Does this reasoning train justify All Cops Are B*stards (ACAB)?

Sums up how I see it, really. ACAB struck me as an unfair generalisation of police officers, based on a (still alarmingly high) number of statistically uncommon incidents. By cherry-picking negative (and fatal) police interactions out of the entire set of police interactions overall, you can create a very misleading image - showing the cops to be more violent and "piggish" than they really are. This is then used to justify "ACAB".

Aside from that it also falsely guilts ostensibly "good" cops, simply for being in the same boat as "bad" cops. It's like faulting "all priests" for the systemic problem of sex abuse in the Catholic Church.

I agree and the ACAB side also is now insinuating that the entire institution of police are equivalent to the mafia, to terrorist organisations, to a violent gang and more extremely a organised criminal organisation and a occupying army.

And given how worse it has gotten the past day or so... yeah. No one is interested in actually backing away from the edge.

Social media is making it worse, Twitter in particular. 

1) Very easy for bad information to get around. Anyone can put together a quick infomeme (with fake, misleading or invalid statistics) or juxtapose two pictures to imply some sort of social injustice (even if they had nothing to do with one another). It then gets circulated by biased users and goes viral.

2) Echochambers. Twitter I must single out for this, because a significant chunk of its userbase seems incapable of tolerating dissent. It is not uncommon for people on both sides of the SocJus war to block those who disrupt their outrage. If they do engage, many use Self-Sealing Arguments in order to give the pretense of a refutation.

3) Vilification. As Dr Bennett pointed out, there's a lot of black-and-white thinking, which just results in people being accused of all sorts if they're not totally on board with a certain ideology.

[To Douglas Arndell]

That first statement of your argument is a definite strawman, or special pleading, logical fallacy. Maybe you have heard such statements, but I pay attention to the news and I have never heard the argument made in such stark terms. Perhaps some protesters are yelling that, but that is not everybody talking about the issue. And just saying "the ACAB side" is a fallacy of its own.

That is a common part of political reality. If you are a member of an organization, and some members of the organization misbehave, it reflects on the organization and all its members. This same argument is being used to tar all protesters as rioters, even though there is substantial evidence that much of the rioting is being caused by provocateurs. This is where we get the phrase "self policing", or "clean your own house".

That is a common part of political reality. If you are a member of an organization, and some members of the organization misbehave, it reflects on the organization and all its members.

It happens all the time...so? Does that make it morally right, or even logically correct? If you are judging an organisation properly, surely it should be judged on what most of its members do (representative sample being the set itself), rather than the actions of a minority? 

This same argument is being used to tar all protesters as rioters, even though there is substantial evidence that much of the rioting is being caused by provocateurs.

Which would  also  be a mistake, since not all protesters are rioting, and protesting =/= rioting in the first place. Two wrongs, however, do not a right make.

This is where we get the phrase "self policing", or "clean your own house".

Agreed, although this is still distinct from the idea that ACAB.

I disagree with most of your argument here. First, the question at issue is the third premise. The first two are simply observations. They may be right or wrong, but given these observations, does the third premise follow?

Second, the idea that this is black or white thinking is true on its face, but is not a reflection of the logic of the argument. We simplify many arguments when we discuss issues, boiling them down to basics to facilitate discussion. It is assumed that the receiver of the argument can assess that the maker is not talking in absolutes. Technically this is a black or white fallacy, but if you dismiss the argument because of this deliberate fallacy, you are committing the fallacy fallacy yourself.

Third, your argument that "we are equating this inaction with murder" is incorrect, as the argument is about "bad" cops, and there are many ways that cops can be bad without committing murder. You have committed the logical fallacy of special pleading / moving the goalposts here, Bo. Nor does the statement imply that the inaction is malicious, that argument has not been made. As I say in my answer to the question, this premise is simply a restatement of the well-known belief that "If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem", which does not imply malicious intent. You seem to have made another logical fallacy with this argument, strawman , or no true scotsman .

IMHO.

Wow, a lot of accusations of fallacies here. Let me just do a blanket rejection of all of them.

They may be right or wrong, but given these observations, does the third premise follow?

No, it does not. Because the first two premises say nothing about equating the perpetrators with those who do nothing about it. The conclusion is simply another claim.

We simplify many arguments when we discuss issues, boiling them down to basics to facilitate discussion.

The fact that you do doesn't make it right. In fact, this is a major problem with critical thinking and discussion. "Simplify" is the opposite of nuance.

It is assumed that the receiver of the argument can assess that the maker is not talking in absolutes.

These aren't absolutes; they are simplistic categories. This argument leaves no room for degrees of behavior. Good or bad, those are the choices.

Third, your argument that "we are equating this inaction with murder" is incorrect, 

This is exactly this argument concludes. If 100 bad cops are murderers, then the 1000 that do nothing are "just as bad". Therefore, this inaction is being equated with murder.

there are many ways that cops can be bad without committing murder.

That's irreverent. If they are murderers, then we are equating inaction with murder, which is exactly my point and demonstrates the absurdity of this "argument."

Nor does the statement imply that the inaction is malicious, that argument has not been made.

Are we even talking about the same argument? "and the 1000 cops that did nothing are just as bad " It doesn't imply it; it directly states it!

I always has a major problem with this line of reasoning. For example, what do you do to actively fight against child pornography? Would it be fair to say that you are complicit in child pornography? If you happen to be actively fighting against child pornography, then just substitute that for any of millions of other injustices taking place all over the world. This isn't a shot to you, Michael, just pointing out the inherent absurdity in this idea.

Then it is just as absurd that if you witness a murder and don't report it, you are complicit. You can disagree with that logic, but given that, which is an opinion, the overall argument is not a logical fallacy.

Michael, try to stop the simplistic thinking. Witnessing a murder and not reporting it is not even close to being "just as bad" as a murder that are you many steps removed from, as in sharing membership in a police force with over 1000 others. It is clear you are passionate about this issue, but your passion is clearly distorting your reason.

Stop moving the goalposts. I did not say "just as bad". I said "complicit". Here is the definition of complicit in the dictionary: "involved with others in an illegal activity or wrongdoing". Those other three officers in the Floyd killing were involved. They were complicit.

You have introduced "complicit" into this argument. Read the OP. There is no mention of "complicit." Nor is there any mention of the Floyd killing. You have read all this into the argument.

From what I have read about the case, I agree that that other 3 the cops in the Floyd killing appear to be complicit. But this is not the argument presented and being discussed.

OK, I'm done here.

I don't see this as a logical fallacy. It is simply a progression of thought, based on the premise that if you do not act to stop an atrocity when you have the opportunity to do so, you are complicit in the act.

To make this analogous to the current events in America, we will use the police in this example. Your statement posits that, if one does not intervene in an injustice given the opportunity, one is 'complicit' (and therefore legally, and morally, liable). You make three major assumptions with respect to the police here: firstly, that there is an injustice occurring, secondly that the opportunity to do so exists, and thirdly that they even know about the attacks. The second doesn't even apply to most officers, since most officers were not involved in George Floyd's murder, and the third isn't reasonable given that not all encounters are made common knowledge.

That is not an unreasonable assertion, it even has it's own cliche - "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem".

This 'cliche' isn't reasonable either, as it ignores the benign possibility that the person in question is independent of both.

It even has support in the legal world - if you see a murder happening, or are a witness to some other crime, and don't at least report it, you may be charged as an accessory.

Although legal =/= moral, my main problem is the weak analogy. Police violence is a systemic issue, one that can only be solved in the long-term. A murder, on the other hand, is a one-off instance that requires no more than a report. A police officer may be off-duty when they witness a murder (in which case you wouldn't be able to tell), or, if on-duty, they would follow protocol and arrest the murderer (or at least begin to investigate), so if your own analogy is taken seriously, it doesn't implicate the cops.

On the other hand, we celebrate it when a citizen volunteers to help a stranger in trouble. It is a cultural fixture.

Because one more person has been saved from crime/trouble. There's nothing controversial here.

So, you may disagree with the premise, but it is not a logical fallacy.

It relies on several biased, improbable assumptions and poor statistical thinking.

[To Rationalissimo]

There were three other police assisting Chauvin. They all had a clear opportunity to intervene when Floyd was pleading for his life. They refused to stop Chauvin. This makes them complicit.

And you don't like the first cliche. How about this one - “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” Maybe you've heard that one before.

The rest of this is your opinion, to which you are entitled.

There were three other police assisting Chauvin. They all had a clear opportunity to intervene when Floyd was pleading for his life. They refused to stop Chauvin. This makes them complicit.

You're equivocating here. First, we used 'police' to refer to the police in general, and now you're using 'police' to refer to four specific officers. The sense of the word here isn't the same.

And you don't like the first cliche. How about this one - “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” Maybe you've heard that one before.

Perhaps, in a position where someone can intervene directly, this is a fair remark. However, as discussed previously, it isn't so simple when it comes to the police.

Regarding what you are seeing, restart your browser... that should do the trick. Regarding

The train justifies ACAB, so the answer has to be "yes" to the question as asked. 

It may appear that way but it is not. We are not dealing with a deductive argument so the premises being true does not guarantee that the conclusion is true. Recall the OP. We start with categorizing cops into "good" and "bad" in the premises, but then in the conclusion we make a value judgement that is not in either premise. The conclusion does not follow.