They asked for any evidence beyond "it's like this, trust me" and you answered with "really, it's like this, trust me". Do you realize that if someone isn't convinced after the first "trust me", they won't be convinced by the second "trust me"?

Sure.

A better reply is: "I am here to state an observation and not to prove anything to anyone since it's not a court room. Believe me if you want, I'll not stick around to find out".

That amounts to taking a dump in the middle of the conversation and walking away. If you aren’t here to participate in the discussion why say anything at all?

I said it, the other guy says he doesn't believe me. What discussion? That's the discussion stopper, not what I said.

I can't prove anything except say it. And it's your choice whether to believe it.

What's unclear?

What's unclear is you are making pretty wild accusations and saying trust me because I said so. That's as good as any other unfounded claim made on the internet and it doesn't contribute value to the conversation.

If you don't like it, report me to the moderators and let them delete my comment(s) if they feel you are right. As far as I am aware, I have a right to post anecdotal evidence without a huge legal trail proving that I am right. And it's your right to not believe it.

Why not stop there?

EDIT: And yes, this absolutely is one of the unfounded claims that can be found all over the internet. Have I claimed otherwise?

Well, have you observed that behavior first-hand? Did someone you know and trust observe it first-hand and tell you about it? Etc. We don't ask you to "prove" anything, but some more information instead of vague hints would be helpful.

I thought the standard benefit of the doubt implies that I am not here to tell stories just because I am bored.

I've known such people, yes, three of them. Law-abiding normal people whose only mistake was that they were in a hurry and were slightly rude to the police officers because of it.

Technically, each and every claim of somebody can be disputed to death. That's why I invoked your right to not trust what strangers say on the internet. Still, I thought it was a given that I have some exposure to the claimed phenomena.

Did any of your acquaintances do anything after their release in response to the police torturing/brutalising them? Go to the press for example, or sue, raise a complaint, etc.?

Reading between the lines you're saying torture/brutality following arrest for speeding has been the experience of 3 of your friends?

Aside, your combative tone really isn't helping make a useful discussion. Something like "I have no evidence, sorry" would have been far better than attacking people requesting evidence.

> Something like "I have no evidence, sorry" would have been far better than attacking people requesting evidence.

Agreed, and I started correcting afterwards. I thought it was super obvious that I am sharing an anecdotal evidence and an opinion. I reacted hostile to claims that I somehow have to prove either of these (and both aren't clear-cut facts).

EDIT: To answer your questions, no, they haven't pressed charges (and it wasn't speeding, it was "a routine check"). They were even let go on the oral condition that they'll not pursue.

I don't believe your argument even rises to the level of being anecdata. It's a tier or two below.

It's not an argument. It's a stated observation. You can question it until the end of time, won't change something that already happened.

Why are we doing this at all? You add absolutely nothing to the discussion, except maybe question if I haven't imagined things.

I simply observed that, without a lot of elaboration, it is you with your claims that added nothing to the discussion, despite appearing to do so. Saying wild things with no elaboration and evidence is worse than adding nothing, in fact. It's subtracting, or detracting from the conversation. Discussions in higher-quality forums sometimes involve calling out such lazy third-person maybe-accounts presented as valid discussion items.

You're getting salty for being called out and say "I don't care". Fine, you don't care. This, however, is not your personal page, it's a public discussion where claims are challenged. When I reply to your comment, I'm not necessarily replying to "you", I'm contributing to the overall discussion that others read, and make their own conclusions from all of it.

And I don't think there's any reason whatsoever for a dispassionate observer who may not be aware of how things are in the US these days to come away thinking that US cops ubiquitously and habitually torture detainees by beating them.

You can keep repeating the same things, I don't mind.

I'll say again as well: I stated things that are impossible to prove in an internet forum. I've admitted I got no solid proof -- you can just say that you don't believe me and that could have been the end of it.

Why do you continue is beyond me. I already said that I haven't stated a fact. If you think I should not post anecdotal evidence then please, by all means, pester the mods to delete EVERY SINGLE ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE posted here on HN. Let me not stop you.

Around these parts we like to see some evidence before making wildly speculative claims.

You can just say "I don't believe you", I'll just say "OK, I came here to state an observation and not to emulate a court room, and I have other things to do afterwards" and we can all be on our merry way.