This is, actually, completely impossible. A very simple example: an active shooter situation requires an immediate non judicial punishment. Therefore, the laws need explicit carve-outs for cops.
> When one of their own is treated by the law like anyone else would be they retaliate by refusing to work
was incorrect: if you were going to be arrested for killing an active shooter, then you would not do it. And it would be wrong to charaterize this as a retaliation, as it is a rational decision.
Please read what is written in the context it is written in.
Pure invention, if you want to restrain your context then use precise language not a large variety of hyperboles like "It’s possible for police to do their job without needing to beat whomever they want, whenever they want."
In the end, I will sum up this discussion from my POV: you view cops broadly as criminals waiting to get caught (they are domestic abusers after all!) and if I were one I would never want to police your neighborhood.
I suspect this all comes from you living a sheltered life, and because your view of police and, especially, of criminals is informed by TV shows. And yes, "gotcha!", those aren't the same, no matter how many screenwriters enjoy subverting expectations.
It's quite clear to me that the application of your ideas has given this headline, so I'm comfortable ending this discussion on this note: I hope that your anti-cop views are eliminated ASAP through the voting booth.
You are taking what is written and applying an interpretation that clearly is not intended or made. You act as if those wanting reform seek out the most extreme, nonsensical standards. You are unreasonable in your responses. I hope for you that you may one day learn and understand logic and nuance.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-cops/st...
This isn't just limited to intelligence. Police departments will not hire people who will do the job properly, and they'll force out the people who maintain high ethics. That's why people say there's a systemic issue with policing in this country.
> New London police interviewed only candidates who scored 20 to 27, on the theory that those who scored too high could get bored with police work and leave soon after undergoing costly training.
This is visibly not about "refusing to hire people who are smart enough to do the job well", but
> a rational way to reduce job turnover
Furthermore, since they interviewed only people who score higher than 20, where 21 is said to be equivalent to an IQ of 104, then those aren't stupid people.
Finally, I will say that the conspiracy theory that police departments are pro-crime and try do their best to do their job the wrong way seems out of touch with reality.