I think people would be so surprised at the collection of folks within law enforcement.  It really runs the gamut.  With that, there is almost a need for such a wide variety of people, too. 

Sadly, the bad thing about policing is people become the police oftentimes for the wrong reasons. 

There were people I really dreaded working with and mostly because of their temper/attitude or behavior on calls.  And guess what?  Too many of these people were the musclebound, macho types that took any defiance as a personal affront.  What else also kind of sucked was how calls are often owned by a particular officer - if it is their area or district, then it is their call and they dictate how the call is handled (now, the most secure officers KNOW when his or her "style" or "method" is not working and will accept that the second officer may hold the particular key and allow that person to step in and "handle" the call, while others would see it as an encroachment on "their" call).

I could write a ton about so many things.  I am proud to have had a career where I never had to strike a person with my nightstick or ASP (I did knock a large knife out of the hand of an adult woman once) and some would probably say in reply, "that's because you were a pussy," but I found that my mouth and brain were much better tools and I was known for my patience with people and ability to talk a person into doing the things I wanted.  I could not have cared less if a person "motherfucked" me all the time while turning around and putting their hands behind their back to be cuffed. 

It was really interesting to also try to find the best key to solving a problem, too (that is how my mind worked).  I found when people did not do what I wanted them to do, that one very effective tool was to simply ask them, "Hey, how can I get you to do "this" or "that" or "what would it take for you to do "this" or "that"?.  Or just even asking the person, "Hey, help me out here."  Or even taking the time to explain to a person that options that would follow if they didn't do what I wanted. It was shocking how many times people would then do whatever it was I wanted when these things were tried. 

When this is done, it sort of invests the person in their own actions a bit more.  They would see such a request as them being able to make their own choice. 

Lately, there has been this focus on "de-escalation" and the good police already do this and back in the early 90's the big push was for this new innovative practice of "Verbal Judo."  What is bad about things like this, though, is the investment of the officer into the practices of the techniques.  You had so many that saw themselves as "warriors" and screw that mamby-pamby bullshit. 

Here's the thing, though - the psychology of a department starts at the top and is directed through the management of an organization.  It really is and managers are terrible at seeking out the answers they don't like to the questions they want to be answered.  They purposely go to the same people to get the answers they want rather than going to the person that has the best answers because that person will tell them the truth.  They will establish "blue ribbon" panels over and over again with the same people because they can predict the "right" answers.  Hell, they will actually actively avoid the people with tough answers.  (One time I told the quote to two administrators, "The elite don't have to conspire because they all think alike." And their reply was, "I think that's a compliment."  That is how vapid and shallow their thinking was). 

Oh, and hiring processes.  Frankly, the hiring process is done in such a way as to push through as many applicants as possible and narrow them down as much as possible to be as easiest as possible.  For years, those that have studied testing procedures have stressed a need for an "integrity" based testing system, rather than a general aptitude testing process.  Testing developers have found that typically a person's integrity and truthfulness don't change over time, but hiring practices have been developed to be efficient versus effective. 

Next, there is also the schizophrenic-like debate over what exactly is the role of the police officer - public service, law enforcement, warrior, caregiver, protector, et cetera.  And to an individual officer, these parts are like a bar graph with the percentages for each role different for each officer.

Lastly, the sunglasses - man, some officers want too look cook, look tough, intimidate, care about style, believe their eyes give away too much information, and so on.  Our department disallowed mirrored sunglasses and eccentrically styled sunglasses.  The mirrored ones because of "intimidation" and the faddish ones because of, well, too faddish. 

And get this, until recently, our facial hair standards were more restrictive than in the 70s.  Back then you could wear a huge mustache or flaring sideburns, but before our place allowed to have neatly trimmed beards, those were prohibited through the 80s, 90s and 00s.

Hope that answered what you were asking....