The police have a very safe job, generally. They've done studies and construction workers have a much higher rate of injury and death than the police in the US. People have this idea that being a police officer is really unsafe and that they're throwing themselves in the line of danger just by doing their jobs, but most people are law-abiding and civil. There are people who are not, but that's not a good reason for the police to pretend like nobody is.
I think those narratives aren’t really correct either. At a 50,000 foot level, yes those numbers work out. But occupational numbers look at all sworn officers and don’t necessarily tell the story about the line police on the street. That said, the harrowing tales weaved by the unions in their negotiations or in TV don’t tell it either.
Highway patrol officers have a similar risk profile to construction workers. Mostly car accidents. Patrolmen in cities or towns get hurt in town or in altercations all of the time.
Court officers do not. Detectives largely do not. Police are more likely to get shot at, but way more likely to get hurt in a bunch of acute and long term ways. The nature of the stress that many police experience measurably shortens their lives.
The biggest issues with police with regard to officer and public safety are poor governance and macho culture. I live in New York so I’ll
use them as an example. NY State Police are highway patrol focused - they wear grey and black uniforms and Stetson hats. NYPD Highway patrol units wear black leather jackets and cavalry breeches. It looks cool and has a certain elan — but officers would be safer in more functional dayglo attire.
In terms of governance, like many areas of American governance, checks and balances are weak. Example: Cozy relationships between various departments, prosecutors, and perhaps elected judges mean that many NY police avoid prosecution or and sanction for DWI.
which can even come from situations where you want to help people but you can't so it also badly affects teachers, nurses and other people who come across people's dysfunction and suffering. It's worse to be made to feel that you violated your own values than it is to, say, get shot.
Great points. I have several people close to me who are firemen. They see shit you’re not really intended to see, and often don’t have a way to work through it. My mom was a nurse, mostly in CCU and ICU. She was an incredible advocate for her patients and profession, but she witnessed a lot of death and her way of intellectually processing that made her seem harsh about certain things, but it’s really perspective — most of us see death as a concept not reality.
It’s part of the reason why an observant person can usually spot a cop or firefighter in plain clothes. They put on a facade as a coping mechanism that leaks into life.
Most problems at their root are a result of people not treating people like people. Many “advocates” for police are really just attracted to the perception of power, and see failures of accountability as a sign of strength. It’s the opposite.
> They've done studies and construction workers have a much higher rate of injury and death than the police in the US.
Sure, but both construction worker and police officer are significantly more dangerous jobs than most of us here have sitting behind a desk.
Obviously it’s not a job where people are dying routinely, but suggesting death or serious injury are the only two risks of interacting with the public and responding to threatening or unstable situations is ignoring the reality. It’s a tough job. Much tougher than my time spent sitting at a desk.
I'm not convinced that being a cop is such a tough job. Most of it is sitting in your car waiting for speeders, or to warn traffic about road construction, or driving around looking for something unusual happening.
US courts have determined they don't even have a duty to risk their own lives to save civilians. Kinda the entire purpose of their job's existence, removed.
There's a lot of aggrandizement by and for cops; it's completely parallel to the worship of the military.
> I'm not convinced that being a cop is such a tough job. Most of it is sitting in your car waiting for speeders, or to warn traffic about road construction, or driving around looking for something unusual happening.
The tough parts of a job aren’t defined by the routine work. It’s the risks and edge cases. That’s like saying most of a construction worker’s job is measuring things and reading plans so it can’t be that tough.
It’s pretty obvious that a lot of commenters here have never known an actual police officer. They’re just choosing between two extreme archetypes that aren’t accurate: Either the heroic person risking their life on the daily to protect to the public, or the bumbling donut-eating cop who has been relegated to traffic duty only. Neither are true and comparing it that way is a false dichotomy.
The irony of us sitting at desks in our warm and comfortable offices while calling the job of someone who gets called to deal with troubling public situations “not tough” is ironic. I wouldn’t want to do that job and I bet you wouldn’t either.
just to make this explicit, protecting civilians has never been the purpose of modern police forces. they were developed to put down rebellions/catch slaves/protect rich people's property
There are plenty of instances where you would be correct, such as the origin of police forces in the American South (which were initially slave patrols), but that doesn't mean you are correct in all instances.
I'm not sure what joy you derive from spreading misinformation, but you should probably reconsider it.
You didn't refute anything in the comment, other than saying one part of it was correct. This comment would be more useful if you actually made an argument.
A cursory internet search would back up my statement. Feel free to do that if you're interested. I note that you aren't asking the parent poster for any citations for their claim, which I would say is quite extraordinary.
And to be clear, my "argument" is that the parent poster is objectively incorrect, which is accurate. I decided not to posit on why the parent poster made an objectively incorrect statement, though I am curious.
This is your statement: "just to make this explicit, protecting civilians has never been the purpose of modern police forces. they were developed to put down rebellions/catch slaves/protect rich people's property"
That statement is incorrect, no matter what your definition of "modern police force" is. That's it. It's not complicated, despite your attempts to deflect from the invalidity of that statement.
Yes, I knew exactly how you were stretching the truth to suit your viewpoints.
Thanks for confirming you knew exactly what you were doing as well. As I said at the start of this, I don't understand what you get out of intentionally making inaccurate statements, but I don't expect you to explain that.
thank you for confirming that you agree with the substance of my argument but have some weird ideological axe to grind with the conclusion! i also appreciate you wasting my time, failing to provide any other viewpoint or counterargument, and repeatedly engaging in ad hominem instead of the substance of my argument!
Funny to accuse someone of "spreading misinformation" while agreeing there are instances where they are correct, then asserting there are some instances where they are incorrect while giving no concrete examples yourself.
So saying something that is correct but not for all cases (which ones would those be) is now "spreading misinformation"?
I'm not sure what joy you derive from dismissing statements you already acknowledge have an element of veracity with some blanket label of "misinformation", but you should probably reconsider it.
> Funny to accuse someone of "spreading misinformation" while agreeing there are instances where they are correct, then asserting there are some instances where they are incorrect while giving no concrete examples yourself.
It's not funny, it's accurate.
Spending seconds looking into the history of policing worldwide, or in the US, would back up my claim.
Had the parent poster bothered to post evidence backing up their comment, I probably would have made the effort to post citations refuting it.
> So saying something that is correct but not for all cases (which ones would those be) is now "spreading misinformation"?
When you say that something is correct in all cases, yes.
> I'm not sure what joy you derive from dismissing statements you already acknowledge have an element of veracity with some blanket label of "misinformation", but you should probably reconsider it.
Nice try, but there is no "element of veracity" to an absolute statement that is objectively false.
No I completely agree that the police need things like health care and mental health and training on dealing with crises and all of this stuff we expect. But the idea that they need better weapons to do their job or that everyone they encounter should be treated like Afghani insurgents using the cameras they've installed in their own homes is beyond dystopian. Getting shot or stabbed, in my understanding is way less likely than just getting yelled at and traumatized by someone. And so I think the things that actually would add value would be things that either help you avoid those situations in the first place or things that help you process and lay down the trauma after the fact.
This I can agree with. I have experience with the local PD in handling "no good answer" domestic violence situations with a neighbor's mentally ill kid; they clearly had training to guide them. I'm grateful for that, although they still couldn't resolve much (the mental health system is still dysfunctional in the US).
Partly it's dysfunctional but the options for treating severe mental illness (schizophrenia spectrum, bipolar, major depression) aren't that great.
When you seem some guy screaming on the street corner a monthly depot injection of an antipsychotic drug would probably calm them down but overall the drugs are unpleasant [1] and have serious side effects, particularly sedation, weight gain, and high blood sugar [2] A "functional" system would probably be one that can get people like that a diagnosis and get them treatment against their will.
Kanye West is a good example. He has a bipolar diagnosis but now thinks he is fashionably autistic so he quit taking his meds and now he is shooting music videos of black people in blackface giving the Hitler salute after a whiney autotuned complaint that they won't let him see his kids after he posted something on Twitter [3]. For him responsibility is not "don't cosplay as a Nazi" but "face up to your condition and take your meds" and he won't want to cosplay as a Nazi and they might let him see his kids.
I've known quite a few people who are schizophrenia spectrum without a diagnosis: one of them lived at our house for a year and a half until she threatened my wife with a knife and she took her own life a year later, another one called us up five times in one day last week with a scrambled story about how she got bit by a dog, I sat down and listened to her for about 20 minutes in which she got lucid just a few times and I was able to piece together the place where it happened, that she's talked to the security guard and the EMT but not the police, that she did see a doctor and get a Tetanus shot though she wasn't sure if it was a Rottweiler or a Pit-bull.
The good news is that new drugs are here and more are under development:
[2] last year my condition got worse and my doc put me on the minimum dose of seroquel before going to sleep which is 1/10 the dose they'd give to someone who is really psychotic. It was effective at getting me quality sleep and avoiding "paranoia against objects" in the morning but I gained 15 lbs and my A1C was borderline in my last bloodwork and my doc thinks I should get off it. Even the smallest dose is so sedating I can't believe anyone could take it during the day, my guess is that if I cut the pills in half the sleep promoting effect will still be strong enough.
Its great for the narrative though, if you don't think they're special human beings risking their lives every day to save you how else can you convince the general population they should venerate them?
if you don't think they're special human beings risking their lives every day to save you how else can you convince the general population they should venerate them?
Along those lines, I think it's weird that in some cities, a cop who dies choking on a chicken bone on his day off in his own kitchen gets the same benefits and massive traffic-clogging live-streamed publicly-funded funeral with politicians and media spectacle as a cop who gets killed by a bad guy while on duty.
If they cared about police safety, they wouldn't do warrant checks at every interaction. If they cared about community policing, they wouldn't do warrant checks at every interaction. Because warrant checks make every situation potentially one where they are interacting with someone who has a life sentence over their head and might do something crazy.
Removing that one step just for community policing would completely change police interactions. Community policing is not the place to inject warrant enforcement, it too completely changes the dynamics.
I got hit by a car in a hit and run, and despite there being dozens of cameras, and me getting the footage of the car hitting me and driving off (not clear shot on license plate), the police immediately called it a cold case and refused to even try to get footage from any other cameras nearby - so I'll hold my breath that they use this for anything to prevent crime.
A country like the US has around 0.47 deaths in the line of duty per million per year whereas a country like Germany where people can't buy gun just like that is at 0.37 and a country like the UK where normal cops do not have guns is at 0.05
Which is easier, Wifi 7 in all homes or gun restrictions ?
Cons: use your imagination.