Pretty clear issues with this line of reasoning.

One, even if all police in the U.S. did start as slave patrols it is a textbook case of a genetic fallacy.

Two, your article discusses several origins of police forces in the US. In Boston it had nothing to do with slaves because Massachusetts was not a slave state when they created a police system in the 1830s. And since Afroman was raided in Ohio, also never a slave state, it does not make sense to carry over southern slave-catching history into modern police culture.

▲

ceejayoz 8 hours ago | parent [-]

> In Boston it had nothing to do with slaves because Massachusetts was not a slave state when they created a police system in the 1830s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugitive_Slave_Act_of_1793

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugitive_Slave_Act_of_1850

"It required that all escaped slaves, upon capture, be returned to the slave-owner and that officials and citizens of free states had to cooperate."

Boston's police department was founded in 1854.

	▲	janalsncm 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> The first publicly funded, organized police force with officers on duty full-time was created in Boston in 1838. This is from your Time.com article. Second, fugitive slave extradition was controversial in northern states and from your Wikipedia article several northern states even passed legislation to protect fugitive slaves. And why would northern states spend their own tax dollars to fund police forces to capture slaves? It doesn’t make sense. They created police for public safety reasons in cities. And even if none of that were true it still does not address the genetic fallacy. Just because some police forces started as slave patrols does not imply that all police today are inherently white supremacist.