General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsJust how dangerous is being a cop??
Not as dangerous as most people think...
Most of you have no doubt been subjected in the last few days to right-wing pundits or friends droning on about the supposed "dangers" of policing. That we have to understand that the officer may have thought he was in danger when he executed Michael Brown. Well here is a controversial statement: I don't care how dangerous your job is. It was the trade-off you willingly entered into when you were given a lethal weapon to use at your discretion and the power to assert complete authority over a citizen at your will. In 2009, the Census of Fatal Occupational Industries compiled a list of the most dangerous jobs in the country. Numbers are deaths/100,000.
Fishermen: 128.9
Logging workers: 116.7
Aircraft pilots: 72.4
Iron and steelworkers: 46.4
Farmers and ranchers: 39.5
Garbage collectors: 36.8
Roofers: 34.4
Electrical power line installation/repair: 29.8
Truck drivers: 22.8
Oil and gas extraction: 21.9
Taxi drivers: 19.3
Drinking establishment employees: 17.0
Construction workers: 16.0
Police and deputies: 15.6
...
More at DailyKos in jjstraka34's diary.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
treestar
(82,383 posts)who suddenly turned when the cop was chasing him.
I don't see why this Wilson guy has to mean all the cops are bad or that the job isn't dangerous.
leftyohiolib
(5,917 posts)
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)But the statistics do. Being a cop is safer than being a construction worker. Being a cop is almost 10 times safer than being a fisherman. It's not nearly as dangerous a job as RWers continually say in order to 'justify' the militarization and over-arming of police.
treestar
(82,383 posts)That any traffic stop could be the one where the stopped person gets out and starts shooting.
There was video of one such on DU a while back.
Or it could be a felon fleeing the law and escalate into something. Most of the time it doesn't, but in the nature of it, it could.
IMO they were militarized because of unique and rare situations like hostage situations - same thing, just in case it happens - if they didn't have the equipment everyone would be saying they were incompetent to handle it in the rare event it did happen.
When there is an exotic situation, like Waco, the media acts like LEOs should have been able to handle it like they handle it every day. When they can't handle it every day, because it rarely happens.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)the Federal government should be able to second military units to work with police for exotic situations like Waco.
At this point, I think all use of chemical weapons on protesters should be banned, along with any 'indiscriminate' weaponry. If you can't target a specific lawbreaker with appropriate force, you certainly shouldn't be using extraordinary force against them. You don't mow down an entire crowd because one criminal is throwing rocks, or even molotov cocktails. You go get that specific lawbreaker.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)then they are not good either. This problem is not just about a rotten apple - it is about bad attitudes and policy. I looked see what equipment my area governments got from this government program. Everyone should look into what is happening in their own area.
I suspect that the attitude toward Native American's in my area is not all that healthy. Although no one has been shot while unarmed. Hopefully that will continue.
treestar
(82,383 posts)They've been better trained not to treat rape victims the way they did in the 1950s. I think they are trained to act so as not to escalate in general. My biggest contact with them is getting stopped for traffic tickets, and they've become polite, realizing perhaps there is no benefit to them in being jerks, like almost everyone in businesses, etc., these days.
I don't think they are at fault for the "militarizing" - that's on 911 and the few exotic situations where things went wrong then the public complained they didn't handle it well enough.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)think that they did not know what kind of effect it could have. My suggestion to look into our own areas is with the hope that we can convince them not to go overboard.
enki23
(7,787 posts)"But... but, I know a guy who knows a logger who isn't dead. So don't say the job is dangerous. That guy has a zero percent death rate!"
Jesus effing Christ.
treestar
(82,383 posts)but that it was not the most dangerous.
enki23
(7,787 posts)Yes, let's nitpick the fucking subjective. No, it isn't that dangerous. Less dangerous than working at a bar just isn't that dangerous. If that's dangerous, then where are all the tears for kids like me having worked on a farm operating heavy machinery starting at the age of... well, preteen for driving it. Much younger for working around it. I've off-and-on worked more dangerous jobs than "cop," on an hour-by-hour basis, since I was in kindergarten. And my danger was mostly not tied up in highway fatalities. If you really think about that one too much, then school consolidation and long bus rides are a much bigger fucking concern than the miniscule fatality rates for police officers.
People die on our highways. That's how most cops die. On our highways. The remaining fatalties are ugly in nature, but really fucking infrequent. I don't doubt that there are particular *types* of police officer that have a much higher fatality rate. But applying that to police in general is like saying everyone who sometimes gets on a boat is in the same danger as a deep sea fisherman. That is, it's bullshit.
treestar
(82,383 posts)It is a natural reaction for people to see it as dangerous, depending of course on what they are dealing with. A small town maybe not, a city with gangs or the mafia - it could easily be seen as dangerous. If you are a cop, you get called to places where things are going wrong and people are not getting along. The point is they never know if they are going to end up in the bad situation, even if they odds are that they won't be the one.
enki23
(7,787 posts).
treestar
(82,383 posts)you're going to spend a lot of time irritated, since I'm sure you're smarter than most everyone else.
enki23
(7,787 posts)As for the latter, you're right. I know that was supposed to be sarcastic, but the sarcasm doesn't go far when you have an example of exactly why I might think that just a few comments above. Fox News is popular. I'm smarter than "most" people. Absolutely I fucking am.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)And the danger factor drops dramatically.
Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)25 Police officers were killed by Automobile accidents. Eight were struck by vehicle, and four died in Vehicle Pursuits. Contrast that to the thirty who died by gunfire in 2013. http://www.odmp.org/search/year?year=2013
Now, how can we reduce police deaths? First, put them in high visibility clothing so that we can reduce/eliminate the struck by vehicle deaths. People who work on/near a road must wear High Visibility clothing including reflective tape to make sure that people see them. Second, require police to wear seatbelts. I drove cross country in a 18 wheel truck for more than three years. I rarely saw police wearing seatbelts. By rarely, I mean it is the exception that one wears it. My estimate would be one out of ten wears the most basic of safety items. That always bothered me. They'll wear hundreds of dollars in bullet proof vests, go through thousands of dollars worth of training, but won't wear two bucks worth of seat belt that will save their lives in an accident.
mainer
(12,022 posts)The number of hours on the road (or in the air) influences the death rate of your occupation.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)Of being a cop in relation to their interactions with the public. Auto accidents are a statistical reality based on the number of miles driven and doesn't have anything to do with justifying abusive behavior in the name of "officer safety".
mainer
(12,022 posts)And if you remove transportation accidents for airline pilots, their mortality rate would probably fall to about zero.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)Justifies abusive, militaristic responses to the general public. Nobody goes around stating dumb shit like, 'those pilots put their life on the line every day to keep us safe' as a justification for, say, beating a naked old woman in her home and dragging her into the street.
Statistics are cold things. All they tell us is which occupation you're most likely to lose your life on the job.
And being a police officer is definitely not at the top of the list.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)I can think of one who died on the water. One who almost died but was saved.
That said, none of them went to work every day to potentially confront violent criminals, domestic violence etc.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)zeemike
(18,998 posts)If a cop runs into a bad guy with a gun he has a chance to save himself...and even if shot can still be saved at the hospital.
If you are fishing in the north Atlantic and a rogue wave hits your boat you don't have a chance in hell of surviving it.
FourScore
(9,704 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)but the atmosphere is such that you don't want to be the one, and any incident could be the one.
Cops have said every time they stop a car, it just could be the guy who gets out and shoots them. The odds may not be that high. But the potential is there each time.
I don't know what is killing fisherman, but at least they can check the weather report or the boat and fishing itself isn't such that any particular day it just might be the killer fish they reel up.
mainer
(12,022 posts)checking the day-to-day weather isn't always helpful.
Accidents aboard boats (fires, etc), in extremely cold waters, are often not survivable.
treestar
(82,383 posts)I may try to learn some more about fishing.
mainer
(12,022 posts)mostly lobstermen who drowned when their feet got tangled in gear.
Also, we're forgetting the truly dangerous fishing jobs in Alaska.
Sienna86
(2,149 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)police deaths.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)35 American LEOs have died so far this year due to non-accidental causes. That's about one a week.
And according to this list maintained on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforcement_officers_in_the_United_States_2014):
139 civilians have died at the hands of police in the same period. That's just over four per week.
I know it's not an apples-to apples comparison, and yes, I get that police have little choice in being exposed to dangerous situations.
However, IMO it looks we are far more at risk from the police than they are from us.
Michigander_Life
(549 posts)pipoman
(16,038 posts)"However, IMO it looks we are far more at risk from the police than they are from us."
Unless 1 in 4 people are leo, the rate isn't even close.
That said, there are many other professions which have more likelihood of injury or death than leo.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)Boom Sound 416
(4,185 posts)People love to say being an auto mechanic is more dangerous than a fire fighter too
B Calm
(28,762 posts)pipoman
(16,038 posts)In the given professions, not on total numbers. So how are the rates inaccurate?
Boom Sound 416
(4,185 posts)They are truthful and easily manipulated.
Like,
Stating the US spends the least in the world on humanitarian aid relative to GDP.
Which is true.
However, in total dollars we spend the most in the world.
Which is true.
So, which is true?
Deny and Shred
(1,061 posts)One is a rate, the other an amount.
Deaths per 100,000 is a rate. Not manipulatable at all.
enki23
(7,787 posts)So, how can you say they're having a hard time?
Jesus effing Christ, no wonder this world is fucking fucked.
mainer
(12,022 posts)He and his colleagues don't dispute the statistics.
Whiskeytide
(4,461 posts)... Without contextual consideration. Fishermen have a dangerous job, but it doesn't involve other people intentionally trying to harm them. It doesn't involve daily contact with menacing people who despise them and want to escape them. Regardless of your views on cops, you have to concede that their job is unique because of the "types" of dangers they are asked to face.
And, it changes the way they see the rest of society. Wouldn't it have too? A lot of us deal with people everyday. But it's rare we have to deal with people who live outside the law. For a cop, its the job description.
And, for the record, I'm not defending anyone. I'm just pointing out that you can't compare fishermen to cops. Now, it might be worthwhile to compare fatalities of US cops with those of other countries. That might be revealing.
MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)aspect - lord knows I wouldn't want to put up with a lot of the crap they do but it really is important to point out the death rate.
People think cops have much higher death rates usually (maybe not numerically, but in the general sense in their head) and they often tend to think it's almost entirely from being murdered by suspects rather than taking into account all the driving cops do.
And you can't really compare US cops to cops in other countries as there are way too many sociological factors to consider. Cops in Mexico must have an extremely high fatality rate because they are essentially at war with the drug cartels down there, but cops in a smaller European mostly urban country might have a lower fatality rate solely because there is less driving - and when there are accidents they are low speed ones.
Whiskeytide
(4,461 posts)..., and the sociological differences were precisely what I was typing of when I said a comparison with other countries might be revealing.
I think those sociological difference are where our problem really can be found. We have militarized the police, and we have fostered an "us v them" mentality - on BOTH sides of the equation. Until we address such "big picture", institutional issues, I'm afraid not much will change.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)Maybe in the worst areas, sure. But across most of the country, cops don't actually encounter violent people on a daily basis, and most of those they do encounter are not hardened criminals, but angry domestic disputants who hate each other, not the police. They stop a lot more speeding drivers, stop in at vandalized or burgled places a lot more often than they run into gangs or murderers. People watch too many 'CSI' types shows and assume every day is violence and drama.
Whiskeytide
(4,461 posts)... - sure, most people employed by law enforcement don't engage in daily gun battles with armed criminals. Thankfully, a higher than you'd think percentage of cops are NEVER in such a situation, and never pull their guns out at all. I remember a good friend who was a cop back in the 80's told me that, believe it or not, Barney Miller - excepting the scripted humor - was probably the most realistic depiction of day to day detective work. (That's certainly a time dated comparison, but would still probably surprise a lot of people).
But the "cops" that usually end up shooting someone ARE, more often that not, the ones who work those "worst areas", and are the ones on the front lines.
And your point was kind of the same as my point. Your average cop might encounter the same number of people I do in a given day, let's assume. The majority of the people he or she encounters are not hardened, violent criminals - but a few are. By comparison, virtually NONE of those I encounter are harden criminals. And that's true for fisherman as well. If the fish start shooting back at the fishermen, I'll retract my objection. Otherwise, I just think the comparison is well intended, but misplaced.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Firefighter deaths, while high, are much, MUCH lower as a percentage of total population than they were back in the days of primitive equipment, when an entire shift might be lost in a nasty warehouse conflagration--and firefighters are facing more challenging fires these days--skyscrapers, massive industrial fires, etc.
If police were integrated into the community, knew the people they were protecting and serving, developed personal relationships, were psychologically profiled to favor conflict resolution as opposed to escalation, and had higher IQs, would the rate go down further, I wonder?
Boom Sound 416
(4,185 posts)Fire suppression tools these days.
Fire in a skyscraper can be easier than a brush fire to supress.
On your other point, to community involvement. Furgeson is a prime example where police departments should be recruiting in the community.
It would be a great job for a kid who might otherwise get left behind.
MADem
(135,425 posts)As Rev. Sharpton noted, too, that 12 percent voter participation statistic will probably change after this tragedy, too. That community needs to elect representative leadership, and do it ASAP. That will go a long way towards changing the dynamic in the area. I'm sure that there will be a segment (some number under a third, I'm guessing) that might not like that increased political participation, but oh well...
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)
jeff47
(26,549 posts)A Tuesday in April every two years. As a result, it doesn't benefit from high-turnout elections like the Presidential election.
packman
(16,296 posts)Fishermen and loggers are not known as high IQ careers. Airplane pilots is somewhat of a mystery, but I expect that high death rate is really reflecting the death rate of pilots in private planes and more indicative of mechanical failure of the plane. In fact, all the high-death occupations listed are career choices that require little intelligence. I had a neighbor whose retarded son who could barely read, got a job checking high-voltage lines dangling from a helicopter and did it successfully for 25 years.
mainer
(12,022 posts)to pay for their tuition. You can haul in a lot of money with one season's fishing in Alaska. The pay reflects the risks.
So no, it's not that they have low IQs.
packman
(16,296 posts)But, studies - such as:
http://sq.4mg.com/IQ-jobs.htm
and many others show a correlation between job/career choices and IQ.
Rex
(65,616 posts)And if people give you lip, well you have mace a gun and a tazer...you do the math!
flamin lib
(14,559 posts)More of them die from gunshot than police on duty. Don't know if that says more about guns or cops.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)mainer
(12,022 posts)and toddlers don't have an occupation yet.
Fuddnik
(8,846 posts)We were drinking buddies when he was working.
The most dangerous things he faced were diabetes and cholesterol. And maybe liver damage.
Helen Borg
(3,963 posts)
JEB
(4,748 posts)I'd like to see them paraded out at ball games and parades to have the gratitude of the nation expressed, but that kind of thing is reserved for cops and military.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)ncjustice80
(948 posts)This is why the police in America need to be disarmed. There is no reason a patrol officer needs body armor or a gun whwn they have tazers now. We should be like Britain and have all guns locked up at the station, only to be issued out with special approval by the agency head. Without guns and bulllet proof vests to cower behind police brutality would go way down. We have far more to fear from cops than they do from us!
mainer
(12,022 posts)I asked a forensic pathologist about that, because I'd always heard that being a pilot was a safe occupation. He said that the category includes all employed pilots and all types of aircraft, including those dinky planes out in Alaska.
DesMoinesDem
(1,569 posts)