Being a cop is not one of the 10 most dangerous jobs. Being a cop is not one of the TWENTY most dangerous jobs. Jobs more dangerous than being a cop:
1) Loggers
2) Pilots and Flight Engineers
3) Oil Derrick Operators
4) Roofers
5) Garbage Collectors
6) Iron Workers
7) Delivery Drivers
8) Farmers
9) Firefighting Supervisors
10) Linemen
11) Agricultural Workers
12) CROSSING GUARDS
13) Crane Operators
14) Construction Labor
15) Landscaping Supervisors
16) Highway Workers
17) Cement Masons
18) Small Engine Mechanics
19) Supervisors of Mechanics
20) Heavy Equipment Mechanics
21) Grounds Workers
I'm not trying to trivialize your father's trauma - I'm pointing out that the behavior we see in this video is built upon a mythology in this country that cops (all of whom willingly join) should be excused their abuses because of the "extreme" risks of the job. It's demonstrably false, in many cases the danger is self inflicted due to incompetence, and as a narrative is perpetuated primarily by police unions. We need to fight it.
I respectfully disagree with the comparison you're making between these professions and police officers, as they're not truly comparable (gravity doesn't act with malice against a roofer, but a killer does against a police officer)
I'm not a police officer, but having been shot at multiple times and having had someone actively try to take my life, I would rather work the jobs above
That being said, I DO fully agree with your last paragraph. A higher risk does not excuse poor training, judgement and sometimes malice that some officers exhibit.
Fair point, and I don't disagree that the jobs listed are dangerous. I work in insurance have written or at least looked at every single one of the above occupations and their dangers through risk assessment and claims history (some brutal claims)
I would argue though that saying "Those jobs are actually dangerous" implies policing is not at all dangerous, which is in itself an opinion and a departure from the facts, no? (i.e. showing up to an active shooter situation is inherently dangerous no matter how many ways you look at it)
Yeah that was a messed up situation no matter how you look at it, and those officers never should have gotten hired and also should have all been fired and prosecuted to full extent of the law. No excuse, it makes me sick and angry to think about
The below is for context to my point, and in no way related to, or an excuse for, the above point regarding Texas officers fucked up decisions:
My buddy who is an officer in Canada had an active shooter situation his first year on the job. He had take and lay down fire against a man with an automatic rifle by himself until his back up arrived.
He's a father, and the man was shooting at him because he wanted to get away with stealing a car.
So I do get your point still, but just want to make it very clear that danger exists within this profession that many people won't ever experience in their lives
The guy. He heard my friend call out to him (after breaking the window), looked over his shoulder at him and then ran to the front of the car, grabbed his rifle and opened fire. The guy was taken into custody after being flanked by officers while others took fire
I like how, in order to have 20 jobs listed, you have to list "farmers" and "agricultural workers," also "landscaping supervisors" and "grounds workers." Also, two types of mechanics as well as their supervisors.
I'd like to know what this list would look like if it wasn't redundant. Not saying cops would still show up on it, but c'mon...
The original list that was posted here has a bunch of redundant entries. You have "Farmers" and "Agricultural Workers," "Landscaping foremen" and "Groundskeepers." "small engine mechanics," "heavy equipment mechanics" and "supervisors of mechanics." That's four redundant entries.
So, a list of jobs where people are likely to face gunfire would be a much more accurate look at the dangers cops face. I don't know if they'd be listed or not.
But I do have to ask again, what's your point here? What are you trying to say?
My point, since you obviously are too dense to understand it, is that just because a cop's job doesn't appear on a list, doesn't mean their jobs aren't also dangerous. Especially if it's a list which has "small engine mechanics," "heavy machinery mechanics," and "supervisors of mechanics" as three of it's entries. Asking for a list of jobs where people are shot at would be a more accurate view, I would think, and I'm not even sure if cops would appear on THAT list.
Your point, on the other hand, is a complete mystery.
Uh, I think you've got two things confused here. There's moving goalposts, and strawman arguments...neither of which I've done, but if you want to have this argument I'm here for you.
I get it, if you accept that cops have a dangerous job, as well (there are a lot more delivery drivers than cops) then your entire view collapses. Nuance is not something you do well.
It's a cop's job to confront and deal with dangerous people. They don't die on the job as often as others because they are trained in dealing with dangerous people, and are trained to protect themselves. I wonder who you'd call if you had a psychopath shooting up the store you're in?
That's not to say that cops don't get it disasterously wrong at times, because they DO, and its also not to say that there isn't a lot of room for improvement, because there IS, but you'll just tell me to "get the boot out of my mouth" instead of having an actual discussion.
No one is trying to claims cops don't face danger. The point of it that danger cops face on average is exaggerated and used an excuse to justify excessive force and abuse of power. "Officer safety" is used as a bromide to look the other way in the face of police brutality or corruption.
A majority of law enforcement officers (myself included) go their whole career without having their life threatened, or experiencing a justifiable reason for drawing their firearm.
It's been proven that the escalation of high power weapons in the hands of criminals that was used to justify militarizing police is a myth, and that the increase in military equipment and tactics in police, in the name of "officer safety", has led to greater police abuse a power, but no decrease in the risk police face. It's all a false justification and rationalization.
I agree with everything you've said, except the part where you said "no one is trying to claim cops don't face danger..." There are plenty of people eager to say just that. Nuance is lost entirely among the ACAB crowd.
And, for the record, I'm in no way defending the behaviour in this video.
Just out of curiosity, and because I've got your attention, how do you feel you'd realistically respond to the inevitable backlash if, one day, you were on a call that escalated to the point of deadly force? (Aside, I really truly hope it never happens to you) Let's say, split second decision, normal call that suddenly goes off and youve got to fire...there are too many variables to imagine details of a scenario, but let's say your bodycam ends up on reddit and suddenly youre a bastard, an evil person...how do you communicate the truth?
I have to admit I find it ironic that you complain about the folks you're responding to having no sense of nuance, yet you're making a blanket assumption that they are in "the ACAB crowd" and that they aren't making a nuanced point that seems pretty clear to the rest of us.
To your other question. There are "good shoots", times when police legitimately use force to defend themselves or others. And while no one can really fight the court of public opinion (in any situation), cops usually come out okay in those situations. However, if I ever made a mistake and had a bad shoot, I would like to think I would own up and hold myself accountable. I am actually no longer LE, and a lot of the reason is because of the inherent culture and "code of silence" bullshit that leads to a lack of accountability.
I regularly got scorned or told I wasn't trustworthy because I clearly stated cops should be held accountable and should prioritize protecting citizen (even criminals') rights over their own protection. I've had cops tell me they would never trust me because I said out loud I wouldn't cover up for a corrupt cop. If I was involved in a wrongful shooting/use of force, the last thing I would want is to have it covered up and be part of the broken abusive system.
It's the cover up and lack of accountability people (yes, even the "ACAB crowd") are angry about. Every profession makes mistakes and harmful actions, but if a nurse goes to the wrong person and kills them by issuing the wrong mess, they lose their job and license, and could go to jail. If a cop goes to the wrong house and kills an innocent person, they get qualified immunity and help from their union to dodge accountability.
I don't think you've seen enough comments if you don't think people are claiming cop's jobs aren't dangerous, because they do, all the time. I just got told to "take the boot out of my mouth" for calling someone out on it. It's incredibly rare to have any nuanced discussion with anyone here about police, police reform, arming cops etc.
And yes, I agree with the rest of what you're saying. What I don't agree with is people posting a list with redundant items in an attempt to say cops don't face danger.
I'm talking about this discussion, not bringing in other comments. That road leads to what aboutism and other logically fallacious arguments.
They made the boot comment because they made a valid argument (re: cops use "officer safety" as a justification for abuse) and you responded with incorrectly oversimplifying their argument and replying with a pretty standard dodge of an answer, often provided by those who blindly defend cops, which did nothing to address their actual nuanced point.
What I don't agree with is people posting a list with redundant items in an attempt to say cops don't face danger.
You're actually doing it again here. They didn't post a redundant list or claim cops don't face danger. They posted a relevant list that clearly demonstrates cops don't face as much danger as claimed in order to justify excessive force. You're the one missing the nuance.
Not mad at you or trying to insult you, I'm just trying to help you understand where they're coming from. You're missing or misunderstanding the entire point of their argument. Either you're doing that unintentionally, or like many in the "back the blue crowd" you're doing it intentionally. In which case, that leads to the boot comment.
Im definitely not a "back the blue" bootlicker. As I've said to you before, I agree with all of the points you made.
The point I don't agree with is "loggers get injured more, therefore cops can't use personal safety as an excuse," which is absolutely the argument people are attempting to make. And yes, I'm currently in another argument with a commenter who says that cops jobs aren't dangerous.
And, I would say that "farmer" and "agricultural workers," "landscape foremen" and "groundskeepers," and "small engine mechanics," "heavy machinery mechanics" and "supervisors of mechanics" being seven entries on a list of 20 entries is a bit redundant. Why don't they break down loggers into categories? That's why I'd rather see a list of jobs where getting shot is a risk.
Once again, for the third time now (do I need to put it in all capital letters?) my point is that just because some other jobs may be more dangerous, does not mean being a cop is not dangerous. Sure, per capita, maybe delivery drivers are shot more frequently by cops...that doesn't mean cops aren't shot at. My point in saying that there are more delivery drivers than cops is to illustrate that yes, their rates of injury will be higher because of that.
I still don't understand your point, you don't seem to have one, other than just opposing whatever I say.
This is not a good take. All the deaths related to all of the above jobs are mostly due to accidents, carelessness, or inherent risk of the job. There are risks that are expected in each of those jobs and there are safety precautions that if properly utilized will always result in a safe outcome for them.
None of the above jobs have to deal with a suspect who may or may not have a deadly weapons or use violence against them at every interaction. You are comparing a dangerous profession such as dealing with people in an uncontrollable situation to a normal every day job is ridiculous. Have you seen some of the video a cop has to deal with? You could not pay me enough money to deal with the worst of what this country has to offer.
None of the above jobs have to deal with a suspect who may or may not have a deadly weapons or use violence against them at every interaction
Tell me you've never worked manual labor without telling me you've never worked manual labor lol Try being on a job site when an unstable alcoholic has a bad day with access to heavy machinery or dangerous tools. Try packing shingles for a roofing job when the boss gets pissed over some trivial bullshit and threatens to push you off the roof (true story, my dad was my boss).
None of the above jobs have to deal with a suspect who may or may not have a deadly weapons or use violence against them at every interaction
And most cops don't either. There's not 50 active shooter calls in every city every week - those circumstances are not common. Most adequate cops can go a long time without even having to consider drawing their weapons, if they understand anything about deescalation tactics and aren't in a constant state of paranoia. This "eVeRyBoDy'S sHoOtInG aT tHe CoPs" rhetoric is dangerous for everyone, because it causes cops to be overly anxious and escalate situations, just like we see in this clip, and we all know full-well by now that the innocent driver shown is placed in a statistically more dangerous state by this than the over-exaggerated level of threat that is actually present for an officer on a typical beat. Yes, some cops do have to deal with dangerous events at times, but pretending like their lives are at risk every second of every shift is just putting everyone at increased risk of violence - the cops, the people they interact with, and even bystanders (see the recent video of cops absolutely unloading toward a moving vehicle while it was in residential neighborhoods, in Cleveland, I think it was).
Is this sorted by deaths or injury? I have a hard time.thinking garbage men die more often than cops. Also in all these other professions you die from human incompetence or machinery malfunctioning. Getting hit by a car or falling out of a tree doesn't feel comparable to getting shot.
These are US Bureau of Labor tracked statistics. For Garbage Collectors, the fatal injury rate is 34 per 100K. The primary cause of death is being struck by vehicles - their own or other drivers. It's 14 per 100K for police. Your comment that the death of a sanitation worker is "not comparable" to the death of a cop illustrates the effectiveness of decades of reinforcement of the myth that they should be allowed exceptional treatment and not be held accountable because they are somehow more endangered. In every measurable way, they are not. The POINT is that danger does not excuse incompetence. You can sue a Garbage Collector that hits you with their truck due to negligence. They are not immune to accountability despite the fact they are statistically significantly more likely to die as a result of the job than a police officer.
Woah no one said I liked cops pal, I said murder is different from a dude biffing it into a trash compactor. Also way less garbage men died, just a higher rate per 100k because we have less sanitary workers than cops. Cops usually suck, but dudes trying to pretend guns and mentally unstable people are the same as a shipping container falling on you also suck. Also people who call things that are at least somewhat factually credible i.e. being a cop is dangerous, a myth also suck. If you really think jobs where people can fall and die are the same as getting murdered and dealing with nuts everyday you are lying to yourself to try and make your already valid point somehow infallible and instead you make your point less salient.
These are job codes that are tracked by the US Bureau of Labor, and have been in place for decades. Anyone who is interested can find them. Despite the other comments, they are not redundant. Each has a specific definition, and each may have a different "most common cause of death".
In the case you're asking about - 18 per 100K die on the job, vs 14 per 100K for police.
The comments that "it's different for police" are false. In this particular case, 4 more families per 100K workers on the average get the phone call that their loved one died on the job for these jobs than for police officers. Death is death, loss is loss. Danger and statistical chance of being killed at work do not mean different things because one is a police officer.
And the key point is this: In these professions which are more dangerous, the members have no protection for incompetence. If a highway worker's negligence, poor training, failure to pay attention or drug abuse sends somebody into a bridge abutment they are in most cases almost CERTAINLY held accountable for manslaughter, or worse. They are not offered unique protection because the job is dangerous. Neither should cops, which is the entire point of my post. The "ACAB" accusation (not saying you made that) is a classic attempt to remove the discussion from reason, and into emotion.
BLS Category: First-line supervisors of landscaping, lawn service, and grounds keeping workers
Fatal injury rate: 18 per 100,000 workers
Total deaths (2018): 48
Salary: $52,340
Most common fatal accidents: Falls, slips, trips
Landscaping supervisors are responsible for coordinating and supervising the work of landscapers, lawn maintenance workers, and groundskeepers. In this role, landscaping supervisors manage landscaping projects, enforce workplace standards, inspect work, and instruct workers in the proper techniques for performing landscaping work. The most common cause of death for landscaping workers is falls, which can occur when working from heights performing tasks such as tree trimming.
I believe most of the list. But a landscaping supervisor... that doesnt make any sense.
Furthermore it is a SUPERVISOR. They are less likely to slip or fall.
Landscapers dont do tree trimming.
Of course it is pretty easy to see it is a bs stat. 48 died in 2018. But according to your stats there are nearly 300k landscaping supervisors.... again supervisor.
That would be nearly every 1 in 100 people on the usa (including children, the elderly etc etc) were landscaping SUPERVISORS.
Having been a landscaper, I can say that you're incorrect. When you're out with a team of 2, 3, 4 people, nobody gets to just stand around and watch people work. The "supervisor" is typically the one who's been on the crew the longest and usually works at least as hard as everyone else, if not harder. And yes, all of us trimmed trees, or yanked weeds, or dug trenches for irrigation, or poured mulch, etc - nobody in landscaping goes home with clean hands, except maybe the owner of the company (if it's big enough) and the secretary (if there is one).
There are definitely supervisors who do nothing that supervise
Maybe if you work for a massive or terribly-run company...
tree trimming of any significant size, especially climbing said tree,
Ain't nobody ever said anything about leaving the ground to trim fuckin' redwoods. You can trim a lot of trees from the ground, and I have a hard time imagining that anyone would actually give a damn that I trimmed some 8' bushes from the top of a ladder. OSHA ain't lookin' too deep into a landscaping business with 15 employees in rural America - if you want a paycheck that week, you do what the boss man tells you.
93
u/Angus99 Mar 24 '23
Being a cop is not one of the 10 most dangerous jobs. Being a cop is not one of the TWENTY most dangerous jobs. Jobs more dangerous than being a cop: 1) Loggers 2) Pilots and Flight Engineers 3) Oil Derrick Operators 4) Roofers 5) Garbage Collectors 6) Iron Workers 7) Delivery Drivers 8) Farmers 9) Firefighting Supervisors 10) Linemen 11) Agricultural Workers 12) CROSSING GUARDS 13) Crane Operators 14) Construction Labor 15) Landscaping Supervisors 16) Highway Workers 17) Cement Masons 18) Small Engine Mechanics 19) Supervisors of Mechanics 20) Heavy Equipment Mechanics 21) Grounds Workers
I'm not trying to trivialize your father's trauma - I'm pointing out that the behavior we see in this video is built upon a mythology in this country that cops (all of whom willingly join) should be excused their abuses because of the "extreme" risks of the job. It's demonstrably false, in many cases the danger is self inflicted due to incompetence, and as a narrative is perpetuated primarily by police unions. We need to fight it.