Was there a constututional amendment that "really bad dudes" (oh, and overwhelmingly, only the black ones) don't get civil rights protections?
No. Did I make that argument?
This is exactly the sort of thing that I'm saying turns me off. I'm not even sure how to respond to it, assuming you're a person of good will who is trying to convince me and not just performing for an audience, so I will say this. We give police officers service weapons to defend themselves and the public, and expect those weapons to be used when necessary, almost without exception before the criminals are tried. Clearly we agree that police officers should be punished when they abuse their authority (didn't I say so in my original post?!?) but somehow that's not enough for you. Whatever.
I guess you think you're telling me something here, but I already know these facts. Maybe you don't know that Reason magazine and Radley Balko have been on this beat for decades?
So anyway, if anyone was wondering what I was talking about when I say that people I agree with are seemingly attempting to push me away from their position instead of convince me to agree with it more strongly, this post is exactly what I meant.
Can I suggest you google and read "Toxoplasma of Rage", if you haven't already?