Define "hero". As has been noted many, many times across HN these past few weeks, "police officer" isn't even among the top 15 most dangerous professions in America. And even then police aren't legally required to do their job[1]. Most police are never called upon to do anything heroic, so we can't say if they are heroes or not.
This type of blind veneration for police is weird and unhealthy. If you tell a child, or even an adult, they are great and perfect just for who they are, they're going to turn out spoiled rotten. Why do you think this is any different?
Police are regular people. Some good, some bad, but mostly mixed. The systems they work in allow the bad police to get away with horrific crimes and punish the good police who try to do anything about it.
USA Today says that policing is the 18th most dangerous job in the US.
What makes police injuries and deaths notable from other occupations is that “The most common cause of workplace fatalities among police officers is direct violence from other people”.
It is not just a risky job in general, it is a risky job due to people that would intentionally do them harm, done in service of their community. Everyone is a regular person, but that is why people generally regard police as heroic.
In fact, police are expected to act heroically when the situation calls for it. The Parkland officer who didn’t enter the school during the shooting, caught on tape remaining outside while shots were fired, was rightly condemned as not fit for duty.
> The Parkland officer who didn’t enter the school during the shooting...was rightly condemned as not fit for duty.
But then got his job and pension back with the full backing of his union[1][2]. This is what I mean by the system propping up bad cops. If the "vast majority" of cops are heroes, why are they supporting someone who has demonstrated a distinct lack of heroism? Isn't he making the rest of them look bad? Don't they care?
I'm sympathetic to people losing their nerve. It's a human reaction and can happen to anyone. But no way should he be allowed to keep his job after he's shown how unfit for it he is.
And the fact that the other cops didn't raise a peep over it tells me that most cops are in fact not heroes. Heroes do the right thing even when it's hard, you see. That's not an insult. I would like a society where policing doesn't have to be heroic. It's just a statement of fact.
Yes, but in a free society, their job is necessarily difficult and dangerous. In a free society, when a peaceful protest starts to look like some folks may become violent, the response is not supposed to be “welp, time to respond with overwhelming force - I feel possibly threatened.” Now, if you think the police should be compensated accordingly, that’s a different argument, and I may well agree with that argument. But “gee, they have a hard gig” simply doesn’t excuse the responses that we’ve seen over and over and over again. Additionally, these are the responses we’re seeing to what are overwhelmingly a bunch of middle-class white twenty-somethings. Recall that the real issue here is how police in the US deal with people of color, which by any metric is a freaking nightmare.
It depends how you break up the stats. The total number of officers feloniously killed is a little higher than the number of accidental deaths for recent years, but motor vehicle crashes is typically the largest single category. https://ucr.fbi.gov/leoka/2019/home
Were cops the helpless victims of wanton violence before they started brutalizing poor and minority neighborhoods?
Or, has police work gotten more dangerous as police are continually escalating against their desperate communities whom have little left to lose except their lives? Are police fit for duty in America when my barber took a longer training course than an average cop? As the first of first responders police should be competent to deal with any situation. This repo and tens of thousands of incidents going back decades prove, beyond the shadow of adoubt, that police are, on average, incapable of doing what's required of them.
I think your claims are exaggerated beyond reality, but;
1) Police have dangerous jobs, particularly in the inner city, but by no means are they helpless victims of wanton violence.
2) Police do not brutalize poor and minority neighborhoods. Although the overall trend is that violent crime is going down, these neighborhoods have become significantly less safe and less lawful in just a few weeks of reduced police presence, based on recent crime statistics, particularly shootings and murders, but even simple lawlessness like a 4000% increase in fireworks complaints.
3) Police work has generally gotten safer over the last few decades, for example measured in annual officer deaths which peaked near 300 in the 70s and now hovers around 150. [1]
4) Desperate communities which have little left to lose except their lives — I think this is hyperbolic even to describe inner cities where dozens die every weekend from civilian violence, e.g. Chicago’s bloodiest weekend last week where 85 were shot, 24 fatally. These communities by majority polling support greater police presence and funding, not less.
5) I’d say police academy training is fundamentally different than, for example, trade school apprenticeship. The apprenticeship system essentially has you working the job but under some level of supervision, until you get your license at which point you can work independently. The apprenticeship phase is similar to the supervision that officers receive every day in their squad. The key different is officers have a structured rank and rigid reporting structure, you can’t get a police license and then open up your own police shop. The overall police force performs the same function as the apprenticeship framework in trade crafts. Unlike a licensed electrician/plumber/barber, the officer never gets the opportunity to strike off on their own, but it is true that they enter the force as a low-ranking peon with fewer hours of upfront training than the barber who after their 1,000 hours can open their own unsupervised shop.
>I think your claims are exaggerated beyond reality,
I'll fight for your right to believe whatever you want. Even when I disagree strongly.
>1) Police have dangerous jobs, particularly in the inner city, but by no means are they helpless victims of wanton violence.
Great. Then what do you call police, who've taken off their body cameras, badges, and name plates: blinding, maiming, and ruthlessly battering people, unprovoked, on camera? If they'd kept their body cameras we could have a much more enlightened discussion.
>2) Police do not brutalize poor and minority neighborhoods. Although the overall trend is that violent crime is going down, these neighborhoods have become significantly less safe and less lawful in just a few weeks of reduced police presence, based on recent crime statistics, particularly shootings and murders, but even simple lawlessness like a 4000% increase in fireworks complaints.
The whole point of a protest is to signal to those being protested against that they are not untouchable. That their lives are not as safe as they'd believe. Burning down precincts is a way of saying we'd rather no police then the thugs masquerading as police in this city. Those statistics are meaningless. The protectors of society have gotten drunk with power and hate. This is the price we all must bear on the path to righting these wrongs. The sooner we all do what it takes to reach compromise the less we will all suffer.
>3) Police work has generally gotten safer over the last few decades, for example measured in annual officer deaths which peaked near 300 in the 70s and now hovers around 150. [1]
So, can we find a way to keep people safe from the police?
>4) Desperate communities which have little left to lose except their lives — I think this is hyperbolic even to describe inner cities where dozens die every weekend from civilian violence, e.g. Chicago’s bloodiest weekend last week where 85 were shot, 24 fatally. These communities by majority polling support greater police presence and funding, not less.
When a community burns down a precinct or creates autonomous zones they are challenging the most basic structures of our society and daring those protested against to show their true colors. How many cops need to get fired for posting horrendous, racist, genocidal, rants publicly before we accept that police nationwide are not fit for duty?
>5) I’d say police academy training is fundamentally different than, for example, trade school apprenticeship. The apprenticeship system essentially has you working the job but under some level of supervision, until you get your license at which point you can work independently. The apprenticeship phase is similar to the supervision that officers receive every day in their squad. The key different is officers have a structured rank and rigid reporting structure, you can’t get a police license and then open up your own police shop. The overall police force performs the same function as the apprenticeship framework in trade crafts. Unlike a licensed electrician/plumber/barber, the officer never gets the opportunity to strike off on their own, but it is true that they enter the force as a low-ranking peon with fewer hours of upfront training than the barber who after their 1,000 hours can open their own unsupervised shop.
Since when is hero defined as "the person who does the most dangerous profession"?
Also, there is a world of difference between professions where accidents are common, and a profession where humans may be actively trying to kill you.
A hero might be a person who knowingly risks life and limb for the safety and wellbeing of others. Even more heroic when those others are strangers (ie it is more heroic to rescue a stranger's child from a house fire than it is to rescue your own child from a house fire). Even more heroic than that is when you do it day in and day out(ie it is more heroic to be a firefigher, saving strangers every day, than it is to save a stranger once).
So, if that is a reasonable analysis of heroism, some police can definitely be heroic. I'm not sure about the percentages though. I'm sure some police got into the profession because they wanted to be a big man with a gun. Others did it because they want to help the community they live in.
A commonly accepted definition of hero is "performing a duty and/or serving others, even at great danger to oneself, often for little or no reward". So "how dangerous is the job?" seems relevant to me.
> there is a world of difference between professions where accidents are common, and a profession where humans may be actively trying to kill you.
A large fraction of police deaths on the job are traffic accidents.
> So "how dangerous is the job?" seems relevant to me.
How does the comparative danger of fields change how dangerous something is? If someone said "Shaq is really tall", would a reasonable response be "No he isn't. Yao Ming is taller"?
> A large fraction of police deaths on the job are traffic accidents.
Yes, that is one way cops die. But this seems decidedly different contextually than the dangers faced by, say, pizza delivery drivers, who also frequently die in car accidents. Presumably, police officers die in car accidents because they are rushing to the scene of a crime or to a place where someone needs help. Pizza delivery drivers die in car accidents commonly because they are rushing to improve the tip they might get, or to be able to deliver more pizzas and get more tips.
> If someone said "Shaq is really tall", would a reasonable response be "No he isn't. Yao Ming is taller"?
If Shaq and Yao played on the same team and Shaq alone started demanding special accommodations due to his height (like extra-large showers or something) that were prohibitively expensive, and refused to play until he got his way, that would be a perfectly valid response. Sound crazy? It's still saner than some people seriously defending cops breaking the law because their job is dangerous. Give me a break.
Your comment does not directly contradict anything GP says yet your tone makes it seems like it does. If you are not sure what the percentages are your argument adds nothing to the conversation and in facts misleads readers into thinking that a significant amount of police can be considered heroes.
Define "hero". As has been noted many, many times across HN these past few weeks, "police officer" isn't even among the top 15 most dangerous professions in America. And even then police aren't legally required to do their job[1]. Most police are never called upon to do anything heroic, so we can't say if they are heroes or not.
This type of blind veneration for police is weird and unhealthy. If you tell a child, or even an adult, they are great and perfect just for who they are, they're going to turn out spoiled rotten. Why do you think this is any different?
Police are regular people. Some good, some bad, but mostly mixed. The systems they work in allow the bad police to get away with horrific crimes and punish the good police who try to do anything about it.
1. https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-po...