I'm sure police (when they aren't fighting over jurisdictional issues) find it helpful, that doesn't mean that it's helpful for the population, especially when it (and police generally) are used as a tool for domestic influence operations and to basically shunt some people aside in the name of business and landowners.

Have you ever dealt with US law enforcement? They are a joke. Thinking they are a positive influence is a joke to me.

Why don't you then move to a place where law enforcement doesn't exist at all? Surely must be like paradise!

I already live there because the only enforcement that happens is trying to extract money from poor people to fund the local court and cops. Pulling over every car coming down a particular road and trying to charge them with DUIs for smoking weed 8 hours beforehand does not make me safer, it just makes me late for work and is used to justify tax increases on me to further fund the bogus drug war.

US law enforcement "clears" about 1 in 4 robberies and more than 1 in 3 aggravated assaults/batteries, and similar numbers for other crimes. On average, a criminal's career is 3 serious crimes. You can imagine how much awesomer your life would have been if they were able to run uncaught for years and years. But you won't because you have "net negative" bullshit blocking your vision.

Now compare that to that to US peer countries like throughout most of Europe or Australia and see that the US has piss poor clearance rates for crimes. Along with the US having far higher crime rates in general on par with countries that lack stable governance.

Despite topping the world with incarcerations and arrests and law enforcement funding, the US is not a particularly safe place, so obviously US law enforcement isn't focused on safety and justice, which leaves the monetary factor.

If you arrest someone for a drug crime and get a plea deal out of them they get jail fees, processing fees, court minimum fees plus any additional court costs, probation costs and fees, multiple "X state specialty tax fee", plus kickbacks from the mandatory court ordered drug/anger/traffic class, cost of drug test fees, etc. If you arrest someone from murder and imprison them for life, sure you can claim to charge them those fees, but they will never be free of prison to ever pay them. So it should be no surprise that cops are incentivized to go for easy drug charges from non-dangerous citizens that puts money in their pockets over actual dangerous criminals who will only reduce department revenue.

US people also kill each other with non-gun means more that Australians or any Europeans total (per capita per year).

Whatever the US problem is, it's not net negative cops (or guns, for that matter).

This thread is about the FBI, yet you're referencing strawman arguments about DUI checkpoints from local police. Do you have any experience with crimes against children?

well because intelligence agencies and drug lords take over due to more force and money.

typical bootlicker mentality; all criticism of state violence is rejected out of hand because the idea that power can and should be held to a higher standard is anathema to the authoritarian mindset.

un-nuanced and intellectually lazy.

I'm all for reasonable criticism of law enforcement, which "net negative" is not.

The laughable thing here is the "argument" that one cannot judge the societal impact of the FBI unless one has worked in law enforcement.