Illegal government action is just different than private actor action. When the state acts, it triggers different legal standards, but it also triggers a different reaction from people.
For instance. Consider two different machete attacks. One, a civilian nutjob takes a machete out behind a 7-11 and beheads someone. Bad.
Second, a court holds a trial in Missouri, finds the defendant guilty of shoplifting, and decides to lop off the defendant’s hand with a machete. worse!
The second incident is much, much more alarming, even though it’s only a hand, not a head, because it carries the imprimatur of the state. We are much more concerned about a court
system that ignores the law and brandishes machete justice than we are, as a society, about private actors.
Police officers are state actors and represent the government. When they act illegally, it is more like the second example than the first. That’s where the outrage comes from.
Now, the individual cop might really be a rogue, nutjob outlier (assuming he actually did something wrong). But we can still expect more scrutiny, more outrage, when a state actor acts than a private individual. It seems to carry the stamp of approval of society.
this is not irrational, any more than it would be to be upset about Hmong internment camps if, theoretically hmong people were also simyltaneously criminally but privately individually kidnapping brides as part of a cultural relic from their homeland. just because they are occasionally individually imposing b on each others freedom doesnt mean a gov. internment program is not orders of magnitude more alarming
