I don’t. And personal safety is not the only thing that can make something bad strategy.
Cops enforce the State. By definition. If the State is immoral then so are cops. If the State is a NAP violation then so are cops.
The claim that any given cop has not committed aggression as a cop is suspect, but its also irrelevant. The reason why its a bad thing that there are cops isn’t because they have committed aggression, its because they continue to commit aggression and announce their intention to do so. A cop is a little bit more than “likely” to enforce victimless crimes- he has announced his intention to do so in a credible manner that rises to the level of assault.
Retired, former, and ex cops have committed aggression against people. But they are not an active threat. And unless you personally have retaliatory (or unrelated defensive) force on them and you use force against them, you are committing aggression. Are they a sympathetic victim? Usually not, but that has nothing to do with the NAP.
If someone without a badge announced “whenever I wear my green elephant shirt, I will kidnap anyone who I see with drugs, operating a business without giving me a cut, not abiding by my opinions on schooling, not giving me 10-40% of their income, etc” then earns a reputation of following through, are they an aggressor when they personally wear that shirt uninvited to your front door?
If someone announces “I rob taco trucks on Tuesdays,” then every Tuesday for 18 years they rob a taco truck, and a taco truck owner sees them approaching on a Tuesday, is that person aggressing? When can the business owner defend themselves?
If someone puts a gun to your head and says they’ll shoot you if you don’t give them some sum of money carrying between your wallet and half of your yearly income, can you respond before they shoot you?
There are many ways to communicate your intent to aggress against someone. The fact that the police have chosen a particularly weird way to do it does not strip their victims of the right to self-defense.