I've been in their shoes, so that's where my arguments are coming from. For context, I'm in Washington state. To address your points:
Regarding speeding: that's a good example. Yes, it seems they're held to a lower standard. However, it's not that clear-cut. The problem with handing out a speeding ticket is that you're introducing an awkward dynamic into the relationship you have with a person who may literally be responsible for your life on an upcoming shift. The counterpoint is that they started the awkwardness by speeding in the first place and should be held accountable. I see both sides - in many cases when you have a close relationship like that a talk is more effective than a ticket anyway. I agree that they should follow the speed limit just like everyone else, but I can understand why an officer would hesitate to hand out a ticket over it. It's the "would you give a speeding ticket to your mother" dilemma. Maybe you would, but probably a talk would be more effective ("You're putting me in a bad position here"), and if someone has no compunction about it at all about handing out tickets to their mother, maybe they've got a messed-up relationship with her in the first place.
Regarding stops: in Washington, at least, an officer can't stop you without "reasonable suspicion", which is a legal term with a specific definition, or actually witnessing a violation. If he does stop you for "no reason", it's grounds for throwing out any ticket or conviction that arises from the stop. (Incidentally, this is where a lot of drug cases get challenged - based on the grounds of the traffic stop where the drugs were discovered.)
Regarding the rest: you have to understand, these people work in an entirely different world. Every person they come into contact with is a potential threat to their life, because you never know whether this guy you just pulled over is actually a felon having a bad day wanting to take it out on you, or whether the cell phone is actually a zipgun (indistinguishable from the outside), or whether this guy with a cell phone is calling some gang buddies to come help him out, or warning off somebody, etc. This does not excuse actual abuses of authority in any way. However, of course we have to be more accommodating to them than they are to us. If they were as accommodating to all the people they deal with day in and day out, they'd either be ineffective or dead.
(Note that, going back to the original topic, I still agree that recording officers should certainly not be an offense in and of itself. That's an "accommodation" that should be made whenever possible.)
As for the higher standard, I've seen a state trooper fired because of photos on his Facebook account of him laughing with friends while waiting for a taxi after drinking (off-duty, not in uniform!) at a bar. Somebody saw the photo, apparently found the idea of a trooper drinking offensive, reported him to his supervisor, and he lost his job, even though he was doing the responsible thing in waiting for a taxi. Are you telling me that's not a higher standard than your job?
Or another example: an officer in this area was fired because of domestic abuse issues he had at home, which amounted to him grabbing his wife's arm during an argument and leaving a bruise. Would you be fired from your job if that happened to you? Probably not.
Even laws treat officers differently. Offhand, IIRC the statute of limitations for most felonies in Washington is 3 years - unless you're an officer, in which case it's 10. Likewise, as a civilian you can defend your home and family with lethal force, but as an officer you'll stand against far more scrutiny if you ever have to because the standards are higher due to "experience and training".
I could go on, but this is way too long already. The bottom line is it's not a perfect system. You can easily find cases of abuse of power and authority. But I think that by and large these are decent people who are sacrificing a lot and doing a tough job as best they can. The vast majority of them are not doing it for the power trip or because they're totalitarian. And they certainly are held to tougher standards than the average civilian.
Er, if they are ignoring the little laws like speeding and parking, they follow through on ignoring the bigger laws too. A cop should be a good example, always or not a cop. Period.
>> an officer can't stop you
"can't" ? I assure you, they will stop you for whatever reason they feel like if they are so motivated. Cops love the fact they can immediately make your life EXTREMELY complicated, make you spend thousands of dollars and many hours/days in court, on just their whim, while they get to go home after their shift, hassle-free. They are going to "teach you a lesson".
Regarding speeding: that's a good example. Yes, it seems they're held to a lower standard. However, it's not that clear-cut. The problem with handing out a speeding ticket is that you're introducing an awkward dynamic into the relationship you have with a person who may literally be responsible for your life on an upcoming shift. The counterpoint is that they started the awkwardness by speeding in the first place and should be held accountable. I see both sides - in many cases when you have a close relationship like that a talk is more effective than a ticket anyway. I agree that they should follow the speed limit just like everyone else, but I can understand why an officer would hesitate to hand out a ticket over it. It's the "would you give a speeding ticket to your mother" dilemma. Maybe you would, but probably a talk would be more effective ("You're putting me in a bad position here"), and if someone has no compunction about it at all about handing out tickets to their mother, maybe they've got a messed-up relationship with her in the first place.
Regarding stops: in Washington, at least, an officer can't stop you without "reasonable suspicion", which is a legal term with a specific definition, or actually witnessing a violation. If he does stop you for "no reason", it's grounds for throwing out any ticket or conviction that arises from the stop. (Incidentally, this is where a lot of drug cases get challenged - based on the grounds of the traffic stop where the drugs were discovered.)
Regarding the rest: you have to understand, these people work in an entirely different world. Every person they come into contact with is a potential threat to their life, because you never know whether this guy you just pulled over is actually a felon having a bad day wanting to take it out on you, or whether the cell phone is actually a zipgun (indistinguishable from the outside), or whether this guy with a cell phone is calling some gang buddies to come help him out, or warning off somebody, etc. This does not excuse actual abuses of authority in any way. However, of course we have to be more accommodating to them than they are to us. If they were as accommodating to all the people they deal with day in and day out, they'd either be ineffective or dead.
(Note that, going back to the original topic, I still agree that recording officers should certainly not be an offense in and of itself. That's an "accommodation" that should be made whenever possible.)
As for the higher standard, I've seen a state trooper fired because of photos on his Facebook account of him laughing with friends while waiting for a taxi after drinking (off-duty, not in uniform!) at a bar. Somebody saw the photo, apparently found the idea of a trooper drinking offensive, reported him to his supervisor, and he lost his job, even though he was doing the responsible thing in waiting for a taxi. Are you telling me that's not a higher standard than your job?
Or another example: an officer in this area was fired because of domestic abuse issues he had at home, which amounted to him grabbing his wife's arm during an argument and leaving a bruise. Would you be fired from your job if that happened to you? Probably not.
Even laws treat officers differently. Offhand, IIRC the statute of limitations for most felonies in Washington is 3 years - unless you're an officer, in which case it's 10. Likewise, as a civilian you can defend your home and family with lethal force, but as an officer you'll stand against far more scrutiny if you ever have to because the standards are higher due to "experience and training".
I could go on, but this is way too long already. The bottom line is it's not a perfect system. You can easily find cases of abuse of power and authority. But I think that by and large these are decent people who are sacrificing a lot and doing a tough job as best they can. The vast majority of them are not doing it for the power trip or because they're totalitarian. And they certainly are held to tougher standards than the average civilian.