6 ms·

I, for one, get tired of the constant refrain of hero worship while these guys say that there number one job is to get home safely. They are afforded terrible

I, for one, get tired of the constant refrain of hero worship while these guys say that there number one job is to get home safely. They are afforded terrible powers to intervene in, and disrupt, someone's life. That trade is made under the assumption that they do a dangerous job. A benefit is afforded to them due to the responsibility that they bear. Obviously, they want to have as much power with as little danger as possible. They want to maximize the benefit the receive (largely being above the law and a middle class existence) and minimize the repercussions of what they owe for it (possibly being in danger). Its the same in other areas of American life where elites have abdicated their responsibilities but have become accustomed to the benefits afforded them to the point that they think it's owed to them. That has to change. EDIT: for clarification and spelling.

zurn 11y ago
Same in Iraq.
tessierashpool 11y ago
Their number one job is not to kill anybody innocent, and they are terrible at it. Source: http://www.amazon.com/Rise-Warrior-Cop-Militarization-Americas/dp/1610394577 http://www.amazon.com/Rise-Warrior-Cop-Militarization-Americ...
- sudioStudio64 11y ago
  great book.
- PopeOfNope 11y ago
  > Their number one job is not to kill anybody innocent No, that's what you want their number one job to be. Their number one job is to punch the clock and claim their pension. I relate it to the phrase "to protect and serve." The words "protect" and "serve" are nowhere in the job description for police officer. The motto was devised by the LAPD in the 50s, probably for PR reasons.
- mikeash 11y ago
  I think this should be taken a little bit farther, and we should say that their number one job is not to kill anybody at all. Sometimes they have to, but it's not acceptable just because the person they kill is guilty of a crime, even a heinous crime. Killing should only happen when it is the only possible way to stop an imminent life-threatening situation. Any use of lethal force should be viewed as a great failure, even if it may sometimes be a necessary one. Even if one believes in the death penalty, killing as punishment should only be carried out by the justice system after a fair trial.
  - unabst 11y ago
    Amen. I would go as far to say Police should serve and protect lives, period, including, if not most importantly, those they arrest. Unfortunately being a gun society is likely what makes this impossible. There is a kill or be killed mentality. If the worst weapon we had was kunf-fu we'd hire Jet Li and be done (though he does appear to dodge bullets).
  - mixmastamyk 11y ago
    People tend to forget that the job of the police is to apprehend not punish. Punishment is of course for the courts.
fweespeech 11y ago
> Rhoads defended the procedure, calling the officers’ actions “on point.” It’s not standard to conduct investigations beforehand because that delays the apprehension of suspects, he told me. > I noted that the officers could have sought information from the apartment complex’s security guard that would have resolved the matter without violence. But he played down the importance of such information: “It doesn’t matter whatsoever what was said or not said at the security booth.” It sounds far, far worse than: > I, for one, get tired of the constant refrain of hero worship while these guys say that there number one job is to get home safely. It honestly sounds like they are so self-centered that they only care about their arrest stats/job performance + personal safety. They care nothing for anyone else's safety if it gets in the way of their job performance numbers. That is a horrific concept, honestly.
- mistermann 11y ago
  > It honestly sounds like they are so self-centered that they only care about their arrest stats/job performance + personal safety. They care nothing for anyone else's safety if it gets in the way of their job performance numbers. That is a horrific concept, honestly. If you think of them as undisciplined teenage boys in over their heads, given a job for which they have not developed sufficient levels of mental maturity and responsibility, it kind of seems less nonsensical. > Rhoads, the Fairfax County police lieutenant, was upfront about this mind-set. He explained that it was standard procedure to point guns at suspects in many cases to protect the lives of police officers. Their firearm rules were different from mine; they aimed not to kill but to intimidate. According to reporting by The Washington Post, those rules are established in police training, which often emphasizes a violent response over deescalation. Another teenaged boy in over his head. Honestly, I lay very little blame at these people's feet. If you keep moving up the chain of command, eventually you will get to someone with the mental capacity to know this is wrong, and this is where the responsibility lies. Or, if this person's peers are so corrupt that he is literally powerless to do anything, then you move up one more level. Somebody somewhere is responsible for the way this is being handled, but it ain't the guys at this level. Expecting effective police policy to be set (at least entirely) at the local level is....unwise.
  - 11y ago
noonespecial 11y ago
If their "number one priority" is to be safe, they should pick a different line of work. "I was in fear for my life" has become a justification for just about anything they want to do but it usually factors out to "I got scared so I just started shooting". Its hard to find that heroic.
- dsr_ 11y ago
  What's more dangerous than being a police officer? Oh, right. Lots of things: http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-dangerous-jobs/ http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-dangerous-jobs/ including fishers, loggers, farmers, roofers, and taxi drivers.
devcpp 11y ago
It's more of an offer-and-demand thing. If you don't treat veterans well (and, I mean, get your expectations a lot lower, not look at their actions too hard, and so on), no one will do that job. I know I wouldn't.
- mixmastamyk 11y ago
  And what if we instead (as the article argues) change policy to avoid some mistakes ahead of time?

zurn 11y ago

Same in Iraq.

tessierashpool 11y ago

Their number one job is not to kill anybody innocent, and they are terrible at it. Source: http://www.amazon.com/Rise-Warrior-Cop-Militarization-Americas/dp/1610394577 http://www.amazon.com/Rise-Warrior-Cop-Militarization-Americ...

sudioStudio64 11y ago
great book.
PopeOfNope 11y ago
> Their number one job is not to kill anybody innocent No, that's what you want their number one job to be. Their number one job is to punch the clock and claim their pension. I relate it to the phrase "to protect and serve." The words "protect" and "serve" are nowhere in the job description for police officer. The motto was devised by the LAPD in the 50s, probably for PR reasons.
mikeash 11y ago
I think this should be taken a little bit farther, and we should say that their number one job is not to kill anybody at all. Sometimes they have to, but it's not acceptable just because the person they kill is guilty of a crime, even a heinous crime. Killing should only happen when it is the only possible way to stop an imminent life-threatening situation. Any use of lethal force should be viewed as a great failure, even if it may sometimes be a necessary one. Even if one believes in the death penalty, killing as punishment should only be carried out by the justice system after a fair trial.
- unabst 11y ago
  Amen. I would go as far to say Police should serve and protect lives, period, including, if not most importantly, those they arrest. Unfortunately being a gun society is likely what makes this impossible. There is a kill or be killed mentality. If the worst weapon we had was kunf-fu we'd hire Jet Li and be done (though he does appear to dodge bullets).
- mixmastamyk 11y ago
  People tend to forget that the job of the police is to apprehend not punish. Punishment is of course for the courts.

fweespeech 11y ago

> Rhoads defended the procedure, calling the officers’ actions “on point.” It’s not standard to conduct investigations beforehand because that delays the apprehension of suspects, he told me. > I noted that the officers could have sought information from the apartment complex’s security guard that would have resolved the matter without violence. But he played down the importance of such information: “It doesn’t matter whatsoever what was said or not said at the security booth.” It sounds far, far worse than: > I, for one, get tired of the constant refrain of hero worship while these guys say that there number one job is to get home safely. It honestly sounds like they are so self-centered that they only care about their arrest stats/job performance + personal safety. They care nothing for anyone else's safety if it gets in the way of their job performance numbers. That is a horrific concept, honestly.

mistermann 11y ago
> It honestly sounds like they are so self-centered that they only care about their arrest stats/job performance + personal safety. They care nothing for anyone else's safety if it gets in the way of their job performance numbers. That is a horrific concept, honestly. If you think of them as undisciplined teenage boys in over their heads, given a job for which they have not developed sufficient levels of mental maturity and responsibility, it kind of seems less nonsensical. > Rhoads, the Fairfax County police lieutenant, was upfront about this mind-set. He explained that it was standard procedure to point guns at suspects in many cases to protect the lives of police officers. Their firearm rules were different from mine; they aimed not to kill but to intimidate. According to reporting by The Washington Post, those rules are established in police training, which often emphasizes a violent response over deescalation. Another teenaged boy in over his head. Honestly, I lay very little blame at these people's feet. If you keep moving up the chain of command, eventually you will get to someone with the mental capacity to know this is wrong, and this is where the responsibility lies. Or, if this person's peers are so corrupt that he is literally powerless to do anything, then you move up one more level. Somebody somewhere is responsible for the way this is being handled, but it ain't the guys at this level. Expecting effective police policy to be set (at least entirely) at the local level is....unwise.
- 11y ago

noonespecial 11y ago

If their "number one priority" is to be safe, they should pick a different line of work. "I was in fear for my life" has become a justification for just about anything they want to do but it usually factors out to "I got scared so I just started shooting". Its hard to find that heroic.

dsr_ 11y ago
What's more dangerous than being a police officer? Oh, right. Lots of things: http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-dangerous-jobs/ http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-dangerous-jobs/ including fishers, loggers, farmers, roofers, and taxi drivers.

devcpp 11y ago

It's more of an offer-and-demand thing. If you don't treat veterans well (and, I mean, get your expectations a lot lower, not look at their actions too hard, and so on), no one will do that job. I know I wouldn't.

mixmastamyk 11y ago
And what if we instead (as the article argues) change policy to avoid some mistakes ahead of time?