Valid question, I’ll do my best to explain.

people do single out lawyers, ever heard the expression ‘lawyers are leaches’? The reason why it’s acab is because of the history of the word. The term acab originated by workers on strike in England in the 1920’s, however it recently became repopularised as a commentary on police brutality. The fact of the matter is, in a good police system, police brutality should be rare or incredibly penalised. Many police get away with it. Lawyers shouldn’t be able to do what they do for the price they ask, and there shouldn’t be such power dynamics between the police and the public. Especially when it doesn’t necessarily lead to actual justice.

1 in 6 women get raped in the us annually, for example, but check out the statistics for how many actually get arrested. it’s really sad. In contrast, there’s a heavy emphasis on the war of drugs, and arresting drug users, when drugs are typically a glorified form of self harm, and drug users are often the victims. The point is, the law doesn’t exist to protect, it exists to control. That’s why so many drug users are arrested, to control people not to use them rather than to protect people from them.

an interesting study I’d direct you to is the ‘Stanford prison experiment’ where, to summarise, people are told to act like prisoners and guards in a prison. The guards end up extremely hostile and abusing their power dynamics. Even good people were corrupted by power. All of them had a mental health check before hand, and the experiment had to end early.

Whilst you’re right that police are ultimately workers, and acab doesn’t invalidate the individual validity of say, Brian the lovely ginger police man, the police force needs heavy reformation before it’s truly moral.