Why just police? A non-zero number of people have probably lured plumbers to their house to kill them. Should plumbers bring guns everywhere?
Some members of <group X> did <bad thing Y>. Therefore all members of <group X> are bad.
We don’t tolerate when it group X is a racial group or when it’s a religious group, but otherwise intelligent and reasonable people seem to give zero care when group X is cops. It’s weird to me.
You might want to wonder then if those intelligent and reasonable people might have knowledge or experiences they're basing these things off of that you don't have direct access to.
It's not prejudice if it's not pre. For me I didn't come to truly hate all police until I had accumulated years of experience of their violence and dishonesty across so many different jurisdictions and even countries that I realized it really is a problem with the system itself rather than any specific individual within it.
ACAB doesn't mean only bad people become police, it means you must become bad to remain police. Well-meaning people join all the time and they either leave, are forced out, or get in line and start covering for the really heinous shit.
The difference is the geography - when police are used as a “follow every guideline some bullshit group of representatives set forth” enforcer, they tend to be bullshit. When they’re used as a “make sure people are being reasonable” force, they tend to be reasonable as well.
It’s up to the people in the jurisdiction to elect a chief who matches their viewpoint. And it’s up to the individual living in that jurisdiction to choose an area that matches the enforcement they’d like to see.
A less nice way to put this is "all you jerks around here who want to live in some nice urban area/suburb need to come to terms with the fact that this will require using police and state violence or the threat thereof to enforce the kind of conformity that requires."
(Spoiler alert, it resulted in a massive uptick in the Black death rate)
The chief of police is rarely an elected position (in most US jurisdictions). Sheriffs are typically elected, but that's an outlier in terms of law enforcement leadership positions.
> And it’s up to the individual living in that jurisdiction to choose an area that matches the enforcement they’d like to see.
It seems likely you have a pretty narrow view on the world if you think everyone (or even the majority of folks) have the resources to choose where they live based on that criteria.
And I’ve always seen the top officer on the ballot.
My experience is limited to the US, but in most US jurisdictions, the police chief works for the local municipal government and goes through the same hiring process as any other city/town employee.
In my experience, heads of policing candidates each put their “mission statement” and intended enforcement levels in an essay/Q&A hosted online by the local news. The community can read through the statements and choose the policing they feel most appropriate for their situation. If communities have chosen levels I don’t like, I respect their ability to do so - and live elsewhere.
If your community doesn’t have elected control over their police, and you want it to - I suggest you live elsewhere. Oregon is lovely this time of year.
And...maybe people are "born" cops? What if some people are born with ultra high points on "law and order", and they disproportionately become cops through their genetics?
You missed a second clause there... Some members of <group X> did <bad thing Y>. The remaining members of <group X> have failed to hold those members accountable (and in most cases work to actively cover up their misdeeds). Therefore all members of <group X> are bad.
You might be referring to JshWright’s logic not mine.
But if you're going to e.g. help a heart attack victim, I think it's reasonable to ask officers to leave their guns in their car, just as a doctor wouldn't bring a gun. I'd expect exceedingly few officers to be killed as a result.