It would be more accurate to describe police as 'in group' vs 'out group' for their bias as opposed to the straightforward rich elite narrative. While they may

It would be more accurate to describe police as 'in group' vs 'out group' for their bias as opposed to the straightforward rich elite narrative. While they may overlap the region and its politics may vary heavily. Still often servants of a status quo in an ugly way but certainly not wealth alone. "Carpetbaggers" with the gall to move south to provide goods and services in Post Bellum south sure as hell didn't benefit from police protection much less favoritism. Nor did Greenwood District, Tulsa a.k.a. "The Black Wall Street" or the other pogrom victims of what were euphemistically and victim blamingly termed 'Race Riots'. And there was the old summing up of cliches as the cops went from beating up the Irish for 'not fitting into society' to being the Irish beating up Hippies for 'not fitting into society'. Indeed part of why historically gay neighborhoods and districts exist in many cases is because they congregated under friendlier enforcement jurisdictions. Putting aside the ancient police 'expecting the city to mob accused and restrain or kill them' the military largely were what we call the police essentially - at least with European history although they weren't homogeneous and there was some nuance to it and memetic factors. English highwaymen for instance could thrive better in the isles than on the Continent where they had Gendarme where as in England using cavalry for that was viewed as tyrannical. Their longbow practice also had some 'citizen army' and ancestral 2nd Amendment rhetorical factors while still not exactly 'free' it still provided a check to power in a 'don't piss off the armed peasantry enough that they decide an armed rebellion is worth it'. Meanwhile France and others specifically didn't adopt the practice because the rebellion concerns made the idea anathema to their worldview.