7 ms·

The worst case scenario? I’m pretty sure that is the scenario that played out. Police should be prepared to die wearing the badge, with civilian casualty being

The worst case scenario? I’m pretty sure that is the scenario that played out. Police should be prepared to die wearing the badge, with civilian casualty being an absolute last resort. It works this way for the military. I can’t fathom why it doesn’t work this way with police.

dba7dba 9y ago
Police should be prepared to die wearing the badge, with civilian casualty being an absolute last resort. I disagree. No one should be prepared to die while working a job, a job that one will have all his life.
- lowbloodsugar 9y ago
  Then you don't get to be a cop. Or a soldier.
  - dba7dba 9y ago
    A soldier is in direct danger of losing life/limb only upto 25 years old so. As you go up higher in rank, your exposure to danger goes down exponentially. And that is usually when an active war is going on. Even when an active war is on, those in charge have learned to limit the length of time a soldier spends in warzone to 1 year. Like US did in Vietnam war. For cop in certain areas, they are exposed to loving life/limb any day. It may happen only once a year or just a few years. But still, I wouldn't say one can be a cop only if you are willing to lose own life.
    - fredophile 9y ago
      I don't think you've ever been a soldier. Sure the average private or corporal is in their twenties but when I was in Afghanistan the average NCO was in their thirties. Even higher ranked people with office jobs weren't immune from danger. Rocket attacks on KAF and the FOBs was a regular occurrence. Soldiers can easily get a lot more than one year of combat time. How many full time soldiers only do a single tour in Iraq or Afghanistan? The stats show policing isn't that dangerous. Most cops never need to draw their weapons. If you want to see a dangerous job look at crab fishing.
      - dba7dba 9y ago
        No I've never been a soldier but I know a USAF graduate who spent I think 6 month long tour in Iraq. And he did mention being in mortar attack a few times. But it didn't last years. And I agree with what you said about even older/higher ranked people being in danger. But the point is how long has war been going on? And how many of US soldiers are actually in combat zone. But for US cops, any chance encounter on the street can be deadly. And that lasts for their entire career. I have trouble with agreeing with someone who says that a cop should be ready to give up life during their whole career of 30 + years.
        Phlarp 9y ago
        A 30 year cop (presumably) isn't going to spend the ENTIRE career working as a beat cop on the graveyard shift in the worst parts of Baltimore or Chicago. They also rank up and/or change positions to be detectives, special investigations, expert witnesses for prosecutors, bosses or administrative police staff. Meanwhile SWAT details (particularly in medium sized cities with more toys than mandatory training) are going to consistently attract the worst of the so called "bad apples" from the greater ranks of police. Individuals that joined up specifically because the rough and tumble stuff appealed to them.
    - djsumdog 9y ago
      > Even when an active war is on, those in charge have learned to limit the length of time a soldier spends in warzone to 1 year. Like US did in Vietnam war. This is absolutely false. It may have been true in Vietnam, but that has to do more with there being a near infinite source of soldiers (the draft) and also an insane amount of soldiers being killed an maimed and unable to take a 2nd term. In Afghanistan and Iraq, I knew people who were serving five or six tours.
- Analemma_ 9y ago
  Then pick a different job. People aren't required to be police officers.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - dba7dba 9y ago
    I don't claim to have inside knowledge but often many cops some to become cops because there are no better job prospects. I'm sure they would've picked a factory job or any other trade if it guaranteed life time employment and pension afterward. But these days such jobs require much studying/preparation/luck.
    - chris_wot 9y ago
      That’s a terrible way of hiring. If they can’t get any other job than a police officer, then that that explains a lot.
- bitwize 9y ago
  As much as people slag off the "thin blue line" mentality it does mean something. You put that uniform on and you are the meat-shield between order and chaos, between civilization and lawlessness. You're performing a grim but necessary service, and there's no shame in retiring to civilian life if you can't or won't accept this duty. This is why soldiers are taught that they are outranked by any civilian. Every officer used to know this. Maybe less so today, when police work is an attractive option for violent people to let loose on civilians with legal sanction. But that's a separate problem from the mentality of duty and sacrifice.
  - MaxfordAndSons 9y ago
    The one time I was arrested (for illegal use of a roadway during a protest), during the post arrest search of my belongings, the cop searching made some comment about something in my bag and I turned my head (I was facing a wall) to reply, for which he immediately shoved my face back into the wall and said "You're not allowed to move - my safety is more important than yours". Keep in mind, this is in a police station surrounded by other cops, he already body searched me, and I was a 5'10, 120 pound nerdy teenager. Of course, this is just an anecdotal, singular data point, but it strongly accords with the sense I get watching videos of police shootings that many if not most police officers today are in fact trained to put their safety and the safety of their fellow officers above that of civilians.
    - dba7dba 9y ago
      Look up a Youtube channel called PoliceActivity. It is a collection of dashcam/bodycam videos of US police involved in some kind of shooting/assault. They are not edited down to fit a news report so videos usually last 10-30 minutes. Some show cops stealing money/drug from suspects and US media actually showed such clips in news reports. But lots of the videos show actual circumstances leading up to shooting by police. Some clips show cops getting shot at by suspects. And even some getting killed. I have a whole new perspective on cops after watching the videos. I have a relative who was arrested (due to his own fault) and got roughed up by police and he HATES cops. And I kinda used to shared his sentiment. But after watching the clips on the channel, I feel somewhat less animosity. When scums of earth are around, most of us have a choice of moving away. But these cops don't have the choice.
williamscales 9y ago
Try finding enough people willing to do that. I'm not willing to die with the badge on, so I will never be a police officer. But I suspect that if you ask police officers the same question, many of them are also not truly willing to make the ultimate sacrifice. I'm not really sure what to do about this. Surely many of those who are willing to make that sacrifice are already police officers or other first responders.
- dclowd9901 9y ago
  Yet, plenty of people go into the military. I call bullshit. And frankly the only people I want wearing the badge are ones who are willing to sacrifice themselves, even if it’s a much smaller number of officers being paid much more and are much more skilled.
  - notwedtm 9y ago
    The military offers a much larger compensation package for your employment/service. As a LEO, you get a paycheck, and a pension. As a soldier, you get room & board, food, transportation (mostly), and all your necessities issued to you. For some people, those are worth the potential of death, where as the LEO compensation isn't. Lastly, there is a large group of people who enlist due to patriotic beliefs (i.e. "Doing your duty"/"Serving your country"). I don't see that same type of patriotism towards local LEO organizations.
    - gonational 9y ago
      While in the e.g., Army, you are likely away from your family and friends for the better part of 4 years, and if you perform much better than average, you’ll be an E4 late in your third year, earning $25k/yr. Meanwhile, cops are paid north of $50k/yr; they get to go home to their families every night, and compared to IED-laden roads and AK-47s, their risks are very minor. Also, saying the military pays for room and board is like saying prison pays for room and board; it’s not exactly the room and board you would choose, and you’re not allowed to just leave when you choose.
djsumdog 9y ago
> It works this way for the military. I can’t fathom why it doesn’t work this way with police. The military is part of the state's monopoly on violence. We dress it up today and make it seem all noble, and selectively forget all the torture at Abu Ghraib, drop weapons [1], the famous song about the "Little Haji Girl," .. and the list goes on. The military get away with much more murder and torture than police. Many people I knew who came back from Iraq hate Iraqis; they have to justify their hatred because they've killed so many of them. In the words of Bill Hicks, "I've been watching all these Congressional hearings and all these military guys and all the pundits going, "The esprit de corps will be affected, and we are such a mora …" Excuse me, but aren't you all a bunch of fucking hired killers? Shut up! You are thugs, and when we need you to go blow the fuck out of a nation of little brown people, we'll let you know." [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UqB2a1K9dBw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UqB2a1K9dBw
- krapp 9y ago
  >> It works this way for the military. I can’t fathom why it doesn’t work this way with police. >The military is part of the state's monopoly on violence(...) But the police are a part of the state's monopoly on violence as well - they're the ones who commit the violence on behalf of the state, and the ones whose violence the state legitimizes.
- maroonblazer 9y ago
  > The military is part of the state's monopoly on violence. We dress it up today and make it seem all noble, and selectively forget all the torture at Abu Ghraib... Are you suggesting that there's a better solution to handling conflict than relegating the use of violence to the state? If so, what's that solution?
Nomentatus 9y ago
What military unit did you serve in, and how much combat did you see? No service here, but if my reading is worth anything, soldiers do risk their lives - to a degree - even to capture rather than kill the enemy at times. But most won't take large, constant risks, and some won't take any risk if nobody's looking, or their unit has adopted a fiercer culture. In Vietnam, some units were willing to kill their own officers to reduce the friendly death toll overall (fragging.) I understand the U.N. Laws of War, official terms of engagement, and military law don't talk in terms of risk percentages, but practically that's the calculation each soldier must make. We have to be careful of how much saintliness we ask of policemen (and soldiers) else we won't be able to hire more than a handful.
kenjackson 9y ago
Given it was thought to be a multi person hostage situation, I think the worst case is every hostage gets killed and shootout ensues. As bad as it was, it probably wasn’t the worst case.
- always_good 9y ago
  Well, that's a case of a branch that never even occurred, so what's the point? In that case, it's not as bad as if it was a secret ISIS compound and one of the bad guys set off a bomb that blew up the block. That's worse than your worst case. But notice how this adds no value to the discussion.

dba7dba 9y ago

Police should be prepared to die wearing the badge, with civilian casualty being an absolute last resort. I disagree. No one should be prepared to die while working a job, a job that one will have all his life.

lowbloodsugar 9y ago
Then you don't get to be a cop. Or a soldier.
- dba7dba 9y ago
  A soldier is in direct danger of losing life/limb only upto 25 years old so. As you go up higher in rank, your exposure to danger goes down exponentially. And that is usually when an active war is going on. Even when an active war is on, those in charge have learned to limit the length of time a soldier spends in warzone to 1 year. Like US did in Vietnam war. For cop in certain areas, they are exposed to loving life/limb any day. It may happen only once a year or just a few years. But still, I wouldn't say one can be a cop only if you are willing to lose own life.
  - fredophile 9y ago
    I don't think you've ever been a soldier. Sure the average private or corporal is in their twenties but when I was in Afghanistan the average NCO was in their thirties. Even higher ranked people with office jobs weren't immune from danger. Rocket attacks on KAF and the FOBs was a regular occurrence. Soldiers can easily get a lot more than one year of combat time. How many full time soldiers only do a single tour in Iraq or Afghanistan? The stats show policing isn't that dangerous. Most cops never need to draw their weapons. If you want to see a dangerous job look at crab fishing.
    - dba7dba 9y ago
      No I've never been a soldier but I know a USAF graduate who spent I think 6 month long tour in Iraq. And he did mention being in mortar attack a few times. But it didn't last years. And I agree with what you said about even older/higher ranked people being in danger. But the point is how long has war been going on? And how many of US soldiers are actually in combat zone. But for US cops, any chance encounter on the street can be deadly. And that lasts for their entire career. I have trouble with agreeing with someone who says that a cop should be ready to give up life during their whole career of 30 + years.
      - Phlarp 9y ago
        A 30 year cop (presumably) isn't going to spend the ENTIRE career working as a beat cop on the graveyard shift in the worst parts of Baltimore or Chicago. They also rank up and/or change positions to be detectives, special investigations, expert witnesses for prosecutors, bosses or administrative police staff. Meanwhile SWAT details (particularly in medium sized cities with more toys than mandatory training) are going to consistently attract the worst of the so called "bad apples" from the greater ranks of police. Individuals that joined up specifically because the rough and tumble stuff appealed to them.
  - djsumdog 9y ago
    > Even when an active war is on, those in charge have learned to limit the length of time a soldier spends in warzone to 1 year. Like US did in Vietnam war. This is absolutely false. It may have been true in Vietnam, but that has to do more with there being a near infinite source of soldiers (the draft) and also an insane amount of soldiers being killed an maimed and unable to take a 2nd term. In Afghanistan and Iraq, I knew people who were serving five or six tours.
Analemma_ 9y ago
Then pick a different job. People aren't required to be police officers.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- dba7dba 9y ago
  I don't claim to have inside knowledge but often many cops some to become cops because there are no better job prospects. I'm sure they would've picked a factory job or any other trade if it guaranteed life time employment and pension afterward. But these days such jobs require much studying/preparation/luck.
  - chris_wot 9y ago
    That’s a terrible way of hiring. If they can’t get any other job than a police officer, then that that explains a lot.
bitwize 9y ago
As much as people slag off the "thin blue line" mentality it does mean something. You put that uniform on and you are the meat-shield between order and chaos, between civilization and lawlessness. You're performing a grim but necessary service, and there's no shame in retiring to civilian life if you can't or won't accept this duty. This is why soldiers are taught that they are outranked by any civilian. Every officer used to know this. Maybe less so today, when police work is an attractive option for violent people to let loose on civilians with legal sanction. But that's a separate problem from the mentality of duty and sacrifice.
- MaxfordAndSons 9y ago
  The one time I was arrested (for illegal use of a roadway during a protest), during the post arrest search of my belongings, the cop searching made some comment about something in my bag and I turned my head (I was facing a wall) to reply, for which he immediately shoved my face back into the wall and said "You're not allowed to move - my safety is more important than yours". Keep in mind, this is in a police station surrounded by other cops, he already body searched me, and I was a 5'10, 120 pound nerdy teenager. Of course, this is just an anecdotal, singular data point, but it strongly accords with the sense I get watching videos of police shootings that many if not most police officers today are in fact trained to put their safety and the safety of their fellow officers above that of civilians.
  - dba7dba 9y ago
    Look up a Youtube channel called PoliceActivity. It is a collection of dashcam/bodycam videos of US police involved in some kind of shooting/assault. They are not edited down to fit a news report so videos usually last 10-30 minutes. Some show cops stealing money/drug from suspects and US media actually showed such clips in news reports. But lots of the videos show actual circumstances leading up to shooting by police. Some clips show cops getting shot at by suspects. And even some getting killed. I have a whole new perspective on cops after watching the videos. I have a relative who was arrested (due to his own fault) and got roughed up by police and he HATES cops. And I kinda used to shared his sentiment. But after watching the clips on the channel, I feel somewhat less animosity. When scums of earth are around, most of us have a choice of moving away. But these cops don't have the choice.

williamscales 9y ago

Try finding enough people willing to do that. I'm not willing to die with the badge on, so I will never be a police officer. But I suspect that if you ask police officers the same question, many of them are also not truly willing to make the ultimate sacrifice. I'm not really sure what to do about this. Surely many of those who are willing to make that sacrifice are already police officers or other first responders.

dclowd9901 9y ago
Yet, plenty of people go into the military. I call bullshit. And frankly the only people I want wearing the badge are ones who are willing to sacrifice themselves, even if it’s a much smaller number of officers being paid much more and are much more skilled.
- notwedtm 9y ago
  The military offers a much larger compensation package for your employment/service. As a LEO, you get a paycheck, and a pension. As a soldier, you get room & board, food, transportation (mostly), and all your necessities issued to you. For some people, those are worth the potential of death, where as the LEO compensation isn't. Lastly, there is a large group of people who enlist due to patriotic beliefs (i.e. "Doing your duty"/"Serving your country"). I don't see that same type of patriotism towards local LEO organizations.
  - gonational 9y ago
    While in the e.g., Army, you are likely away from your family and friends for the better part of 4 years, and if you perform much better than average, you’ll be an E4 late in your third year, earning $25k/yr. Meanwhile, cops are paid north of $50k/yr; they get to go home to their families every night, and compared to IED-laden roads and AK-47s, their risks are very minor. Also, saying the military pays for room and board is like saying prison pays for room and board; it’s not exactly the room and board you would choose, and you’re not allowed to just leave when you choose.

djsumdog 9y ago

> It works this way for the military. I can’t fathom why it doesn’t work this way with police. The military is part of the state's monopoly on violence. We dress it up today and make it seem all noble, and selectively forget all the torture at Abu Ghraib, drop weapons [1], the famous song about the "Little Haji Girl," .. and the list goes on. The military get away with much more murder and torture than police. Many people I knew who came back from Iraq hate Iraqis; they have to justify their hatred because they've killed so many of them. In the words of Bill Hicks, "I've been watching all these Congressional hearings and all these military guys and all the pundits going, "The esprit de corps will be affected, and we are such a mora …" Excuse me, but aren't you all a bunch of fucking hired killers? Shut up! You are thugs, and when we need you to go blow the fuck out of a nation of little brown people, we'll let you know." [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UqB2a1K9dBw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UqB2a1K9dBw

krapp 9y ago
>> It works this way for the military. I can’t fathom why it doesn’t work this way with police. >The military is part of the state's monopoly on violence(...) But the police are a part of the state's monopoly on violence as well - they're the ones who commit the violence on behalf of the state, and the ones whose violence the state legitimizes.
maroonblazer 9y ago
> The military is part of the state's monopoly on violence. We dress it up today and make it seem all noble, and selectively forget all the torture at Abu Ghraib... Are you suggesting that there's a better solution to handling conflict than relegating the use of violence to the state? If so, what's that solution?

Nomentatus 9y ago

What military unit did you serve in, and how much combat did you see? No service here, but if my reading is worth anything, soldiers do risk their lives - to a degree - even to capture rather than kill the enemy at times. But most won't take large, constant risks, and some won't take any risk if nobody's looking, or their unit has adopted a fiercer culture. In Vietnam, some units were willing to kill their own officers to reduce the friendly death toll overall (fragging.) I understand the U.N. Laws of War, official terms of engagement, and military law don't talk in terms of risk percentages, but practically that's the calculation each soldier must make. We have to be careful of how much saintliness we ask of policemen (and soldiers) else we won't be able to hire more than a handful.

kenjackson 9y ago

Given it was thought to be a multi person hostage situation, I think the worst case is every hostage gets killed and shootout ensues. As bad as it was, it probably wasn’t the worst case.

always_good 9y ago
Well, that's a case of a branch that never even occurred, so what's the point? In that case, it's not as bad as if it was a secret ISIS compound and one of the bad guys set off a bomb that blew up the block. That's worse than your worst case. But notice how this adds no value to the discussion.