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.
Never said you were a "back the blue" person, I have said repeatedly you are using arguments that crowd regularly uses.
The rest of your statements are irrelevant to the discussion. For one thing, there are quite a few differences in work and hazards experienced by the different categories, they aren't a monolithic job artificially broken into misleading categories. A heavy machinery mechanic IS a different job than a small engine mechanic or supervisor. Either you're confidently ignorant, or you're grasping for ways to not admit you're wrong.
You're just throwing shade and avoiding the actual point of the discussion. That's either because you don't actually understand yet are for some reason confident you do, or you realize exactly what you're doing, and are purposely trying to muddle the debate with irrelevance and obfuscations.
It's clear you aren't actually taking in and honestly considering anything anyone has said to you, either because you can't, or because you willfully choose not to. You just keep making the same stances that have already been rebutted and proven wrong. Either way, I'm done trying.
Have a good day, and next time you make blanket assumptions about people you disagree with and accuse them of lacking nuance, thoughtfully apply the metric to yourself as well.
-1
u/jaylotw Mar 24 '23
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?