It seems to me that this is simply a variation of the argumentum ad absurdum logical error. To take isolated, extreme examples of misconduct of individuals in a group as proof of the nature of the entire group, seems to be both unfair, and to be unsound logic.

Yet an extremely similar gambit is employed by so-called "pro-lifers". They will take the comparatively very rare examples of late abortion to have a good tug at our heartstrings, using, emotively, issues such as near-viability outside the womb and the infant-like appearance of the foetus that simply don't apply to the vast majority of abortions. Yes, we do know. What they would like us to dwell on are practices that are not at all in the nature of the entire group, to adopt your words. We see further similarity in ake's unsavoury attempts to brand all gay people as promiscuous and hedonistic. Yes there are fallacies in many of these arguments all right, but they are not always accidental ones.