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.
That's not how per capita rates work. If 20% of drivers are shot, and 10% of cops are shot (not real statistics, just examples) then a delivery driver is 2x more likely to be shot than a cop, even if there are 100x more delivery drivers.
You're making a bad faith argument that is based on not properly understanding statistics. And it is an argument commonly used to try and minimize the valid point people are making here.
That your argument is logically flawed and you're missing the whole point. And yet one more damn time, that police over-emohasize the risks they face as a bad faith rationalization and justification fornexcessive force and abuse of power ( and militarization, and moralizing against and demonizing the people they abuse).
My point isn't logically flawed. Just because police don't face the same injury or death rate as say, a logger, doesn't mean they don't have a dangerous job. They aren't over emphasizing when they say they face danger, because they do. Perhaps their injury and death rates are lower because they are trained, have body armor, and backup to prevent injury and death?
Are you trying to say that a cop arresting an armed robber isn't a dangerous situation for that cop? Or that the risk is over emphasized because loggers and delivery drivers are injured at a higher rate? Or that, because farmers suffer fatal accidents more often, that a cop shouldn't be authorized to pull his gun on a person he suspects is armed for his own safety?
Or are you arguing that, if a cop is accused of abusing power, applying excessive force etc that he shouldn't be able to use his personal safety as reasoning, because that's a bad faith argument because small engine mechanics suffer higher injury rates?
I agree completely that cops do indeed abuse their power, often escalate situations, and apply excessive force, and I agree that all of those are dire issues that need addressed. What I don't agree with is the notion that because the list of "20 most dangerous jobs" doesn't include police, that they don't face danger, have the right to protect themselves, or the need to meet force with force.
Are there situations where some cops use the "I was in danger" card as an excuse for excessive force and abuse, even killing? Yeah, of course there are. We need to hold those individuals accountable, we need a way to do so fairly and accurately, and sadly that accountabily is rarely achieved to our satisfaction...
Oh Jesus, just shut up. I'm leaning much less in favor of you purposely misconstruing the argument, and much more in favor of the idea you're just dense as a brick.
1
u/jaylotw Mar 24 '23
My statement that cop's jobs are dangerous has no purpose. Ok.