So I’ve recently been increasingly conflicted re: cops. I grew up in the sort of family (let’s call it ascendant working-class) that was *very* pro-cop: thin blue line, that kind of thing. Have some ex-cops in the family, who I quite like
Plus, families like mine tend to 1) relatively rarely have negative run ins with the police and 2) generally act so respectful to cops that they get pretty positive handling. Not because they fear cops but because they respect them. Also, my small town had pretty good police
So I grew up with a generally positive view of police. Never really had a negative run in. But then I crack open the DoJ’s report on police killings and brutality in places like Baltimore and Cleveland, and... whoa. 
Turns out that when you’re the state’s eye and hand, you get the state’s benefit of the doubt; plus, the state’s *other* arms and hands go pretty easy on you
Plus, this a job that involves exercising authority and force; and unlike most authoritative jobs (like being a leader of something) this one involves little stewardship—you *have* to punish wrong-doers, but you’re *allowed* to help old ladies across the street. No old lady quota
And so you have a form of authority that is significantly (not entirely!) exercised *negatively*, and often with physical force; and it is subject to very little oversight, because its job is to oversee *other* people. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes, etc.
What kind of person do you think is most attracted to that job?
Many people might be attracted to it for other reasons, often noble, and so you should expect to see some good, even heroic cops; but it sure seems like there are some pretty skeezy reasons to be a cop, and few ways to weed out those skeezy applicants.
And the issue is, once bad applicants are accepted, they’re part of the Watchers and not the Watched. And you’ve given them a gun.
I used to be more skeptical of this; cops get fired, and whenever I heard a reliable, non-hearsay source (a newspaper, say) accuse a cop, it seemed like the cop gets punished. (Worth noting: this is not always the case, it turns out :/)
But even if it *is* the case, my reasoning misses the point! The whole issue is that this stuff goes unreported by the State, because cops *are* the State. There are tons of complaints against cops by non-cops, but they aren’t cops and so are presumably Dirty Criminals
The official, “reliable” records on this are exactly the *least* reliable source of info, because they have such a vested interest. And yet those records maintain prestige because they’re the records of the State.
My takeaways:
1) my thought when I look at a cop now is not “ah, a hero defending justice,” but is rather “ah, a human with a gun and a whole lot of perverse incentives.” Maybe they’re a hero too! But heroes are exceptional, incentives universal.
1) my thought when I look at a cop now is not “ah, a hero defending justice,” but is rather “ah, a human with a gun and a whole lot of perverse incentives.” Maybe they’re a hero too! But heroes are exceptional, incentives universal.
2) I don’t think we should abolish police. That seems dumb—it seems like the law *does need* enforcers. But I’m very open to new ideas about how that enforcement should be designed, because I’m disillusioned with this form.
3) This is what made me believe in egregores and demons. The BPD acted too much like a thing *designed* to create pain, even though no human had (actively) designed it for that. You can see another intelligence at work behind these stories.
4) I’m much more open to a preferential option for the poor/accused. The power balance between cop and suspect is *so* skewed. Some part of Christian siding-with-the-powerless must be a siding-with-the-accused, at least to some extent.
