I think there's more than just a few bad apples, though. I think that quotas, racial/gender bias, and a lack of punishment for bad behavior have affected many policemen in negative ways. Not to mention that policemen go about their days looking for people who are doing something wrong more than they patrol to maintain peace and justice.
OR perhaps they patrol to maintain peace and justice by looking for people who are doing something wrong as dictated by public laws. Investigation and seeking out crime is an integral component to maintaining public order.
Race tends to appear a factor, when in fact socioeconomic status is what actual applies since high crime neighborhoods are targeted by police, these tend to be lower-income communities. More blacks/hispanics live in low-income neighborhoods than other racial groups. So if more blacks and hispanics are arrested proportionately it doesn't mean that there is a bias. You need more evidence to substantiate an argument that doesn't rely on generalizations.
Quotas are illegal. There isn't evidence that this is a prevalent issue. Some confuse click-it-or-ticket
police stops for instance as a form of illegal use of quotas. This is not true. These are initiatives that must be enforced by police officers as dictated by public law in a given municipality. Further, people will exclaim something along the lines like, "the cops pulled me over for going 5 miles over the speed limit to meet a quota!" This is false. If a person violates a statute, the police officers have the right and duty to give a ticket. It's only an issue when police fabricate or falsify evidence in order to make an arrest, that is what constitutes an officer trying to meet a quota. Police officers don't do this commonly as they would put at risk their jobs as well as criminal charges, especially given the enormous amount of oversight. Do you have any evidence to support that
many police officers are manipulating evidence in order to increase convictions? If not, it's a generalization without any information to substantiate the claim.
Men tend to commit more violent crimes statistically. Behavioral scientists have studied male and female violent behavior, and affirm men are more likely to act out in aggression. more men may be committing more violent crimes, or even more reckless driving statistically. So, if more men are arrested and charged with violent crimes, it doesn't necessarily indicate a bias in law enforcement. You need more evidence to substantiate an argument that doesn't rely on generalizations.
Being vigilant and skeptical of law enforcement is fine. It becomes an issue when we make claims that these issues are highly prevalent, when in fact there isn't any evidence of which would support those claims. Making blind generalizations is what causes this negative perception of law enforcement in the United States.