4 ms·
I think that’s only valid if there is actually a serious danger to being a police officer. While officers really like to play up their dangerous job, it’s actua
by afthonos 6y ago
I think that’s only valid if there is actually a serious danger to being a police officer. While officers really like to play up their dangerous job, it’s actually quite safe, because it turns out most people know that killing a cop is a stupid thing to do for a near infinite number of reasons.
A clear example is the common “split second decisions” scenario. No one is complaining about shoutouts with drug dealers. They’re complaining about a kid getting shot by a cop repeatedly trying (and failing) to kill the tied down family dog. They’re complaining about correctional officers leaving people in a room with their own feces for a week. Those are not split-second decisions, yet they got QI. Using that trope is exactly like using child abuse as an excuse to curtail privacy and other liberties: it’s a ploy to paint opponents as morally reprehensible, because who could support that?
In fairness, some version of QI is, in my opinion, necessary; we’ve just gone way too far towards no consequences for egregious behavior.
- sokoloff 6y ago100% agree with your last paragraph! In terms of danger by the numbers, while commercial fishing is about 10x more dangerous than police work, police work is about 10x more dangerous than office work in terms of workplace fatality rate.