You make a good point. I believe the idea with a rating system of police is that you tie the departments funding to the average rating of your officers. So while officers can abuse their power, if there is a reliable signal of this (reflected by their rating), they get canned to raise the overall rating of the department.

no, police are not above the law. they're only "special" in that they enforce the law, which requires exceptional privileges and responsibilities ordinary citizens don't have. but they're otherwise fully under the same legal jurisdiction as the rest of us.

some police may act as if they're above the law, but that's projection, not foundational.

edit: interesting, seems to have hit a tribal trigger of some sort, but can't tell if it's the "police bad" or "police good" contingents getting their feathers ruffled.

Hey, i just want to mention that I did not down vote you. Of course you are technically correct, it seems like you took 'above the law' in my comment in the 'literal sense' but it was more of a way to express how common it is for police to abuse their situation and privileges.

no worries, and i understood the intent, but wanted to explicitly counteract the nodding-along effect of platitudes like that.

we all have the propensity to abuse situations and privileges, so police aren't special in that regard. the problem is that we narrowly attribute this universal human quality to just police, blinded by context, because that fits a preconceived narrative and surreptitiously makes each of us feel a little better about ourselves. this happens subconsciously and is a form of the fundamental attribution error we make so often.

that's not to absolve the police of grievances, since they do have extraordinary powers and as a result their misbehaviors have greater impact. certainly we should hold them to a higher standard. but police aren't more corrupt than average (they aren't lesser human beings, as implied).

de facto vs de jure