Sam I think a lot of dislike for cops and politicians is specifically because they are not held to the same standards as we peons are.
I think you're conflating a couple of things there. Dislike of politicians has been a trend since politicians were invented. Dislike of cops is an unfortunate and separate issue. No one is above the law, or should be. If a politician uses his/her position to profit or to break the law and get away with it, that's simply corruption.
Police officers are hired by us, by society, to do something very dangerous, and to deliberately put themselves in situations where the risks of injury and death are fairly high. We can't do much about that, aside from issuing them body armor, and giving them decent training and lots of backup so they can stack odds in their favor.
But physical injury isn't the only, or biggest, risk an officer faces. Some of the tasks we assign them to do are violent, and some involve firing guns in public places. They have to. And that always carries risks that someone may be accidentally -- or mistakenly -- injured or killed. As long as the officer was truly acting as he or she was trained to act, and carrying out orders in a lawful way, WE, society, will protect them from being sued (by having their department or civil government take on the liability for their civil case, or preventing one) or jailed for a mistake or accident that happens while carrying out those orders. That's what indemnification is.
It is worth noting that that doesn't cover an officer who's off doing his own thing and accidentally hurts someone, or who is breaking the law himself. Then he or she is on their own and can be convicted of crimes and sued for every penny. But if the police officer is acting as OUR agent, carrying out the laws we have passed, WE will give them expanded legal authority to act and will protect them from personal civil risks.
That's not corruption, that's simply the only way policing could ever be made to work. It literally makes no sense to say that an officer acting to preserve the peace and enforce the law should be held to exactly the same standards as a private citizen, not sworn to those duties. YOU don't have the duty or authority to stop people for speeding and write them a ticket. You don't have the duty or authority to put flashing lights on your car and speed off to emergencies. You don't have an umbrella of protection from civil lawsuit for accidents and mistakes made while serving the duty to society you DIDN'T swear to fulfill.
a big problem with having a gun and using it to defend yourself or your home is what you pointed out. even if you win in court your life is destroyed.
It absolutely can be. But it often isn't. And the more careful you are to avoid trouble and to act with violence only when you have no other possible choice, the less likely you are to even end up in court at all. Plenty of people have used a firearm to defend themselves and their families and never even seen the inside of the police station, let alone a holding cell or court room. But it can happen.
Life isn't safe, and there isn't a guaranteed good outcome, even if you've acted in the right.
that is why I just don't get zeal guys have to want to carry
Well, there are people who probably shouldn't carry a gun. But for most of us, even understanding the risks, the possibility of saving your life or that of a loved one is worth those risks. It is often better to keep on living, or to let a wife or child keep on living, even if you end up financially hurt or in prison, than to die or see them die at the hands of an evil person.
