Remember the Officers

[BMWTurboDzl]

Originally Posted by JustN89
Originally Posted by skyactiv
Let me get to the point. Many people are getting sick of first responder glory.

This may be, but making incorrect claims to try and diminish the risk first responders (in this instance, LEOs specifically) take is just being petty and insufferable. Following that up with posting links which fly in the face of your claim proves this point.

No one is asking for hero worship of first responders. That said, if you're not fond of "first responder glory", which you claim to be dumb, then maybe clicking on a thread entitled "Remember the Officers" is a fruitless endeavor for you. I don't purposefully seek out things that irritate me as that seems rather stupid.


I'll try this one more time.. You THINK being in the top 20 (barely) is proof that the profession dangerous. I provided for comparison that driving an automobile is essentially just as dangerous and yet society does not associate it with the same level of risk as being a LEO. So ya being a LOE is ranked 18th which in your view means it's ranked high but that ranking in itself is low because there are hundreds of careers behind it where there's statistically no or extremely low risk.

 

[maxdustington]

Originally Posted by skyactiv
Let me get to the point. Many people are getting sick of first responder glory.

FIRST RESPONDER GLORY IS DUMB AND A MODERN PHENOMENA. We didn't use to see it 15 years ago.
I respect first responders but all I see is the continuing divide depending on what you do for a living.
Fifteen years ago, right after veterans from wars in the middle east started returning. I think Americans were ashamed of how they treated their Vietnam vets and venerated their new generation of veterans.

I know there are a lot of former military police officers in the US. I think the veteran worship of the early-mid 2000s washed off on polices forces that had many former military personnel.

In Canada, we are bombarded by pro-public sector worker propaganda from public sector unions. We are supposed to venerate teachers and first responders because their unions tell us so.

Watching the RCMP carrying the luggage of illegal immigrants as they cross the border is a hard image to forget.

 

[DoubleWasp]

Originally Posted by JustN89
Yes, people put a higher value on the value of the loss of an LEO while in the line of duty than a person driving to Wal-Mart. Both are tragic, but one is trying to protect and defend and one is trying to pick up some milk and oreos.


What a good way to devalue human beings you never even knew.

So when society loses mother's, father's, children, etc, they are just people grabbing milk and Oreos?

Go to the house of a family who has lost a loved one and explain your theory to them.

 

[TheLawnRanger]

I appreciate first responders. They deserve the praise they get. I'm glad they are willing to go after armed criminals, go into burning buildings, or treat a car crash victim on the scene. Yes, they're getting paid but could get much more doing something safer.

 

[JustN89]

Originally Posted by BMWTurboDzl
Originally Posted by JustN89
Originally Posted by skyactiv
Let me get to the point. Many people are getting sick of first responder glory.

This may be, but making incorrect claims to try and diminish the risk first responders (in this instance, LEOs specifically) take is just being petty and insufferable. Following that up with posting links which fly in the face of your claim proves this point.

No one is asking for hero worship of first responders. That said, if you're not fond of "first responder glory", which you claim to be dumb, then maybe clicking on a thread entitled "Remember the Officers" is a fruitless endeavor for you. I don't purposefully seek out things that irritate me as that seems rather stupid.


I'll try this one more time.. You THINK being in the top 20 (barely) is proof that the profession dangerous. I provided for comparison that driving an automobile is essentially just as dangerous and yet society does not associate it with the same level of risk as being a LEO. So ya being a LOE is ranked 18th which in your view means it's ranked high but that ranking in itself is low because there are hundreds of careers behind it where there's statistically no or extremely low risk.


Then you'd think that stating that it's one of the least dangerous jobs in the U.S. is patently false. You're claiming one thing, but arguing another. This is ridiculous. Is it a dangerous job? CLEARLY. It's one of the most dangerous jobs you can have, as has been pointed out by links YOU posted. Does that mean every LEO is facing imminent danger every second of every day? No, and no one stated as much. Remember, you brought this up with your incredulous claim.

 

[JustN89]

Originally Posted by DoubleWasp
Originally Posted by JustN89
Yes, people put a higher value on the value of the loss of an LEO while in the line of duty than a person driving to Wal-Mart. Both are tragic, but one is trying to protect and defend and one is trying to pick up some milk and oreos.


What a good way to devalue human beings you never even knew.

So when society loses mother's, father's, children, etc, they are just people grabbing milk and Oreos?

Go to the house of a family who has lost a loved one and explain your theory to them.

I don't have to go out to a family who has lost a loved one- I have lost a loved one. Motorcycle accident. However, it was an accident. The risk being taken by driving and by trying to enforce the law are two different things, even if they have the same end.

 

[DoubleWasp]

Ok, so you didn't catch on that I had too much respect to literally bring the hypothetical to your own family. I'm still not going to go there.

Your statement directly addressed the "value" of human life.

So answer the question directly:

If a good mother of three goes out for groceries and is killed in a car accident, in your opinion her life had less value than any slain LEO?

 

[JustN89]

Originally Posted by DoubleWasp
Ok, so you didn't catch on that I had too much respect to literally bring the hypothetical to your own family. I'm still not going to go there.

Your statement directly addressed the "value" of human life.

So answer the question directly:

If a good mother of three goes out for groceries and is killed in a car accident, in your opinion her life had less value than any slain LEO?

Did I not say that they were both tragic? All life is valued the same, in my opinion. And no, maybe you didn't bring the hypothetical to me, but you did challenge me to go out and find someone who's experienced that and I'm pointing out that I don't have to.


However, the statement was made that:
Originally Posted by BMWTurboDzl
Yes society places a higher value on the deaths of LEO's due to the circumstances under which it occurs but still.

Yes, people place more emphasis on the loss of an LEO than someone who loses their life out driving trying to accomplish their errands. This is nothing new, and it's not unique to LEOs or other First Responders. I don't make the rules, but it's not hard to see why this is the case.

 

[DoubleWasp]

I don't think it's a rule so much as it is careless perspective on the part of society.

Nobody is ever going to stand around planning the funeral or memorial of a lived one and say, "Hey, let's make sure we don't go overboard. Not like they were an LEO or something."

It's a perspective that only holds up from the outside. I come from mostly a military family. I just don't see the deaths of those who didn't serve as any "less" than those who didn't.

 

[Pew]

Originally Posted by skyactiv
You didn't see auto makers pick and choose who they decide to give a better deal on a new vehicle years ago. Now you pay less for a new truck if your a cop or a firefighter
rather than a roofer


I'm pretty sure businesses can pick and choose whoever they want to give discounts too; giving special privileges to any sort of classification you can fit people into has existed for years.

 

[JustN89]

Originally Posted by DoubleWasp
I don't think it's a rule so much as it is careless perspective on the part of society.

Nobody is ever going to stand around planning the funeral or memorial of a lived one and say, "Hey, let's make sure we don't go overboard. Not like they were an LEO or something."

It's a perspective that only holds up from the outside. I come from mostly a military family. I just don't see the deaths of those who didn't serve as any "less" than those who didn't.

I agree with you, but that doesn't change the fact that we do, as a society, tend to focus more on the lost lives of first responders then the person who lost their life trying to run errands. I wish that would change (not that I want people to care less about first responders less, but to value life more), but I don't think it ever will. Maybe that's too negative a thought, but I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[BMWTurboDzl]

Originally Posted by JustN89
Originally Posted by BMWTurboDzl
Originally Posted by JustN89
Originally Posted by skyactiv
Let me get to the point. Many people are getting sick of first responder glory.

This may be, but making incorrect claims to try and diminish the risk first responders (in this instance, LEOs specifically) take is just being petty and insufferable. Following that up with posting links which fly in the face of your claim proves this point.

No one is asking for hero worship of first responders. That said, if you're not fond of "first responder glory", which you claim to be dumb, then maybe clicking on a thread entitled "Remember the Officers" is a fruitless endeavor for you. I don't purposefully seek out things that irritate me as that seems rather stupid.


I'll try this one more time.. You THINK being in the top 20 (barely) is proof that the profession dangerous. I provided for comparison that driving an automobile is essentially just as dangerous and yet society does not associate it with the same level of risk as being a LEO. So ya being a LOE is ranked 18th which in your view means it's ranked high but that ranking in itself is low because there are hundreds of careers behind it where there's statistically no or extremely low risk.


Then you'd think that stating that it's one of the least dangerous jobs in the U.S. is patently false. You're claiming one thing, but arguing another. This is ridiculous. Is it a dangerous job? CLEARLY. It's one of the most dangerous jobs you can have, as has been pointed out by links YOU posted. Does that mean every LEO is facing imminent danger every second of every day? No, and no one stated as much. Remember, you brought this up with your incredulous claim.


In terms of fatalities it is. I've already proven that. It's statistically similar to automotive deaths which we don't blink an eye at. Who cares if there are thousands of jobs where people sit at a desk all day which have NO risk.

 

[Vuflanovsky]

I think there are some poor analogies being given if cops are increasingly expected to be surrogate parents, surrogate mental health professionals and have a push/pull process that doesn't directly equate with the job functions or death percentages of miners or construction workers, etc.....not to mention the differences between accidental death and people [censored] bent on "suicide by cop" or if an action they're about to do ends their careers or ruins their lives. Undoubtedly, much more of a rarity in other "dangerous" occupations.

I might agree about some of the overboard "thank you for your service' elements that might spill into law enforcement ( not to mention criminal pensions ), but being a cop is an increasingly [censored] job that is probably not on the same dynamic scale as some of the other dangerous occupations listed which are a lot more rote in comparison. Maybe I'm partially conditioned by my dad, a WWII vet, and you wouldn't want to hear what he thought of mindless "thank you for your service" parroting and how he viewed that as a form of disrespect to the ones that didn't come back. On that theme..."support our boys in blue" or similar might be something that can be contextually similar but equating cops with miners, construction workers or window washers is a bit of a non-starter.

 

[JustN89]

Originally Posted by BMWTurboDzl
Originally Posted by JustN89
Originally Posted by BMWTurboDzl
I'll try this one more time.. You THINK being in the top 20 (barely) is proof that the profession dangerous. I provided for comparison that driving an automobile is essentially just as dangerous and yet society does not associate it with the same level of risk as being a LEO. So ya being a LOE is ranked 18th which in your view means it's ranked high but that ranking in itself is low because there are hundreds of careers behind it where there's statistically no or extremely low risk.


Then you'd think that stating that it's one of the least dangerous jobs in the U.S. is patently false. You're claiming one thing, but arguing another. This is ridiculous. Is it a dangerous job? CLEARLY. It's one of the most dangerous jobs you can have, as has been pointed out by links YOU posted. Does that mean every LEO is facing imminent danger every second of every day? No, and no one stated as much. Remember, you brought this up with your incredulous claim.


In terms of fatalities it is. I've already proven that. It's statistically similar to automotive deaths which we don't blink an eye at. Who cares if there are thousands of jobs where people sit at a desk all day which have NO risk.

Okay, you're clearly just playing at dense or are actually dense. You haven't made a single coherent point to justify your claim that being an LEO is one of the least dangerous jobs in the U.S. In fact, you actually made my point for me when you posted a link that showed that it was, in fact, one of the MOST dangerous jobs you can have. If you can't make an argument to support your claim, then I have no reason to go back and forth with you anymore. You can argue with yourself, seeing as you clearly hold beliefs that fly in the face of facts that you have readily available.

 

[BMWTurboDzl]

Originally Posted by JustN89
Originally Posted by BMWTurboDzl
Originally Posted by JustN89
Originally Posted by BMWTurboDzl
I'll try this one more time.. You THINK being in the top 20 (barely) is proof that the profession dangerous. I provided for comparison that driving an automobile is essentially just as dangerous and yet society does not associate it with the same level of risk as being a LEO. So ya being a LOE is ranked 18th which in your view means it's ranked high but that ranking in itself is low because there are hundreds of careers behind it where there's statistically no or extremely low risk.


Then you'd think that stating that it's one of the least dangerous jobs in the U.S. is patently false. You're claiming one thing, but arguing another. This is ridiculous. Is it a dangerous job? CLEARLY. It's one of the most dangerous jobs you can have, as has been pointed out by links YOU posted. Does that mean every LEO is facing imminent danger every second of every day? No, and no one stated as much. Remember, you brought this up with your incredulous claim.


In terms of fatalities it is. I've already proven that. It's statistically similar to automotive deaths which we don't blink an eye at. Who cares if there are thousands of jobs where people sit at a desk all day which have NO risk.

Okay, you're clearly just playing at dense or are actually dense. You haven't made a single coherent point to justify your claim that being an LEO is one of the least dangerous jobs in the U.S. In fact, you actually made my point for me when you posted a link that showed that it was, in fact, one of the MOST dangerous jobs you can have. If you can't make an argument to support your claim, then I have no reason to go back and forth with you anymore. You can argue with yourself, seeing as you clearly hold beliefs that fly in the face of facts that you have readily available.


Clearly statistics is not your strong suit. The fact is that being 18th doesn't equate to being HIGH RISK.

 

[BMWTurboDzl]

Originally Posted by Vuflanovsky
I think there are some poor analogies being given if cops are increasingly expected to be surrogate parents, surrogate mental health professionals and have a push/pull process that doesn't directly equate with the job functions or death percentages of miners or construction workers, etc.....not to mention the differences between accidental death and people [censored] bent on "suicide by cop" or if an action they're about to do ends their careers or ruins their lives. Undoubtedly, much more of a rarity in other "dangerous" occupations.

I might agree about some of the overboard "thank you for your service' elements that might spill into law enforcement ( not to mention criminal pensions ), but being a cop is an increasingly [censored] job that is probably not on the same dynamic scale as some of the other dangerous occupations listed which are a lot more rote in comparison. Maybe I'm partially conditioned by my dad, a WWII vet, and you wouldn't want to hear what he thought of mindless "thank you for your service" parroting and how he viewed that as a form of disrespect to the ones that didn't come back. On that theme..."support our boys in blue" or similar might be something that can be contextually similar but equating cops with miners, construction workers or window washers is a bit of a non-starter.


Police are in the enforcement business not the protection business. It's why they spend most of their time doing domestic violence, traffic, and drug enforcement work.

Interestingly the US Supreme Court* has made it clear that an officer is not required to risk his/her life to protect someone not in custody. However, my understanding is that Florida for example has passed a law, in response to political pressure over the lack of action by the police officer during the school shooting in Broward, to require that officers put themselves in harms way. It will be interesting to see what impact that has on officer fatalities and levels of personnel. I suspect they will increase.


*DeShaney vs. Winnebago and Town of Castle Rock vs. Gonzales

 

[Silverado12]

Originally Posted by maxdustington
It's a dangerous job, without question. Unions will always try to create a narrative that their employees are in danger, or underpaid, or overworked. I think that narrative is easy to sell when it comes to cops and firefighters. They face danger, but they have more workplace protections to minimize the risk than most other professions and get a guaranteed pension until they are dead.

Public sector employees are always portrayed as altruistic public servants. In my experience in the public sector I have found this to not be true.

Take your anti union, public employee BS somewhere else.

 

[JustN89]

Originally Posted by BMWTurboDzl
Originally Posted by JustN89
Originally Posted by BMWTurboDzl
Originally Posted by JustN89
Then you'd think that stating that it's one of the least dangerous jobs in the U.S. is patently false. You're claiming one thing, but arguing another. This is ridiculous. Is it a dangerous job? CLEARLY. It's one of the most dangerous jobs you can have, as has been pointed out by links YOU posted. Does that mean every LEO is facing imminent danger every second of every day? No, and no one stated as much. Remember, you brought this up with your incredulous claim.


In terms of fatalities it is. I've already proven that. It's statistically similar to automotive deaths which we don't blink an eye at. Who cares if there are thousands of jobs where people sit at a desk all day which have NO risk.

Okay, you're clearly just playing at dense or are actually dense. You haven't made a single coherent point to justify your claim that being an LEO is one of the least dangerous jobs in the U.S. In fact, you actually made my point for me when you posted a link that showed that it was, in fact, one of the MOST dangerous jobs you can have. If you can't make an argument to support your claim, then I have no reason to go back and forth with you anymore. You can argue with yourself, seeing as you clearly hold beliefs that fly in the face of facts that you have readily available.


Clearly statistics is not your strong suit. The fact is that being 18th doesn't equate to being HIGH RISK.

And making a coherent argument is not yours. By the way, that's not a fact, that's your opinion of facts.

In case you forgot what your claim was, here it is:
Originally Posted by BMWTurboDzl
And yet it being a LEO is one of the least dangerous jobs in the United States


Your claim wasn't based on risk, you simply stated that it's one of the least dangerous jobs in the U.S. You then followed that up with links that proved that claim incorrect- that despite whatever risk or lack thereof, it was still one of the most dangerous jobs you can have.

That said, we are another post into this and you've still yet to make a coherent argument with facts that didn't contradict you, so I'm out. Just in case you need even more proof you contradict yourself, because I'm not coming back to this thread, outside of the article you posted which contradicted your claim, you literally said this a few posts later:
Quote
there are hundreds of careers behind it where there's statistically no or extremely low risk.


Why don't you figure out what you're trying to claim before going back and forth with people.

 

[doitmyself]

To me, the flaw in this entire discussion is that a "spin" is being applied based on statistics that only take into account one metric: work related fatalities. In order to get a better assessment, other factors such as non fatal accidents and illness (physical AND mental), days missed, dollars lost/spent, suicide, PTSD, permanent disability, etc. all need to be considered. That is just one mistake (of many) about using statistics to prove a point. You base your argument on the one piece of pie that is flawless while the other pieces sit there turning moldy and unaccounted for.

On another note, one thing that probably skews a lot this data is that first responders (law, fire, military) are considered highly skilled, respected professions in the U.S. and they receive much more training and professional development than most of the other "more dangerous" occupations. Fishers, loggers, farmers, and other "more dangerous" careers don't get nearly the amount of training that first responders do. If LEO's received the training that farmers do, the numbers would be MUCH different.

 

[M56959]

Bickering. Locked.