http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/195/646/1320529223886.jpg
If anything nons tend to be far nastier. When JMB switched sides he was attacked by the nons; Pam Hobbs was also attacked. Michael Moore's parents have been incredibly aggressive as well and anyone who defends the three is referred to as defending babykillers.
I've also seen people downplay Terry's actions; I outlined on the WM3 facts page that Hobbs tried to rape his neighbor and had a history of violence. I was told I was "slandering" him even though Hobbs himself admitted to attacking French. KMA (one of the biggest nons out there) also downplayed Hobbs's attempted rape of French. Unlike the dog stomping (which was only ever rumors) Hobbs himself admitted it, so it's not innuendo.
Compared to Terry Hobbs yes Damian is a teddy bear.
This kind of "law enforcement can do no wrong" attitude is all too common and I've seen law and order types make the same arguments in other cases based on the "if the judge says it it must be true." attitude.
Ex: One of the most bitterly controversial death penalty cases in CA is Kevin Cooper; DNA SEEMS to confirm him guilty (and in fact his former investigator and one of the dna experts turned against him.) THING IS there's strong proof tampering DID in fact occur. There are three pieces of dna evidence that seem to condemn him.
a.) a tan t-shirt that had cooper's blood on it; Thing is Cooper wouldn't have had access to the shirt (it wasn't prison issued and none of the people in the house he hid out in recognized it despite recognizing a ****ton of other clothes Cooper stole). The original readings only found the victim's blood on the shirt, and when EDTA testing was done the Judge had to ignore that a.) four of the "controls" had dna or were inconclusive (which rendered one of her reasons for rejecting the results false) b.) within the samples that had DNA the results were (barring a sample that was unevenly sized and shaped) high where the dna was high and low where the DNA was low (if the edta had been due to detergent and other natural factors it would have been spread out with no real difference). c.) Huff herself conceded the measurements were valid (while Cooper's expert had gotten in trouble it was due to measurements and since Huff herself didn't see a problem here the issue wasn't in play here) d.) Huff herself also failed to realize that since she acknowledged the measurements were legit it meant they were valid under Daubert.
Note this was AFTER she rigged the testing by denying Cooper's attorneys access to the shirt or any say in determining which samples were chosen as controls etc.
b.) the stain recovered from the house; First off the person who found the stain was fired for shooting himself up on drugs that he was looting from the evidence locker.Secondly, at the time the Sheriff was stealing guns from lockup and even though he wasn't at all subtle about it (he literally walked through it like a grocery store) it took 13 years before he was caught (and even THAT only happened because his son was being investigated and he rather carelessly left one of daddy's guns lying around.), so it's VERY possible that the police would have ignored the officer planting the stain. Third it was found down the hall from the massacre scene, surrounded by spots that were proven NOT to be Kevin Cooper's blood. d.) The state expert went back and modified his reading of the stain when it turned out not to match Cooper's profile (he dismissed it as correcting a misreading"). e.) It kept vanishing only to reappear when it was needed (it reappeared after the same expert who got caught lying checked it out off the books for 24 hours)
iii.) cigarettes: Leaving aside that they kept changing size and shape (they were yellow in 84 and white in 01) they were only found after cigarettes that Cooper smoked in his hideout vanished (only one cigarette was ever entered into evidence even though the arrest warrant cited multiple cigs); suspiciously the same officers who failed to keep track ALSO found the cigarettes in the victims car after a previous search failed to). Also, during the time the expert checked the stain out he checked out Cooper's saliva.
There was also a disgusting amount of favoritism shown towards the prosecution. Case in point; the police accidentally turned over records proving that TWO bloodstained shirts were recovered rather than just 1; given that the records that described it were only filled out if a CIVILIAN found the shirt and that the tan t-shirt was found by an officer it's indisputible that there WERE two t-shirts found. In spite of this (and the fact that the two shirts are completely different colors and found in a different time and place) the judge accept's the incredibly ridiculous lie that the state's attorney gave (that there was only one shirt.) They also barred the DA from being forced to check if he had a marked copy of the logs in his record (since discovery requires keeping a copy for the prosecution, and since the evidence would be marked, failure to do so would prove that the DA had withheld evidence).
Most damningly of all 11 judges have accused the state of forging evidence to get what they wanted, and accused the judge of rigging Cooper's hearing to ensure he'd loose. This was out of 28 judges hearing the case (and not only was the vote closer if one of the supporters to be believed at least one of the people voting against Cooper admitted that she was deeply suspicious and only voted against it because the AEDPA blocked her)
Even when supporters pointed all this out, numerous people (notably Debra Saunders) get furious if you dare to argue that the cops forged evidence. Notably Dr Ed Blake (the expert who thinks Cooper guilty) failed to notice the changing evidence AND was friends with many of the people in the state crime lab (which handled the testing on the prosecution's side). He still ridicules the idea of forged evidence even though, all things considered it would be pathetically easy (the DA and Sheriffs department of San Bernardino have a long history of corruption and racism, and all they would need to do is bribe a single clerk; more importantly since many people in state crime labs have an "our team" mentality it's very possible that the state experts noticed something wrong and just turned a blind eye). Even though very similar **** has happened in the real world (the jon burge scandal, Enron) people still go apeshit if you make the accusation of tampering.
I'll say it again; law enforcement can be ****ing nasty when it wants to be. I wouldn't be surprised if Mitchell Fogelman Davis and Burnett have ****ed over other innocent people with their corrupt antics