I never said that 99.5% of cops are effective at their job. But, I do believe there are more "good" officers than "bad." I am only pointing out that, for the most part, from reading what you have wrote in this discussion you believe being a peace officer cannot be an ineffective occupation because its an undesirable job. Therefore, you believe that the job of a peace officer can't provide effective results, due to the people in this line of work.
Just as the rest of the country does, when a situation presents itself where a peace officer does not follow his/her training, all peace officers are made out to be incapable of doing the job. An ineffective IT member isn't made a scapegoat of their occupation when fired. He/she does not generalize the profession when he/she is fired. An ineffective peace officer is viewed in this perspective. Do I support the actions of the Memphis officers? No. I would probably say the vast majority of officers would not condone these actions. However, "good" cops become even more scrutinized about their profession. It is a good profession. It takes a different kind of individual to be a peace officer. It is an unexplainable trait that peace officers have that separates their profession from others.
There is no sense in you calling the cops when you have an emergency If you truly believe that a peace officer is an ineffective occupation, therefore there will be an ineffective response. Especially because of the way you identify commiting a crime in Post #311. I am sure that the criminal robbing you weighed his/her benefits as to whether this was a good idea. Crime is crime, whether pre-medidtated or not.