Crime is getting worse in SF, murder happens and people get upset, turns out not to be a random crime, but SF crime is still a problem but now the focus is on how this one crime wasn’t a random event.
Do i have that right?
This argument seems to be a massive distraction from the problem at hand.
I think this is more of a "see I told you so" type of response from people. HN Loves to bury opinions they don't like, whether it's right or wrong. More than anything there's always a sense of everyone trying to one up everyone else and "be right." Naturally, when you say they are wrong, they are going to get mad. It's typical silicon valley hubris.
Cops don't even break the top 20 most dangerous jobs. Cops have a lower on-the-job death rate than crossing guards, small engine mechanics, roofers and garbage men. The danger around the occupation is extremely exaggerated. This is especially true once you factor out suicides. In 2021 when "cities were being burned to the ground" 73 cops were maliciously killed and 56 died from accidents in the line of duty in a country of 332 million people. Being a gas station cashier is significantly more dangerous work than being a cop.
When road side maintenance workers start executing people with state sanction because they "FeAred FOr thEiR LIvEs", then maybe we can compare the two on realistic terms.
I think the point people are trying to make when they say things like this is that the reaction to "cops sometimes do dangerous things" is exaggerated. It's more dangerous to be a truck driver in the US than it is to be a cop, yet we still don't allow them to bazooka adjacent vehicles if they "reasonably perceive a threat".
I don't think that's the point of GP's statement "This is not borne out by the evidence - it's propaganda."
But to your point, I also respect truck drivers (that can do their job properly) just as I respect police officers (who can also do their job properly). Not all truck drivers and police officers are created equal amongst their peers, they are human, some specific humans with more faults than others.
No-one said it was the most dangerous job, they are saying they put their lives on the line. Which they do.
You don't know which traffic stop or interaction could be your last...
I'm glad I work in tech instead of being a cop or a soldier, or a fireman, or a trucker, or an underwater welder, etc.
Sure but my point is that no matter what kind of cop you are, you get protections that other people in other more dangerous professions don't, on the premise that your job is more dangerous. That's what op is saying is propaganda.
Legal protections but not physical protections right?
The videos I showed were officers confronted by people attacking them while doing a routine patrol.
Similar to a fireman running into a fire to save people, officers have to run into a high risk situation to diffuse it. Such as a person calling 911 against an aggressor (ie, someone robbing them, assaulting them, etc.)
You are speaking for the OP, but you've expanded far beyond what they have stated.
Legal protections are physical protections. They're designed to let officers kill people if they reasonably perceive a threat. That's why an officer with a gun is much more protected than I am with a gun, because they can shoot and kill in situations where I can't.
You keep dancing around the main point here, which is that cops get different rules based on the premise that their job is extremely dangerous, but it's not the most dangerous job, and we don't afford the same protections to others with similarly or more dangerous jobs.
We could also expand to different classes of people. Women in service industries are likely to experience multiple assaults over their careers. Queer youth are very likely to be assaulted. Immigrants (especially women and girls) from poor countries are very likely to be assaulted. What about people with known violent stalkers, people in witness protection, etc etc. Should we train, arm, and shield them from prosecution if they shoot people?
Or what if it's situational? Let's say I see a group of cops attempting to murder a Black man (recall any instances you've seen in the news), I protest and insist they stop, I think I see one of the officers reach for their weapon, I draw and fire first, killing them all and saving the man's life. Do I deserve the same legal protection? I was doing what the cops are supposed to be doing: I ran into a high risk situation in hopes of defusing it.
I think you have to face the fact that the standard just doesn't make any sense, which is why cops in other western countries have much stricter standards than those in the US.
I would also go further and say the prevalence of firearms in the US makes these situations way more dangerous than they need to be. You're right that a lot of the things officers do can be fatal, and that's because the odds of whomever they're dealing with having a firearm are pretty high. Your guess is as good as mine as to why most cops don't support tighter gun restrictions though.
Do i have that right?
This argument seems to be a massive distraction from the problem at hand.