(09-15-2017, 11:44 PM)FaceInTheCrowd Wrote: I see the attitude of much of society as not caring if cops are bad as long as its "those people" who are being abused. Fortunately, I think most cops are better than much of society expects them to be
I don't. I think society cares a great deal about bad cops, regardless of whether they get caught or not. I also think cops are held to a higher standard than society. That's as it should be.
(09-15-2017, 11:44 PM)FaceInTheCrowd Wrote: My other point is, where should the line be for TV cops or soldiers? If it's "always do what the rules/orders say," you either end up with no drama or the potential breeding ground for a dystopian story about cops or soldiers blindly carrying out very bad orders. Viewer perception of a TV/movie cop or soldier breaking rules or laws is highly dependent upon what the viewer sees is likely to happen in the story if the cop or soldier does not break the rules or laws.
My post wasn't about Nick always following the rules. I simply said he's a corrupt cop. And this isn't anything you said, FaceInTheCrowd, I'm just relating what's happened to me.
What ballooned after that statement was a multitude of posters telling me I should promptly exit the Grimm forum and go watch Law and Order if I wanted a police procedural. This didn't happen one time, but occasionally happens and will continue to happen.
Most of these posters think they're really in the know when they use the Law & Order argument. They're not. Law and Order isn't the quintessential police procedural. It's not even close. Any defense or prosecuting attorney can (and probably would) tell you that. It's a dumb argument and certainly not worthy of most of the posters here. However, it is effective for some of the posters here because that's all they're capable of. Consider the source. It's so obvious it's almost laughable how predictable they are.
But that is just a few, not the majority I've had the pleasure of debating with.
Dirty Harry was a corrupt cop. Clint Eastwood made those movies to make a statement (and a pile of money) the same way that Charles Bronson was making a statement (and also a pile of money) as a vengeful vigilante. At that time in history, cops were the low of the low. They were not called cops or police, they were pigs. They were subject to a court system that appeared to look the other way with regard to the criminal element. I believe that happened at times. But I don't believe it happened as much as Clint would like us to believe. The court system is flawed, to be sure, but until something better comes along, it's what we've got. So both of these actors took it upon themselves to show what it'd be like to go outside of the law.
I'm not saying television should draw the line with corrupt cops. I don't think it should ever come to viewers being told what to watch or what not to watch.
I do like the thought that Nick is fighting his own private battles, which is really what the series has been about, IMO. He's choosing to be a grimm who makes up his own rules as he goes along. But that doesn't make him a good man by any means. And it doesn't make him a good cop.
The best way to frustrate a cyberbully is to ignore him.