issue is, the title is intact while the nature isn't.

I am not actually what I say I am or as my title identifies. I merely just being called something I'm not.

What is law enforcement?

How am I enforcing the law while breaking it?

It is an oxymoron. The phrase police brutality is indeed an oxymoron. The oxymoron exists in language. That's how we're aware of it is by its existence.

That's just it. The language exists. But the actual being doesn't exist. A law enforcement police officer logically cannot be brutal because there is no law to be brutal.

That's the only way the opposing side can show a law enforcer being brutal. Through what the law says.

Once a law enforcer acts outside the law, it is at that moment, the person is no longer an enforcer if we are going to be honest about the definition of an enforcer or else we'd be telling a lie about what an enforcer is.

Of course the person is an actual law enforcer the instance before stepping outside because that is what the person was, an enforcer of law.

A so called airline pilot that does not fly airplanes is nominally wearing the title but is not actually piloting of any aircraft.

How can I be something I'm not or not doing?

If I'm not doing something, it would be false to characterize me as a doer of that thing, let along label me that. It be labeling falsely.

If law enforcement police officers were brutal, why would anyone contact them for aid and protection?

So called brutal police are just that. They're only called that being the imposters they are with a status , not with a true assigned duty.

I explained clearly I believe that police officers are law enforcement officers.

How can you be something you're not or don't do?

You can't. You can't be a breathing organism that does not take a breath. You cannot be enforcing the law without enforcing the law. You would not be an enforcer.

A person that is doing something unjustified, illegal and we say "yes that legal person is doing the illegal" is as oxymoronic as they come.

I rest my case.

"A police officer directly equals perfect law enforcement."

Just law enforcement. You can't enforce the law by breaking the law at the same time.

"Police brutality " is strictly a colloquial expression. It doesn't exist. It's an oxymoron. It's declared as an oxymoron. It's able to be declared as an oxymoron because people use the language.

You can be holding the title and or be classified or employed as something you're not in nature or by duty. You're an imposter or posing as such . You can't be a firefighter that will not fight a fire amidst a fire. You cannot be a pilot that will not fly amidst of being at the controls not flying the aircraft.

It's about the nature being there. We know the classification is there because that's how we determine where the oxymoron comes in .

I rest my case.

In other words, according to the rationale I demonstrated about law enforcement, the topic statement is true.

The opposite side so called is not arguing or countering that. The opposite side so called is acknowledging the colloquial oxymoron exists and it is used by society which is also in agreement with what I said.

It's important to distinct the two. The colloquial oxymoron exists. Never said it didn't. The topic statement didn't say it didn't.

This is a matter of paying attention to words and if you don't know something, you ask. You take the challenge, you ask.

It is illogical to debate definitions. I don't do that. When you debate, you have to be sharp enough to think ahead about what a person may mean . When you take the challenge, you take the risk of being refuted or conceded or any technicality. You got to be sharp versus being rehearsed.