3 ms·
And nurses have even a more dangerous job. 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 t
by IAmBroom 1y ago
And nurses have even a more dangerous job.
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.
- Aurornis 1y ago> 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.
- hitarpetar 1y agojust 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
- bpt3 1y agoJust to make this explicit, you are incorrect. 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.
- pyth0 1y agoYou 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.
- bpt3 1y agoA 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.
- hitarpetar 1y ago[flagged]
- bpt3 1y ago[flagged]
- hitarpetar 1y ago[flagged]
- bpt3 1y ago[flagged]
- hitarpetar 1y agoGod forbids I engage in bad faith arguments with trolls who put words in my mouth
- FireBeyond 1y ago> US courts have determined they don't even have a duty to risk their own lives to save civilians. Not only "not risk their lives", US courts have ruled they have no duty to act to prevent any crime in progress.