The exception proves the rule. It doesn't mean that an exception shows the rule to be true. It merely states that there is the rule, otherwise the exceptions wouldn't be noticed.
Loosely based, I'm told, on "exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis." Which even fairly monolingual English (or German) speakers should get as something like "the exception proves the rule for unexceptional cases."
"Don't want to get hurt by police? Don't break the law." If it's an exception, it means that murders by law-abiding police in the performance of their duties are not routine. Enumerating them shouldn't be a large problem in a given jurisdiction (if you have 120k police dealing with violence on a routine basis, enumerating all deaths in police custody for the entire year for all 120k is going to be a long list, so delimit it somehow). This is the case. As a general rule, police don't kill people or hurt them. More terror is sown by fear of the police than by the police themselves; I've known people who lived in terror of police because of what they've been told police do, even if their negative personal experiences, at worst, are meager.
If it's not an exception, then we should expect each of the 120k police to be responsible for at least a couple of intentional deaths per week, not to mention numerous assaults on people who are just walking by. "Mistook" is not a synonym for "intentionally targeted somebody known to be innocent." However much ill-will is in currency.
Meanwhile your list has to dig into examples like "he was wearing headphones and didn't hear police commands."
The generalization holds. It's not exceptionless, and to claim otherwise is a strawman. Police make mistakes, they also are people and get carried away and even commit murders themselves. One of the first rules of overpoliticization is to demand that others be perfect and infallible--it makes judgment easier, because then all mistakes become intentional and no understanding or empathy is either necessary or even possible.
But as far as overgeneralization goes, "don't break the law and don't get hurt" is a lot closer to the truth than "it doesn't matter if you break the law or not." It's still a fallacy, like strawmen. Still, you play the odds: Drive safely, and you're less likely to get hurt. Don't steal, you're less likely to get accused of theft. Don't break the law, and you're less likely to get arrested. All the rest is overlay.
= new reply since forum marked as read
