6 ms·

Unfortunately, items 1, 3, 4, and 5 are all extremely dangerous. The Not Police would be in grave danger. There is a reason that the Police Police are armed. T

by rpiguy 6y ago

Unfortunately, items 1, 3, 4, and 5 are all extremely dangerous. The Not Police would be in grave danger. There is a reason that the Police Police are armed. That guy on drugs could stab you, you could pull a car over and that person could have a gun, you could go to stop domestic violence and get attacked. Police brutality goes up proportionately with violent crime in their area. In other words, the more police deal with very dangerous people all the time and the more their reactions become more aggressive to everyone. It is no excuse for murder like what happened with Floyd, but there is a reason we don't send social workers out to domestic violence calls or drug calls... Plus citizens have the right to own guns (which I am ever thankful for now with rioting breaking out across the country). Unarmed Not Police would be a joke.

chrisseaton 6y ago
> The Not Police would be in grave danger. There is a reason that the Police Police are armed. That don't need to be armed with firearms. That's overkill (literally overkill, unfortunately) for community policing. They could have batons. Firearms should be restricted to specialists deployed only when needed for a specifically authorised task.
- jabedude 6y ago
  > That don't need to be armed with firearms You're asking police officers to be less armed then the general public. 43 states are "shall-issue" and allow residents to conceal carry a firearm after completing required training and submitting an application.
  - newjersey 6y ago
    > You're asking police officers to be less armed then the general public. Can we at least agree that off-duty police officers working as security guards at a hospital or elsewhere should not under any circumstance carry a weapon (other than perhaps a stick or something) while on non-police duty? > Soon, from inside the room, there was shouting, sounds of a scuffle and a loud pop. During an altercation, two off-duty Houston police officers, moonlighting as security guards, had shocked Mr. Pean with a Taser, fired a bullet into his chest, then handcuffed him. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/14/us/hospital-guns-mental-health.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/14/us/hospital-guns-mental-h... > Mr. Pean said he was informed of the dismissal of the assault charges against him in a phone call to New York, where he is finishing college. He said he was relieved but remained deeply disturbed by his experience, noting that his family spent more than $100,000 in his defense. “If I was someone else, I could have ended up in jail,” he said. > After the incident, federal health officials conducted an emergency investigation and faulted the hospital for the shooting, saying that St. Joseph had created “immediate jeopardy to the health and safety of its patients” and ordered that it restrict use of weapons and provide more training in dealing with mentally ill patients. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/19/us/alan-pean-hospital-guns-mental-health.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/19/us/alan-pean-hospital-gun... In addition, perhaps if a police officer is not "on duty", felony assault charges should not be possible. This may sound harsh but imagine a bus driver goes on a walk and someone hits him on the head with a stick. Does that carry felony assault charges as well? I think many people are saying a police officer's testimony should be void in a court of law if they do not have other evidence (in which case the evidence can stand on its own without the officer's testimony).
    - theduder99 6y ago
      imagine a day in the life of an inner city cop and then re-read your post to see how ridiculous it sounds.
      - maxerickson 6y ago
        Wouldn't it be better to review and synthesize the duty logs of several dozen police officers, maybe grouped by the amount of crime they deal with on average, over several years? People that don't know the average day don't have any basis to accurately imagine the average day, it's not a useful activity at that point.
    - rpiguy 6y ago
      Hospitals have millions of dollars worth of equipment, contain huge amounts of narcotics, and deal with psyche patients. They need to be armed. My mother was a nurse and had guns drawn in the hospital by opposing members of a gang there to inspect someone who was shot. There are three main problems. District attorneys who do not like to charge cops. Police unions protecting cops. And the justice system requires a unanimous jury verdict to convict. This is to protect the accused. If you think the riots are crazy now, wait until the jury is hung or acquits Floyd because one juror has doubt. Floyd had fentanyl in his system. The lawyer only needs to convince ONE juror that it wasn’t just Chauvins fault that the fentanyl contributed to it and you can’t know BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that it was all Chauvins fault and boom, he gets off. This has a reasonable probability of happening. I hope it doesn’t and he convicted. But this is the real second wave I am worried about. More than Covid.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
  - chrisseaton 6y ago
    > You're asking police officers to be less armed then the general public. But most policing tasks don't involve interactions with people looking to fight to the death. Do people really react to being stopped for speeding by starting a firefight? Is that genuinely a routine concern?
    - maxerickson 6y ago
      Most police have never had cause to use their firearm while on duty: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/02/08/a-closer-look-at-police-officers-who-have-fired-their-weapon-on-duty/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/02/08/a-closer-lo...
      - Zarath 6y ago
        Policing doesn't even make it near the top of a list of dangerous professions
    - CydeWeys 6y ago
      Statistically speaking it's very rare, yet many cops unjustifiably spend all day of every shift on edge like they could get into a gun battle at any second. And it shows in how frequently cops unjustifiably escalate situations to deadly force that didn't remotely require it.
      - rpiguy 6y ago
        Evidence? Statistics? Most cops are not ready for gun battle at any second.
        chrisseaton 6y ago
        > Most cops are not ready for gun battle at any second. In the US they've got loaded and cocked guns on their waist belts ready to use in a second. Note that when I was in a literal warzone I didn't even always keep my rifle cocked.
  - TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
    The obvious answer is to make the public less armed than police officers. The less obvious answer is to stop glorifying violence, including gun violence, war porn, drug kingpin lifestyles, cop/detective lifestyles, and other forms of abusive aggression in the media. Considering that the US seems to go insane when a nipple appears on TV without a formal invitation, it's really quite strange that you can watch dramatised blood spurting out of fatal high-calibre organ wounds multiple times an hour - if you really want to.
    - shibeouya 6y ago
      This whole riots debacle being endorsed and justified by the media has done more for the cause of gun ownership that the NRA ever could. I never ever considered owning a gun in my entire life, but I have one now and not afraid to use it if needed. Several friends have also done the same. The debate for gun ownership is probably dead for 1 or 2 generations, and I do not want to see a single person blaming anyone about it when I was literally told by the police the other day that I am on my own during the night of looting in NYC.
      - vl 6y ago
        In US liberals have this idea that police will protect them, but in all documented severe crisis events police was first to run away. Which basically means that everyone is on their own, or at least with their friends/neighbors. Anyway, take a two day training course on how to use a gun (not “safety” course), otherwise owning a gun is pretty useless. Also, you need to periodically go to the range, and clean the gun after. And stock pile some ammo when you can - you are not going to be able to get any during any crisis.
      - Gibbon1 6y ago
        Keep living fear of your shadow bro.
  - Dumblydorr 6y ago
    What's wrong with most police not having lethal weapons? If police are in danger, they can request SWAT backup, specialized firearm users who won't shoot in unwarranted situations. Regular cops could even have tasers or rubber bullets to deal with threats in a less destructive manner. Why do they need lethal force for helping their own citizenry?
noobaccount 6y ago
Unarmed police in other countries seem to handle those situations just fine.
- iso947 6y ago
  Americans are far more heavily armed, and there’s a belief that the only defence against a gun is someone with a bigger gun.
  - gridlockd 6y ago
    I can tell you what isn't a defense against a gun: A baton, a taser, teargas, or any of the other toys that ordinary police get to use in the UK.
    - throwaway93132 6y ago
      And yet, only 2 UK police officers were killed in the last year. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_police_officers_killed_in_the_line_of_duty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_police_officer...
      - gridlockd 6y ago
        Yes, because guns in the UK are rare and police officers aren't going to engage someone with a gun when they're armed with just toys.
        ric2b 6y ago
        So we agree that the UK system works much better. Both less police and less civilians killed.
        gridlockd 6y ago
        No, we don't. For comparison, in Germany, a slightly larger country, where officers are armed, less than one officer per year died in the past decade: https://www.dw.com/en/two-german-police-officers-killed-by-fleeing-murder-suspect-in-brandenburg/a-37749390 https://www.dw.com/en/two-german-police-officers-killed-by-f... If officers don't engage because they are insufficiently equipped, you effectively have less policing. Less policing causes more violence and more deaths. "Stop and frisk" works: https://www.npr.org/2012/05/15/152764402/stop-and-frisk-works-but-its-problematic?t=1591702388939 https://www.npr.org/2012/05/15/152764402/stop-and-frisk-work... Knife crime in the UK keeps going up... https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-42749089 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-42749089 ...as a result of literally defunding the police: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/may/02/criminals-going-unpunished-because-of-cuts-says-police-chief https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/may/02/criminals-go...
throw0101a 6y ago
> There is a reason that the Police Police are armed. Not all Police are armed (see UK). Also, other countries, while armed, seem to use their firearms much less (e.g., the entire country of Germany seems to use fewer bullets than a single US city).
- gridlockd 6y ago
  The vast majority of police forces are armed, even in low-crime countries. > the entire country of Germany seems to use fewer bullets than a single US city So perhaps guns are not actually the problem? There's commensurately little crime occurring in Germany, crime is not punished as harshly and criminals are not armed to the same degree. When somebody is getting arrested in the US, they're looking at years in harsh prisons. They're likely to use any sort of irrational means to avoid or resist getting arrested.
  - the_pwner224 6y ago
    If the punishments are so harsh then the 'irrational' means seem to be pretty rational.
  - throw0101a 6y ago
    > There's commensurately little crime occurring in Germany, The stats seem to show comparable crime rates across most industrialized countries; see point 7: * https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/2/16399418/us-gun-violence-statistics-maps-charts https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/2/16399418/u... There's just more violence in the US: * https://www.vox.com/2015/8/27/9217163/america-guns-europe https://www.vox.com/2015/8/27/9217163/america-guns-europe
- zepto 6y ago
  Police officers in the UK are armed with both chemical weapons and high tech batons. Most officers do not carry firearms, but snipers and other firearms carrying officers are generally available at a moments notice. In larger cities they are in roving vehicles. Not really ‘unarmed’ although not carrying firearms to every situation may be a good policy.
bb2018 6y ago
I'm sure there is great data on police calls but from my experience with calling 911 social workers wouldn't really help. Earlier this year there was a homeless man waving a knife at pedestrians a few blocks from my house. I know this is a mental health issue and we need do do more for our homelesss - but I couldn't ask officers to deal with stuff like that on the regular with little or no protection. I've also called 911 in the past when my house was burglarized, two men on a highway got into a fist fight after one's car hit the other, and once when a man was wandering into the middle of the highway trying to get himself run over. You could limit the number of guns but there are real issues that I think you'd want a well-equpied force for.
- dashundchen 6y ago
  > Earlier this year there was a homeless man waving a knife at pedestrians a few blocks from my house. That's sort of the point. That's a situation that may require both an armed officer and a social worker. it's not to say that there is no situation that would require it in a heavily armed nation like the US but frequently it does not. In fact many would say sending heavily armed officers where it does not require it can escalate things, and affects how these officers view and police their communities.
- arrrg 6y ago
  In such mental health situations the social worker could be the commanding officer (essentially commanding police officers), relying on violence if deemed necessary. The important point is that the structure of decision making inside the police is totally messed up. If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail … So the leadership has to come from somewhere else, basically. One huge obstacle I still see is that US police basically completely gambled away trust inside the communities. They have to build up trust and are unwilling or unable to do that. That’s tragic. One way to change that would be to tip the balance way in favor of anyone not in the police, e.g. the police having to be right in fact when they apply violence to a problem (i.e. if they shoot the person they are suspecting of having a gun better have a gun or else they go to prison). This would obviously lead to less effective policing, but that might be needed to lead to a change of strategy by the police. Because if you have to be right in fact you will act differently.
thescriptkiddie 6y ago
In many non americas, the police police are already not armed, (although they do often carry non-leathal weapons). For example, the famous "bobbies" of the world's oldest operating police force. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgdhxLPJBgQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgdhxLPJBgQ
Hnrobert42 6y ago
That’s an interesting point about police brutality vs. violent crime. Is that supported by evidence or just a supposition? Not trying to send you on a wild “source?” goose chase. If it’s just supposition, that’s fine.
illumin8 6y ago
I admit that I also fell for some of the police union marketing material and automatically assumed that being a police officer in the US must be one of the most dangerous and deadly professions, however, the numbers from BLS don't back that up. It isn't even in the top 10: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/27/the-10-most-dangerous-jobs-in-america-according-to-bls-data.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/27/the-10-most-dangerous-jobs-i... So, I believe as a public we have been misinformed on how deadly it is to actually be a police officer in the US, and this is somehow used to justify extra-judicial killings of potentially innocent civilians. You certainly don't see loggers and roofers unions talking about how they are the "thin brown line" protecting society from the dangers of uncut trees and leaky roofs.

by rpiguy 6y ago

chrisseaton 6y ago

> The Not Police would be in grave danger. There is a reason that the Police Police are armed. That don't need to be armed with firearms. That's overkill (literally overkill, unfortunately) for community policing. They could have batons. Firearms should be restricted to specialists deployed only when needed for a specifically authorised task.

jabedude 6y ago
> That don't need to be armed with firearms You're asking police officers to be less armed then the general public. 43 states are "shall-issue" and allow residents to conceal carry a firearm after completing required training and submitting an application.
- newjersey 6y ago
  > You're asking police officers to be less armed then the general public. Can we at least agree that off-duty police officers working as security guards at a hospital or elsewhere should not under any circumstance carry a weapon (other than perhaps a stick or something) while on non-police duty? > Soon, from inside the room, there was shouting, sounds of a scuffle and a loud pop. During an altercation, two off-duty Houston police officers, moonlighting as security guards, had shocked Mr. Pean with a Taser, fired a bullet into his chest, then handcuffed him. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/14/us/hospital-guns-mental-health.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/14/us/hospital-guns-mental-h... > Mr. Pean said he was informed of the dismissal of the assault charges against him in a phone call to New York, where he is finishing college. He said he was relieved but remained deeply disturbed by his experience, noting that his family spent more than $100,000 in his defense. “If I was someone else, I could have ended up in jail,” he said. > After the incident, federal health officials conducted an emergency investigation and faulted the hospital for the shooting, saying that St. Joseph had created “immediate jeopardy to the health and safety of its patients” and ordered that it restrict use of weapons and provide more training in dealing with mentally ill patients. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/19/us/alan-pean-hospital-guns-mental-health.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/19/us/alan-pean-hospital-gun... In addition, perhaps if a police officer is not "on duty", felony assault charges should not be possible. This may sound harsh but imagine a bus driver goes on a walk and someone hits him on the head with a stick. Does that carry felony assault charges as well? I think many people are saying a police officer's testimony should be void in a court of law if they do not have other evidence (in which case the evidence can stand on its own without the officer's testimony).
  - theduder99 6y ago
    imagine a day in the life of an inner city cop and then re-read your post to see how ridiculous it sounds.
    - maxerickson 6y ago
      Wouldn't it be better to review and synthesize the duty logs of several dozen police officers, maybe grouped by the amount of crime they deal with on average, over several years? People that don't know the average day don't have any basis to accurately imagine the average day, it's not a useful activity at that point.
  - rpiguy 6y ago
    Hospitals have millions of dollars worth of equipment, contain huge amounts of narcotics, and deal with psyche patients. They need to be armed. My mother was a nurse and had guns drawn in the hospital by opposing members of a gang there to inspect someone who was shot. There are three main problems. District attorneys who do not like to charge cops. Police unions protecting cops. And the justice system requires a unanimous jury verdict to convict. This is to protect the accused. If you think the riots are crazy now, wait until the jury is hung or acquits Floyd because one juror has doubt. Floyd had fentanyl in his system. The lawyer only needs to convince ONE juror that it wasn’t just Chauvins fault that the fentanyl contributed to it and you can’t know BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that it was all Chauvins fault and boom, he gets off. This has a reasonable probability of happening. I hope it doesn’t and he convicted. But this is the real second wave I am worried about. More than Covid.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
- chrisseaton 6y ago
  > You're asking police officers to be less armed then the general public. But most policing tasks don't involve interactions with people looking to fight to the death. Do people really react to being stopped for speeding by starting a firefight? Is that genuinely a routine concern?
  - maxerickson 6y ago
    Most police have never had cause to use their firearm while on duty: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/02/08/a-closer-look-at-police-officers-who-have-fired-their-weapon-on-duty/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/02/08/a-closer-lo...
    - Zarath 6y ago
      Policing doesn't even make it near the top of a list of dangerous professions
  - CydeWeys 6y ago
    Statistically speaking it's very rare, yet many cops unjustifiably spend all day of every shift on edge like they could get into a gun battle at any second. And it shows in how frequently cops unjustifiably escalate situations to deadly force that didn't remotely require it.
    - rpiguy 6y ago
      Evidence? Statistics? Most cops are not ready for gun battle at any second.
      - chrisseaton 6y ago
        > Most cops are not ready for gun battle at any second. In the US they've got loaded and cocked guns on their waist belts ready to use in a second. Note that when I was in a literal warzone I didn't even always keep my rifle cocked.
- TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
  The obvious answer is to make the public less armed than police officers. The less obvious answer is to stop glorifying violence, including gun violence, war porn, drug kingpin lifestyles, cop/detective lifestyles, and other forms of abusive aggression in the media. Considering that the US seems to go insane when a nipple appears on TV without a formal invitation, it's really quite strange that you can watch dramatised blood spurting out of fatal high-calibre organ wounds multiple times an hour - if you really want to.
  - shibeouya 6y ago
    This whole riots debacle being endorsed and justified by the media has done more for the cause of gun ownership that the NRA ever could. I never ever considered owning a gun in my entire life, but I have one now and not afraid to use it if needed. Several friends have also done the same. The debate for gun ownership is probably dead for 1 or 2 generations, and I do not want to see a single person blaming anyone about it when I was literally told by the police the other day that I am on my own during the night of looting in NYC.
    - vl 6y ago
      In US liberals have this idea that police will protect them, but in all documented severe crisis events police was first to run away. Which basically means that everyone is on their own, or at least with their friends/neighbors. Anyway, take a two day training course on how to use a gun (not “safety” course), otherwise owning a gun is pretty useless. Also, you need to periodically go to the range, and clean the gun after. And stock pile some ammo when you can - you are not going to be able to get any during any crisis.
    - Gibbon1 6y ago
      Keep living fear of your shadow bro.
- Dumblydorr 6y ago
  What's wrong with most police not having lethal weapons? If police are in danger, they can request SWAT backup, specialized firearm users who won't shoot in unwarranted situations. Regular cops could even have tasers or rubber bullets to deal with threats in a less destructive manner. Why do they need lethal force for helping their own citizenry?

noobaccount 6y ago

Unarmed police in other countries seem to handle those situations just fine.

iso947 6y ago
Americans are far more heavily armed, and there’s a belief that the only defence against a gun is someone with a bigger gun.
- gridlockd 6y ago
  I can tell you what isn't a defense against a gun: A baton, a taser, teargas, or any of the other toys that ordinary police get to use in the UK.
  - throwaway93132 6y ago
    And yet, only 2 UK police officers were killed in the last year. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_police_officers_killed_in_the_line_of_duty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_police_officer...
    - gridlockd 6y ago
      Yes, because guns in the UK are rare and police officers aren't going to engage someone with a gun when they're armed with just toys.
      - ric2b 6y ago
        So we agree that the UK system works much better. Both less police and less civilians killed.
        gridlockd 6y ago
        No, we don't. For comparison, in Germany, a slightly larger country, where officers are armed, less than one officer per year died in the past decade: https://www.dw.com/en/two-german-police-officers-killed-by-fleeing-murder-suspect-in-brandenburg/a-37749390 https://www.dw.com/en/two-german-police-officers-killed-by-f... If officers don't engage because they are insufficiently equipped, you effectively have less policing. Less policing causes more violence and more deaths. "Stop and frisk" works: https://www.npr.org/2012/05/15/152764402/stop-and-frisk-works-but-its-problematic?t=1591702388939 https://www.npr.org/2012/05/15/152764402/stop-and-frisk-work... Knife crime in the UK keeps going up... https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-42749089 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-42749089 ...as a result of literally defunding the police: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/may/02/criminals-going-unpunished-because-of-cuts-says-police-chief https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/may/02/criminals-go...

throw0101a 6y ago

> There is a reason that the Police Police are armed. Not all Police are armed (see UK). Also, other countries, while armed, seem to use their firearms much less (e.g., the entire country of Germany seems to use fewer bullets than a single US city).

gridlockd 6y ago
The vast majority of police forces are armed, even in low-crime countries. > the entire country of Germany seems to use fewer bullets than a single US city So perhaps guns are not actually the problem? There's commensurately little crime occurring in Germany, crime is not punished as harshly and criminals are not armed to the same degree. When somebody is getting arrested in the US, they're looking at years in harsh prisons. They're likely to use any sort of irrational means to avoid or resist getting arrested.
- the_pwner224 6y ago
  If the punishments are so harsh then the 'irrational' means seem to be pretty rational.
- throw0101a 6y ago
  > There's commensurately little crime occurring in Germany, The stats seem to show comparable crime rates across most industrialized countries; see point 7: * https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/2/16399418/us-gun-violence-statistics-maps-charts https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/2/16399418/u... There's just more violence in the US: * https://www.vox.com/2015/8/27/9217163/america-guns-europe https://www.vox.com/2015/8/27/9217163/america-guns-europe
zepto 6y ago
Police officers in the UK are armed with both chemical weapons and high tech batons. Most officers do not carry firearms, but snipers and other firearms carrying officers are generally available at a moments notice. In larger cities they are in roving vehicles. Not really ‘unarmed’ although not carrying firearms to every situation may be a good policy.

bb2018 6y ago

I'm sure there is great data on police calls but from my experience with calling 911 social workers wouldn't really help. Earlier this year there was a homeless man waving a knife at pedestrians a few blocks from my house. I know this is a mental health issue and we need do do more for our homelesss - but I couldn't ask officers to deal with stuff like that on the regular with little or no protection. I've also called 911 in the past when my house was burglarized, two men on a highway got into a fist fight after one's car hit the other, and once when a man was wandering into the middle of the highway trying to get himself run over. You could limit the number of guns but there are real issues that I think you'd want a well-equpied force for.

dashundchen 6y ago
> Earlier this year there was a homeless man waving a knife at pedestrians a few blocks from my house. That's sort of the point. That's a situation that may require both an armed officer and a social worker. it's not to say that there is no situation that would require it in a heavily armed nation like the US but frequently it does not. In fact many would say sending heavily armed officers where it does not require it can escalate things, and affects how these officers view and police their communities.
arrrg 6y ago
In such mental health situations the social worker could be the commanding officer (essentially commanding police officers), relying on violence if deemed necessary. The important point is that the structure of decision making inside the police is totally messed up. If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail … So the leadership has to come from somewhere else, basically. One huge obstacle I still see is that US police basically completely gambled away trust inside the communities. They have to build up trust and are unwilling or unable to do that. That’s tragic. One way to change that would be to tip the balance way in favor of anyone not in the police, e.g. the police having to be right in fact when they apply violence to a problem (i.e. if they shoot the person they are suspecting of having a gun better have a gun or else they go to prison). This would obviously lead to less effective policing, but that might be needed to lead to a change of strategy by the police. Because if you have to be right in fact you will act differently.

thescriptkiddie 6y ago

In many non americas, the police police are already not armed, (although they do often carry non-leathal weapons). For example, the famous "bobbies" of the world's oldest operating police force. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgdhxLPJBgQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgdhxLPJBgQ

Hnrobert42 6y ago

That’s an interesting point about police brutality vs. violent crime. Is that supported by evidence or just a supposition? Not trying to send you on a wild “source?” goose chase. If it’s just supposition, that’s fine.

illumin8 6y ago

I admit that I also fell for some of the police union marketing material and automatically assumed that being a police officer in the US must be one of the most dangerous and deadly professions, however, the numbers from BLS don't back that up. It isn't even in the top 10: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/27/the-10-most-dangerous-jobs-in-america-according-to-bls-data.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/27/the-10-most-dangerous-jobs-i... So, I believe as a public we have been misinformed on how deadly it is to actually be a police officer in the US, and this is somehow used to justify extra-judicial killings of potentially innocent civilians. You certainly don't see loggers and roofers unions talking about how they are the "thin brown line" protecting society from the dangers of uncut trees and leaky roofs.