Are anti-police types also criminals? Not really. Not sure that was the OP's opinion, just a starting point.
But presumably there's a reason why people generalize from individual instances, but not in all cases.
ie
a) case of police misbehaviour = police are brutal
But,
a) man employed as labourer commits crime ≠ all labourers are criminals
And,
a) Liverpool fan commits crime ≠ all Liverpool fans are criminals
There must be a reason for that difference.
I imagine the belief that the police (in toto) are brutal is rather rare. However, the belief that there exists a culture of brutality and lawbreaking within the police as an organised collective may be more common.
Why would such a generalisation be easier to adopt than "all labourers are criminals"?
First, labourers aren't an organised collective--apart from colleagues working side by side within the same company they are all completely disconnected.
Second, it could be argued that police brutality and other instances of lawbreaking are (when they occur) a function of the nature of the police--they carry weapons and exist within a power-relationship with members of the public for whom they embody a role of authority. To the public this can make it appear more likely that they have the potential for brutality inextricably linked to their job.
Comments
Why would such a generalisation be easier to adopt than "all labourers are criminals"?
First, labourers aren't an organised collective--apart from colleagues working side by side within the same company they are all completely disconnected.
Second, it could be argued that police brutality and other instances of lawbreaking are (when they occur) a function of the nature of the police--they carry weapons and exist within a power-relationship with members of the public for whom they embody a role of authority. To the public this can make it appear more likely that they have the potential for brutality inextricably linked to their job.