Shoot an unarmed suspect/innocent person? Whether or not you are indicted or cleared, you're removed from that precinct/neighborhood/region (or even street detail) for the remainder of your career.

Psychological testing and acceptance of those who show above-average levels of empathy.

Things would change.

after shooting an unarmed citizen. I can only think of one or two situations where that could fly with me.

However, what we're dealing with now is the fact that law enforcement is being run like a racket. A racket which preys predominantly on the weak and poor. A racket which is backed up by the power and height of institutional authority.

It's sort of like we're expecting a ravenous predator to be honorable.

The Mob has been using it for more than a century. Right down to the omerta.

Variability in the application of law results in errors.

The law itself need only be written one way, and applied to the entire group.

Sub-group A (let's say everyone who ISN'T a lawmaker or enforcer) gets punishment A.

Sub-group B (every lawmaker and enforcer) gets punishment B.

rec.

But feel free to start a petition repealing it.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/equal_protection

"as others in similar conditions and circumstances." I don't see LEO's as being in similar conditions and circumstances as me.

"Generally, the question of whether the equal protection clause has been violated arises when a state grants a particular class of individuals the right to engage in an activity yet denies other individuals the same right. There is no clear rule for deciding when a classification is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has dictated the application of different tests depending on the type of classification and its effect on fundamental rights. (emphasis mine) Traditionally, the Court finds a state classification constitutional if it has "a rational basis" to a "legitimate state purpose." The Supreme Court, however, has applied more stringent analysis in certain cases. It will "strictly scrutinize" a distinction when it embodies a "suspect classification." In order for a classification to be subject to strict scrutiny, it must be shown that the state law or its administration is meant to discriminate. Usually, if a purpose to discriminate is found the classification will be strictly scrutinized if it is based on race, national origin, or, in some situations, non U.S. citizenship (the suspect classes). In order for a classification to be found permissible under this test it must be proven, by the state, that there is a compelling interest to the law and that the classification is necessary to further that interest. The Court will also apply a strict scrutiny test if the classification interferes with fundamental rights such as first amendment rights, the right to privacy, or the right to travel. The Supreme Court also requires states to show more than a rational basis (though it does not apply the strictly scrutiny test) for classifications based on gender or a child's status as illegitimate."

There is no classification for 'lawmakers and LEOs' that would justify separate laws that would pass strict scrutiny.

Lawmakers and LEOs are citizens (fuck the LEOs who call non-LEO 'citizens'-- they're not military) just like the rest of us schmucks.

Feel free to start a petition.

without a doubt about that
If a person who really really wants to be a cop they should by no means be allowed to become one, simple as that.
After I read what I just typed I'm conflicted about that in the fact that there is those who are good people who are cops, I know a few
Peace

Long time no see okie. I hope all is well with you. I just went back to work five months after having my right shoulder reconstructed. Good to be useful again, but not happy about being back at work LOL.

Hey if you ever see Lloyd, ask him about his Uncle Billy... the Homicide Detective. He'll have stories... All good though.