Again, this is what confuses me about your response. The article spends most of its time talking about police officers' failure to diffuse tension. Your response reads as if you think I failed to mention it or that I've minimised it by not specifically mentioning police training. I didn't mention police training simply because I assume most people already know that police officers aren't supposed to escalate situations.

Also, the focus of the article wasn't training, but rather the failure of other officers to intervene when one of their own behaves inappropriately. Just as the officer questioning you should have done in your encounter. As far as whether they rarely bother to do this, the fact is, I don't know if that's accurate. As I mention, there are tens of millions of police encounters every year. The overwhelming majority go smoothly. It's tempting to believe we have an accurate sense of what's going on from the high-profile stories in the news, but I don't think that's true.

I'm not really questioning the appropriateness of your response, but rather its tone. If you think me asking you why you were being hostile is itself hostile, but don't see how saying things like, "of course I know..." or "you missed my point altogether" or "you make the obvious point" might sound at the least condescending, and at most confrontational, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. It's easy for the nuance of what people mean to be lost when it's written on a screen. Perhaps that's what happened here.