It’s not more specific. You could argue more useful. But it’s not more specific.

It is and I explained how in the next sentences you did not quote. If you disagree and want to argue it, you can reply to those. While I'm very patient I'm not going to waste my time if you're going to act in bad faith. Let's call this strike 1.

It has been around for literally thousands of years.

Incorrect. What you would recognize as the police is just a few hundred years old and is a capitalist formation. In the places that adopted what you would think of as policing, it was quite controversial, and previously was done on a volunteer basis, with much less coverage, and arrests were generally left up to a local population. Get together a posse, bring the accused to a (possibly volunteer) constable or similar figure that could never hope to patrol the area to which they were assigned. Or, often, the posse itself would carry out vigilante justice, the quality of that justice being relative to the population's views and biases.

Policing as in, punishing crimes, is NOT a new invention.

Theoretically, the police are not in the business of punishing crimes. They make arrests and "keep the peace", etc. You are clouding your understanding by being non-specific, and again, when you don't know something, you can just ask instead of trying to fight me. It is not the end of the world when someone else knows something that you don't, right?

It’s hilarious that you think the usa is the first to use it as such. Some form of cop has been the strong arm of the elite for longer.

Law enforcement has existed for as long as there have been laws, and we can be very general in how we think of these things, sure. But that is not what you would recognize as the police, a police force, which are a modern invention.

The word “police” was invented around 200 years ago.

It is a loan word from French that was adopted into English around 200 years ago. It was frequently used derisively, as an oppressive force that the continentals used but that, say, Britain would not, supposedly, tolerate. In French, the term is older.

Police forces were established around Britain starting around 200 years ago or so, adopting part of the French model. First volunteer, then professional. It was fairly controversial. Why would something that always existed need to be established? Why would it provoke a backlash?

It coincided with the establishment of industrial capitalism and spread where capitalist modes spread. The US merged it with their slave catchers and strikebreakers, like Pinkertons.

Not the concept of a law prevention/punishment/investigation guard.

I'm not being that vague or fuzzy in my thinking. I'm speaking to actual history and "the police", the people that will be trying bashing your head in if you stand for something on the street. Not some temple guards of ancient Mesopotamia that guard the money.

Also that far back kinda fucking sucked. Far less peaceful, greater quality of life disparities(though not income, quality of life is a more important difference to me, you can argue against that if you like), no clean water. Not exactly a good example to prove your point.

What kind of illogic has led you to believe I am harkening back to a pre-police golden age or something?

Putting rapists away does, in fact, reduce rape. Same for murderers.

I am clearly referring to the claimed deterrent effect of policing. I even said so explicitly. You're confusing yourself with words again, now you want to talk about reduction, which would mean having to actually interrogate your new claim and what it could mean.

Ask yourself whether there might be alternatives modes to protecting people than a non-responsive, violent force that acts in the interests of capital over the interests of people. We are, for example, often highly isolated from one another, and have no community that a person could go to instead. We are left with the cops or nobody. Perhaps that massively inflated police budget could go to the establishment of community, towards people and how we relate to one another, preventing isolation, rather than cops that tend to make problems worse or create them themselves.

Modern capitalist police don’t do a good job of it— that’s why I want them burned to the ground–we just don’t agree on the method. I want it more metaphorical. You want it literal.

I speak of actual concrete things embedded in history and political economic understanding and how they can be achieved. There is nothing realistic and actionable among liberal progressives, who have been propagandized to think that simply having the right ideas is the same as doing something about it! Or that the policy they were handed down from on high (more money for cops, e.g.) was actually their own very good idea and wow they sure did make change, eh? Liberal politics is a passive exercise of rationalization, not one of actually building the organs to effect meaningful goals for the wider population. You are not responsible for liberalism - this is not a personal attack. But it is important to recognize internalized liberal propaganda in ourselves and how it manifests, e.g. thinking a metaphor about burning down policing is somehow better than actually doing it.

…who do you think gets them into the court room. They sure as hell rarely walk themselves in.

In the US or Britain, usually a cop or bailiff. This does not contradict what I said: you are confused about the difference between cops and the court system, and who (theoretically) is in charge of arrests vs. punishment. I am highlighting how playing fast and loose with terms will lead you to self-confusion and that you are not making any meaningful points here, just thought spaghetti.

Again, you seem to be some how turning me into a pro modern cop person inside of your head.

No, I just recognize capitalist realist tropes. They infect everyone under capitalism and their core is to normalize capitalist formations and suggest they are immutable and have always existed, despite being created within the last few hundred years. I would guess that you are very new to left ideas and therefore don't know how to do self-crit, dialogue, or investigate before sharing guesswork opinions, and you will have a lot of trouble doing so if you are this willing to be combative rather than ask questions when challenged with easily verifiable facts. If you don't address what prevents you from actually engaging with and investigating challenges to liberal ways of thinking, your leftward development will become stunted and you'll end up doing something useless or counterproductive. And again, this is not a personal attack: virtually every single socialist or proper anarchist on the planet started this way as well. We all had entrenched internalized liberalism that we needed to recognize and combat through education and humility.

And just to drive the point home, if someone were being this ignorantly combative in a group space, they would eventually be asked to leave or otherwise make space for others. There is often a person very willing to share incomplete ideas at the expense of others, particularly in baby left spaces. We have to be patient with them but not let those who are certain in their incorrectness, eager to take up space, and unable to engage directly with the material from disrupting others' learning.

I’m not pro capitalist union busting pig. I just think taking them out from the inside is an acceptable way to do it

And you are completely, 100% incorrect about that for the reasons I have already explained. Cops are inherently a reactionary force in defense of capital. The most you could ever hope for is to get harassed or dead. We must organize against cops, not within them. And if you are thinking you might convince cops as the way forward by meeting them where they are, well that is a concept known as "tailism" and it must be rejected outright, as it is how you turn baby leftists into white supremacists and Nazis.