You're absolutely right! But that's NOT what I was arguing against.
>They also represent some of what is worst about the US, day in and day out, every single day.
NO THEY DON'T! Only a few!!! That's my POINT.
Contrast with a place like the UK, where police are not even allowed to carry guns outside of special units.
What interactions have you had with police officers in the last few years? Because it sounds like the majority of your "experience" is coming from Mother Jones and MSNBC.
I sit on the Civil Service Commission for my township, which exists only because we have a small local police force. I deal with both police officers (e.g. the folks patrolling the street or doing traffic enforcement), management (lieutenant/chief, elected township officials), and police applicants in a professional context on at least a monthly if not weekly basis throughout the year.
Your comment has not even a passing affiliation with reality.
Maybe study the numbers or talk to people from big cities, and especially large urban centers?
Besides the homicides by police in the streets statistics, which are indisputable, confirmed by the police, and the worse by over 70x any western country, here are some other factoids:
Peter Kraska, a professor at Eastern Kentucky University’s School of Justice Studies, estimates that SWAT teams were deployed about 3,000 times in 1980 but are now used around 50,000 times a year. Some cities use them for routine patrols in high-crime areas. Baltimore and Dallas have used them to break up poker games. In 2010 New Haven, Connecticut sent a SWAT team to a bar suspected of serving under-age drinkers. That same year heavily-armed police raided barber shops around Orlando, Florida; they said they were hunting for guns and drugs but ended up arresting 34 people for “barbering without a licence”. Maricopa County, Arizona sent a SWAT team into the living room of Jesus Llovera, who was suspected of organising cockfights. Police rolled a tank into Mr Llovera’s yard and killed more than 100 of his birds, as well as his dog. According to Mr Kraska, most SWAT deployments are not in response to violent, life-threatening crimes, but to serve drug-related warrants in private homes.
He estimates that 89% of police departments serving American cities with more than 50,000 people had SWAT teams in the late 1990s—almost double the level in the mid-1980s. By 2007 more than 80% of police departments in cities with between 25,000 and 50,000 people had them, up from 20% in the mid-1980s (there are around 18,000 state and local police agencies in America, compared with fewer than 100 in Britain).
Amusing. It's your job as part of the commission to evaluate the performance of your township's civil servants, a circumstance in which those you interact with are highly motivated to act professionally around you.
And yet you claim it's the ordinary citizen who is out of touch with reality.
Here is my own anecdote: Out of four lifetime interactions with functionaries of the law, four have ranged from negative to very negative.
There shouldn't be that many "bad ones" to report, period. It's supposed to be a professional police force, not amateur hour of bigots, wannabe Rambos and trigger-happy Harry Callahans.
And since the casualty statistics across the board are awful, and a true shame compared to any other western country, it's not a matter of "reporting" bias either.
[added]
>One thing to remember about officers; they see the worst of US day in and day out, every single day.
They also represent some of what is worst about the US, day in and day out, every single day. Along with the prison system, the gun laws, and the often joke of a justice system, they help perpetuate and increase the criminals rather than reduce them (even if there are year over year decreases in crime rates, that are touted as big successes, the numbers are still ludicrous compared to any western european country).