I don't bash all LEO, but there are enough there to make my blood boil. Especially since they are in positions of power (being LEOs and all) and the fact that the "good" cops do very little to remove this filth that is mixed in with them. It doesn't take very many rotten apples to ruin the bunch...
Thankfully, the majority of LEOs I've "met" on officer.com are very, very different than the majority of LEOs I've met at the Colorado Springs Police Dept. I speak from experience, having spent several months on officer.com in 2010, weighing in on the Open Carry discussion that was raging back then.
I believe its a stratification issue. In other words, the LEOs on officer.com are not representative of most LEOs out there. It's a stratified sample, and probably biased in other ways. I have to question how some of those "working" LEOs find the time to post all day. Are they retired, like myself? Are they on convalescent leave? Were they suspended? Fired? Cop-wannabees? Are they merely masquerading as LEOs?
Even so, what I noticed on officer.com during the height of the 2010 OC discussion is that the tide was rapidly turning towards pro-OC. At one point, 57% of the sworn officers on officer.com had mention they agreed with it. It was at that point the thread was closed (disappeared, I think), and I and several others were banned.
That tells me the real bad apples on officer.com are the administrators. They're loosers: If they can't win using logic, they try winning by using brute force. What they don't realize is the moment they did that, they lost much more than 43% of the vote. They lost the respect of the 57% of the officers who supported OC, as well as the respect of most of the non-LEOs who were contributing. At that, given there are typically 5 lurkers for every poster, they lost respect with five times as many folks.