In the article "Why I don't use the term "police brutality"" by Raghav Sharma he talks about the reasons he feels like police brutality is an understatement. Sharma is a political activist studying at the University of Pittsburgh who writes on electoral and campaign finance issues, foreign policy, and economic affairs. This article is aimed for people who talk about police brutality. Sharma gives a couple of examples of police violence towards the citizens including one man being tortured and tasered while strapped to a restraining chair, then shortly dying after. Another example is of this young man being taken away and held in custody informally without anyone knowing where he went and without informing or letting his lawyer know where he was taken (it was in a warehouse similar to the CIA "black site.") Sharma then says how "we have watched our nation's law enforcement agents, sworn to serve and protect, have engaged in a decades-long campaign of violence..." He says these unjust actions have been going on for a while. He does agree that the unjust actions committed by police are brutal, but saying that they were committed by police "makes the act seem like it was committed in response to duty's call," which obviously torturing and kidnapping people is in no way a response to the call of duty. He then finishes up by saying that our legal system is structured to protect the ones who are committing these injustices to the american people, and the more we fight this flawed system the more "terror inflicted" actions we will see at our homeland. I find this statement to be depressingly true.