Judging Meg Whitman's fitness for governor based on her voting record is like choosing an NBA coach based on how he voted for his favorite NBA All-Stars--it's irrelevant, because the job doesn't involve voting. In Meg's case, the relevant record would be her performance running a large, diverse California organization that must contend with state laws and regulations. (Anyone hear of a little company called eBay? Its finances are better than California's, and it hasn't regularly run deficits/losses.)
A governor doesn't vote anyway (s/he may veto bills, but s/he does not vote as part of the governor's job duties). Also, Meg's personal voting record wouldn't be public even if she had voted.
Below, Patrick and I battle it out regarding Meg's voting record:
Patrick: I do not believe corporate governance has any bearing on ability to run this state or any other. Cal has a very arcane budget process. We need professional politicians who know how it works and can make deals. We need to repeal term limits and eliminate the use of initiatives for budget decisions. While eBay is a great company, running eBay is not preparation for running the state. As I see it, there are currently no acceptable choices for governor at this time.
My response: California's political process is actually really simple--a minority can hold up a budget until their demands are met, which forces the majority to work with them and make concessions. Instead of cutting spending, however, previous/career politicians have been punting state expenses into the future or coming up with accounting tricks to mask the expenses. It's reasonable to believe that if we get another "experienced" politician, we'll get more of the same. We need someone who is honest and tough, not a career politician who will give us more of the same. We also need to cut government spending, which has been out of control for quite some time.
Patrick: a majority of the budget is controlled by spending rules passed via initiative. These initiatives have tied very particular amounts and sources of tax dollars to particular programs. They cannot be changed and the funds cannot be moved around. The discretionary portion of the budget where deals can be made is actually very small compared to the whole. The budget is a mess because we have allowed lay-persons to vote on it. Voting in an amateur corporate figure head will not fix this problem. We need to repeal the whole initiative process and allow the budget to be fixed by politicians who know what they are doing.
Me: California's Supreme Court Chief Justice agrees with you. You both believe the problem is the initiative process--which has nothing to do with any candidate's personal voting record. Maybe you should vote against Meg if she refuses to support repealing the initiative process. That would make more sense.
Patrick: [starts to move away from his original complaint about Meg's voting record] Her anti labor and anti environment positions are as equally objectionable as her lack of political experience.
Me: Well, that's different. There is nothing illogical about voting against someone b/c you disagree with her (alleged) anti-labor and anti-environment views. As for the lack of political experience, you might want to reconsider that argument if you voted for Obama or Bush II--neither of whom had political executive experience before becoming President.
Patrick: Lack of political experience as an executive is one thing, and I agree Obama had none (he did have legislative experience at both the state and federal level). A complete lack of political experience is another thing. I just don't think being a CEO qualifies you to be governor. [Me: a good analogy would be, "Driving an automatic transmission doesn't mean she also knows how to drive a stick shift."] If she spends some time as a big city mayor or in the state debate first she would then be qualified.
Me: Okay, you are saying you prefer a candidate who has some experience in politics. That's not illogical. But thank goodness you've stopped citing Meg's personal voting record--which is irrelevant--to support your choice. Peace.
"And if an epitaph be my story, I'd have a short one ready for my own: I had a lover's quarrel with the world." -- Robert Frost
Friday, December 11, 2009
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Google Case Law Search
Did anyone know about this? You can search case law for free on google! See HERE.
Obama's Nobel Prize Speech
Obama's Nobel Prize speech was underwhelming, except for this part:
So let us reach for the world that ought to be--that spark of the divine that still stirs within each of our souls. Somewhere today, in the here and now, a soldier sees he's outgunned but stands firm to keep the peace. Somewhere today, in this world, a young protester awaits the brutality of her government, but has the courage to march on. Somewhere today, a mother facing punishing poverty still takes the time to teach her child, who believes that a cruel world still has a place for his dreams.
See HERE for transcript of the entire speech. Gotta love CNN's transcripts.
So let us reach for the world that ought to be--that spark of the divine that still stirs within each of our souls. Somewhere today, in the here and now, a soldier sees he's outgunned but stands firm to keep the peace. Somewhere today, in this world, a young protester awaits the brutality of her government, but has the courage to march on. Somewhere today, a mother facing punishing poverty still takes the time to teach her child, who believes that a cruel world still has a place for his dreams.
See HERE for transcript of the entire speech. Gotta love CNN's transcripts.
How Safe Are Police Jobs?
How safe is it to be a police officer? [Update: the shorter version is here.] I tried to answer this question based on the following charts--BLS Chart 1 and BLS Charts 2. I focused on injuries and fatalities.
Injuries: nationwide, there were 14,500 total recordable police injuries in 2008. Assuming the U.S. has between 435K and 800K police officers, officers have about a 3.3% chance of being injured each year. [Note: see end of post for updated stats on the number of local and state law enforcement personnel.] The BLS's injury stats are similar to the FBI's stats (about 15,000 injuries in 2008); however, I am skeptical about relying on injury stats because it is unclear exactly what qualifies as a recordable injury. Different police departments probably report different kinds of injuries. While I don't think police officers are filing reports on paper cuts, I also don't think every recordable injury is necessarily serious. For me to rely on injury rates, I would want to see only serious injuries recorded, such as those that drew blood, led to an ER visit or sprain/fracture/break, or required physical rehabilitation or cortisone shots. I would also prefer to see injuries that occurred while an officer was patrolling a beat listed separately from other stats (I personally feel patrol officers have dangerous jobs, and the data ought to differentiate between a desk job and a patrol job). Due to privacy rights, I don't think such detailed medical stats are available to the public.
Fatalities: as morbid as it sounds, dead bodies might be the best statistical evidence to determine a job's safety. In death, there is no middle ground, and no room for varied interpretation--you're either dead or you're not. The BLS has compiled fatality rates based on occupation, but my knowledge of statistics isn't good enough to tell you whether the method it uses to calculate fatality rates is reliable. As I explain below, I have concerns about some of the charts on the BLS's website.
According to one BLS chart, 111 police and sheriff's patrol officers died on the job in 2008. When total hours worked are factored in, the BLS comes up with a 15.6 fatality rate. There are 133 categories of different occupations listed in this particular BLS chart. If 66 of the occupational categories have fatality rates below 15.6, then you could contend that being a police officer would be one of the safer jobs. However, only 28 occupational categories had fatality rates higher than 15.6. When I accounted for a possible error rate of 1.7 (meaning I would include any fatality rate 14 or above), just 33 categories had higher fatality rates. See HERE for stats. Based on this single chart, it appears that being a police officer is not one of the safest jobs; in fact, it is only in the 25th percentile for non-fatal occupations.
At the same time, the BLS chart used above is hard to follow, because its categorization of various occupations seems subjective. For example, 3 of the 130 occupation categories are listed only as "Government" "Federal," and "State" occupations. It's impossible to tell what jobs/fatalities were included within those categories, or why the statistician didn't lump those occupational deaths into another more specific category. In short, there doesn't seem to be much rhyme or reason in the categories chosen, and it's impossible in some cases to figure out why a particular job/fatality was placed in a particular category. Consequently, the cited fatality rates may be unreliable because they depend on a statistician's subjective assessment about where to include certain deaths. For instance, would a farmer's death go into "farmers and ranchers" or the "farming, fishing, and forestry" category? If we lump farmers/ranchers with "farming, fishing, and forestry," then the total hours might be reduced, and the number of deaths might increase. As a result, the fatality rate listed for "farming, fishing, and forestry" would be higher because of a statistician's decision, not the actual safety of jobs within the occupational category.
Furthermore, in that particular chart, only one category exists relating to police ("police and sheriff's patrol officers"). Meanwhile, the BLS chart splits professional service positions--which are generally safer--into several different categories. It's like having five separate categories for food services (tacos, hamburgers, etc.) and just one for police services--the fatality rate for the single occupation category is likely to be higher than comparative categories. In short, the previous BLS categories seem too broad and subjective to be particularly useful.
Not satisfied, I looked at another BLS chart. This particular chart listed 133 fatalities under "police protection," which is significantly different from the 111 figure cited in the more generalized chart. See HERE. Even with this discrepancy, the numbers in the chart seem more reliable because they are more specific, and the occupation categories are more detailed. However, these more detailed numbers are useless out of context, because a fair analysis must include the number of people employed in each particular job category. (Having one death out of a million employees is much less statistically significant than ten deaths out of fifteen total employees.) Unfortunately, the BLS does not include the total number of employees in the same chart as the number of workers annually injured within each occupation.
Below are the results of the more specific numbers, in order of most dangerous jobs to least dangerous jobs:
Construction (1,005)
Natural Resources and Mining (MSHA-regulated?) (836)
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting (661)
Transportation and Warehousing (797)
Professional and Business Services (410)
Subcategory: Lawyers (11)
Manufacturing (406)
Admin and Support and Waste Management and Remediation Services (340)
Public Administration (includes police, firefighters, environment quality, economic programs, etc.) (315) Subcategory: Police Protection (133)
Subcategory: National Security and International Affairs (53)
Retail Trade (290)
Mining (non-MSHA regulated?) (175)
Wholesale Trade, i.e. Wholesalers (175)
Other Services (everything from nail salons to dry-cleaning) (173)
Accommodation and Food Services (146)
Health Care and Social Assistance (131)
Arts and Entertainment, and Rec, i.e., Sports, Resorts, and Gambling (99)
Real Estate and Rental and Leasing (81)
Educational Services (76)
Utilities (51)
Information, i.e. Media Services (48)
Finance and Insurance (24)
To conclude, police officers appear to have a 2% (FBI stats) to 3.3% (BLS stats) annual injury rate. I wonder: if different people get injured each year, then wouldn't a police officer's risk of injury after ten years of service (assuming the officer has never been injured) rise to at least 20%, and then after 20 years, to at least 40%? Or is it like flipping a quarter, where the pattern of the previous flips doesn't change the 50/50 likelihood of either heads or tails on the next coin flip?
[My sister explains that from a statistical perspective, the percentage would not go up. "It would be 2%/year no matter how many years you work. Think of it this way: if 2/100 people get injured in 1 year, in the next year, the other 98 people won't have a 4% chance of getting injured since they'll have the same 2% chance (this will include the 2 people already injured). The 2% is the injury rate/year. So if we worked for 50 years, the percentage wouldn't go up to 100% because there's no way of knowing if you'll get injured or if you won't get injured again."]
In any case, as I pointed out earlier, due to privacy rights and different police department procedures for reporting injuries, it is difficult to rely on the recordable injury stats. Days off post-injury isn't necessarily an accurate benchmark, either--I remember one parking meter officer took several weeks off after being slapped by someone who didn't appreciate being given a ticket. I wish we had more detailed injury stats for police officers, but I can't seem to find them anywhere. All we know is that officers have a 2 to 3% chance of being injured on the job. (For a reliable analysis of job safety, I agree I would need to analyze job injuries among all occupations, but I just don't have the time to do so, especially when I question the reliability of the injury data itself.)
Also, if we use the lower 435,000 total police employees number (I estimate that there are between 435,000 and 800,000 police protection employees), and assume 131 fatalities per year, then the annual fatality rate for police officers would be 0.3%. If we use the higher 800,000 number, then the rate goes down to just 0.016%. It's important to note that the majority of annual officer fatalities are caused by car accidents. (Jobs involving long periods of driving are more dangerous than jobs that don't require driving.) Thus, to the extent that we worry about violent felons or general people attacking and killing police officers, the stats seem to show that an officer is most in danger when driving his/her own car, not when interacting with the public. (Of course, I am assuming that the annual numbers for injuries and deaths remain somewhat constant, and a quick glance at previous year numbers indicates my assumption is not unreasonable.)
Until the BLS lists the number of people employed within each of its listed occupational fatality/injury categories and also categorizes "recordable" injuries in more detail, there is no easy way to fairly judge the relative safety of any particular occupation. Right now, though, I'd say a police officer working in a random location has a low chance of being killed on the job, especially if s/he isn't driving.
Overall, my impression is that people concerned about safety definitely want to avoid jobs in construction, mining, truck driving, logging, and animal production/husbandry jobs (ever get kicked by a horse?). Large furniture-making jobs (which probably require steel and hot liquids) don't seem safe, either.
Update: my sister points out that a) you must take into account injuries, not just deaths, in calculating safety; b) just because officers don't die at higher rates doesn't mean their job is safe--it probably means their technology and training allows them to avoid injury and death; and c) the statistics do not show the whole picture because officers have a wide variety of jobs--some work at a desk, some patrol the streets, some work in vice, etc. Therefore, a truly accurate assessment of risk requires even more detailed statistics, because a properly done "danger analysis" (my words, not hers) depends on the particular city (Santa Cruz or Detroit?), the kind of job (vice squad or filing reports?), etc. In the end, she says, it's hard to generalize. (I also realized that national numbers would not be as accurate or reliable as local numbers. An officer in Saratoga, CA is probably much safer than an officer in Detroit, MI, regardless of nationwide stats.)
My sister's argument can be summarized as follows:
1. To analyze a job's safety, you must analyze both injuries and deaths.
2. Absent reliable data on both injuries and deaths within a particular profession, you cannot use the word "safe" to describe any particular profession.
3. The data you cite--both FBI and BLS--is unreliable because the stats relating to injuries within the police profession are incomplete and/or not sufficiently detailed to be reliable.
4. Therefore, you cannot argue, using FBI or BLS stats, that any police job is safe or unsafe.
My sister advised me to be softer in my language and not use the word "safe" when discussing police officers' occupational hazards. She said it would be better for me to say, "Because of great technology and training, officer deaths are actually rare compared to what is commonly believed." She said on any sensitive topic, I have a better chance of engaging people and getting them to change their minds if I don't try to be controversial.
I've always known my sister was smarter than me. I'm glad I finally got to post an example that supports my belief.
My sister's arguments are different from other people's arguments, where people would say, "I've personally seen officers get injured," and/or "Based on my own experience, I know they have a dangerous job; therefore, your statistics are crap." When attacking statistics or data, you must allege the data is objectively unreliable or irrelevant or being applied improperly. Here, anecdotal evidence is particularly ineffective, because the statistics I cited presumably include injuries and/or deaths people have seen or heard about. My sister, in contrast, did not rely on anecdotal evidence--she alleged the data I was using was unreliable because it may under-report actual incidences of injury. (She was reversing my own argument--whereas I said the injury stats are unreliable because there could be no guarantee that recordable injuries included only serious injuries, my sister said the injury stats are unreliable because there is no way to guarantee that all officers would report all injuries. Moreover, just because an attack did not create a recordable injury does not mean an attack wasn't dangerous--it may mean that the only reason an injury did not occur is because of an officer's training and weapons.) [My response would be that the FBI statistics list all assaults against officers, including whether the assaults caused a recordable injury; therefore, there is no need to speculate about the total number of assaults against officers.]
Other people (not my sister) alleged that the mere fact that officers wore bulletproof vests and carried guns and tasers proved their job was dangerous. I really disliked this particular argument. If KPMG decided tomorrow that all of its accountants will be assigned bulletproof vests and given guns and tasers, does that necessarily make accounting jobs more dangerous or more safe? Of course not. What if the government's stimulus package allowed local police officers to buy machine guns and F-22s? Does that mean their job is extra-dangerous now?
I suppose what people meant is that the only rational reason officers would be required to wear vests and have guns and tasers is because rational people would not decide to wear or buy vests unless they believed the vests and guns would come in handy. I still don't think that argument passes muster. It's the old chicken-and-egg problem. What if officers and the public over-estimate the actual job-related danger and decide to go overboard just to be extra-safe? There's nothing wrong with supplying officers with vests and guns because we think these items will help them stay safer, but the act of giving them vests and guns doesn't mean there is a statistically higher chance that an officer is actually in danger.
So, in conclusion, most people should be able to agree with the following: one, patrol officers probably have a higher risk of getting injured than other professions, but we cannot know for certain until the injury stats begin to list officer injuries in more detail and by specific position; and two, because of great technology and training, officer deaths nationwide are thankfully rare compared to what is commonly believed.
Update: John Seiler has an interesting book review here, where he lists the most dangerous jobs, as complied by the Bureau of Labor Statistics:
1. Fishing-related workers.
2. Logging workers
3. Pilots and flight-related workers
4. Iron and steel workers
5. Taxi cab drivers
6. Construction workers
7. Farmers and ranchers
8. Roofers
9. Electrical power workers
10. Truck drivers and sales-related drivers
11. Garbage collectors
12. Law enforcement
Bonus: here is another link/article on police officer fatalities and risks.
Update on June 14, 2012: according to the United States Census, in 2010, there were 946,196 police protection jobs in local and state governments. This figure does not include federal police jobs, such as the FBI. More here: http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/governments/cb11-146.html
Update on July 20, 2012: from Washington Times article, July 19, 2012: according to the National Law Enforcement Memorial Fund, a "total of 53 officers across the country have been killed since January [2012]." According to the same article, "Among those killed, the leading cause of death came from traffic-related incidents; 18 officers died in crashes during pursuits or routine patrols, while three were struck by traffic during a stop." Also, "Approximately 800,000 law enforcement officers currently serve across the country, according to the Fund. In 2010, the FBI reported that about 53,000 officers were assaulted in some way, being threatened or injured in the course of their official duties."
Injuries: nationwide, there were 14,500 total recordable police injuries in 2008. Assuming the U.S. has between 435K and 800K police officers, officers have about a 3.3% chance of being injured each year. [Note: see end of post for updated stats on the number of local and state law enforcement personnel.] The BLS's injury stats are similar to the FBI's stats (about 15,000 injuries in 2008); however, I am skeptical about relying on injury stats because it is unclear exactly what qualifies as a recordable injury. Different police departments probably report different kinds of injuries. While I don't think police officers are filing reports on paper cuts, I also don't think every recordable injury is necessarily serious. For me to rely on injury rates, I would want to see only serious injuries recorded, such as those that drew blood, led to an ER visit or sprain/fracture/break, or required physical rehabilitation or cortisone shots. I would also prefer to see injuries that occurred while an officer was patrolling a beat listed separately from other stats (I personally feel patrol officers have dangerous jobs, and the data ought to differentiate between a desk job and a patrol job). Due to privacy rights, I don't think such detailed medical stats are available to the public.
Fatalities: as morbid as it sounds, dead bodies might be the best statistical evidence to determine a job's safety. In death, there is no middle ground, and no room for varied interpretation--you're either dead or you're not. The BLS has compiled fatality rates based on occupation, but my knowledge of statistics isn't good enough to tell you whether the method it uses to calculate fatality rates is reliable. As I explain below, I have concerns about some of the charts on the BLS's website.
According to one BLS chart, 111 police and sheriff's patrol officers died on the job in 2008. When total hours worked are factored in, the BLS comes up with a 15.6 fatality rate. There are 133 categories of different occupations listed in this particular BLS chart. If 66 of the occupational categories have fatality rates below 15.6, then you could contend that being a police officer would be one of the safer jobs. However, only 28 occupational categories had fatality rates higher than 15.6. When I accounted for a possible error rate of 1.7 (meaning I would include any fatality rate 14 or above), just 33 categories had higher fatality rates. See HERE for stats. Based on this single chart, it appears that being a police officer is not one of the safest jobs; in fact, it is only in the 25th percentile for non-fatal occupations.
At the same time, the BLS chart used above is hard to follow, because its categorization of various occupations seems subjective. For example, 3 of the 130 occupation categories are listed only as "Government" "Federal," and "State" occupations. It's impossible to tell what jobs/fatalities were included within those categories, or why the statistician didn't lump those occupational deaths into another more specific category. In short, there doesn't seem to be much rhyme or reason in the categories chosen, and it's impossible in some cases to figure out why a particular job/fatality was placed in a particular category. Consequently, the cited fatality rates may be unreliable because they depend on a statistician's subjective assessment about where to include certain deaths. For instance, would a farmer's death go into "farmers and ranchers" or the "farming, fishing, and forestry" category? If we lump farmers/ranchers with "farming, fishing, and forestry," then the total hours might be reduced, and the number of deaths might increase. As a result, the fatality rate listed for "farming, fishing, and forestry" would be higher because of a statistician's decision, not the actual safety of jobs within the occupational category.
Furthermore, in that particular chart, only one category exists relating to police ("police and sheriff's patrol officers"). Meanwhile, the BLS chart splits professional service positions--which are generally safer--into several different categories. It's like having five separate categories for food services (tacos, hamburgers, etc.) and just one for police services--the fatality rate for the single occupation category is likely to be higher than comparative categories. In short, the previous BLS categories seem too broad and subjective to be particularly useful.
Not satisfied, I looked at another BLS chart. This particular chart listed 133 fatalities under "police protection," which is significantly different from the 111 figure cited in the more generalized chart. See HERE. Even with this discrepancy, the numbers in the chart seem more reliable because they are more specific, and the occupation categories are more detailed. However, these more detailed numbers are useless out of context, because a fair analysis must include the number of people employed in each particular job category. (Having one death out of a million employees is much less statistically significant than ten deaths out of fifteen total employees.) Unfortunately, the BLS does not include the total number of employees in the same chart as the number of workers annually injured within each occupation.
Below are the results of the more specific numbers, in order of most dangerous jobs to least dangerous jobs:
Construction (1,005)
Natural Resources and Mining (MSHA-regulated?) (836)
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting (661)
Transportation and Warehousing (797)
Professional and Business Services (410)
Subcategory: Lawyers (11)
Manufacturing (406)
Admin and Support and Waste Management and Remediation Services (340)
Public Administration (includes police, firefighters, environment quality, economic programs, etc.) (315) Subcategory: Police Protection (133)
Subcategory: National Security and International Affairs (53)
Retail Trade (290)
Mining (non-MSHA regulated?) (175)
Wholesale Trade, i.e. Wholesalers (175)
Other Services (everything from nail salons to dry-cleaning) (173)
Accommodation and Food Services (146)
Health Care and Social Assistance (131)
Arts and Entertainment, and Rec, i.e., Sports, Resorts, and Gambling (99)
Real Estate and Rental and Leasing (81)
Educational Services (76)
Utilities (51)
Information, i.e. Media Services (48)
Finance and Insurance (24)
To conclude, police officers appear to have a 2% (FBI stats) to 3.3% (BLS stats) annual injury rate. I wonder: if different people get injured each year, then wouldn't a police officer's risk of injury after ten years of service (assuming the officer has never been injured) rise to at least 20%, and then after 20 years, to at least 40%? Or is it like flipping a quarter, where the pattern of the previous flips doesn't change the 50/50 likelihood of either heads or tails on the next coin flip?
[My sister explains that from a statistical perspective, the percentage would not go up. "It would be 2%/year no matter how many years you work. Think of it this way: if 2/100 people get injured in 1 year, in the next year, the other 98 people won't have a 4% chance of getting injured since they'll have the same 2% chance (this will include the 2 people already injured). The 2% is the injury rate/year. So if we worked for 50 years, the percentage wouldn't go up to 100% because there's no way of knowing if you'll get injured or if you won't get injured again."]
In any case, as I pointed out earlier, due to privacy rights and different police department procedures for reporting injuries, it is difficult to rely on the recordable injury stats. Days off post-injury isn't necessarily an accurate benchmark, either--I remember one parking meter officer took several weeks off after being slapped by someone who didn't appreciate being given a ticket. I wish we had more detailed injury stats for police officers, but I can't seem to find them anywhere. All we know is that officers have a 2 to 3% chance of being injured on the job. (For a reliable analysis of job safety, I agree I would need to analyze job injuries among all occupations, but I just don't have the time to do so, especially when I question the reliability of the injury data itself.)
Also, if we use the lower 435,000 total police employees number (I estimate that there are between 435,000 and 800,000 police protection employees), and assume 131 fatalities per year, then the annual fatality rate for police officers would be 0.3%. If we use the higher 800,000 number, then the rate goes down to just 0.016%. It's important to note that the majority of annual officer fatalities are caused by car accidents. (Jobs involving long periods of driving are more dangerous than jobs that don't require driving.) Thus, to the extent that we worry about violent felons or general people attacking and killing police officers, the stats seem to show that an officer is most in danger when driving his/her own car, not when interacting with the public. (Of course, I am assuming that the annual numbers for injuries and deaths remain somewhat constant, and a quick glance at previous year numbers indicates my assumption is not unreasonable.)
Until the BLS lists the number of people employed within each of its listed occupational fatality/injury categories and also categorizes "recordable" injuries in more detail, there is no easy way to fairly judge the relative safety of any particular occupation. Right now, though, I'd say a police officer working in a random location has a low chance of being killed on the job, especially if s/he isn't driving.
Overall, my impression is that people concerned about safety definitely want to avoid jobs in construction, mining, truck driving, logging, and animal production/husbandry jobs (ever get kicked by a horse?). Large furniture-making jobs (which probably require steel and hot liquids) don't seem safe, either.
Update: my sister points out that a) you must take into account injuries, not just deaths, in calculating safety; b) just because officers don't die at higher rates doesn't mean their job is safe--it probably means their technology and training allows them to avoid injury and death; and c) the statistics do not show the whole picture because officers have a wide variety of jobs--some work at a desk, some patrol the streets, some work in vice, etc. Therefore, a truly accurate assessment of risk requires even more detailed statistics, because a properly done "danger analysis" (my words, not hers) depends on the particular city (Santa Cruz or Detroit?), the kind of job (vice squad or filing reports?), etc. In the end, she says, it's hard to generalize. (I also realized that national numbers would not be as accurate or reliable as local numbers. An officer in Saratoga, CA is probably much safer than an officer in Detroit, MI, regardless of nationwide stats.)
My sister's argument can be summarized as follows:
1. To analyze a job's safety, you must analyze both injuries and deaths.
2. Absent reliable data on both injuries and deaths within a particular profession, you cannot use the word "safe" to describe any particular profession.
3. The data you cite--both FBI and BLS--is unreliable because the stats relating to injuries within the police profession are incomplete and/or not sufficiently detailed to be reliable.
4. Therefore, you cannot argue, using FBI or BLS stats, that any police job is safe or unsafe.
My sister advised me to be softer in my language and not use the word "safe" when discussing police officers' occupational hazards. She said it would be better for me to say, "Because of great technology and training, officer deaths are actually rare compared to what is commonly believed." She said on any sensitive topic, I have a better chance of engaging people and getting them to change their minds if I don't try to be controversial.
I've always known my sister was smarter than me. I'm glad I finally got to post an example that supports my belief.
My sister's arguments are different from other people's arguments, where people would say, "I've personally seen officers get injured," and/or "Based on my own experience, I know they have a dangerous job; therefore, your statistics are crap." When attacking statistics or data, you must allege the data is objectively unreliable or irrelevant or being applied improperly. Here, anecdotal evidence is particularly ineffective, because the statistics I cited presumably include injuries and/or deaths people have seen or heard about. My sister, in contrast, did not rely on anecdotal evidence--she alleged the data I was using was unreliable because it may under-report actual incidences of injury. (She was reversing my own argument--whereas I said the injury stats are unreliable because there could be no guarantee that recordable injuries included only serious injuries, my sister said the injury stats are unreliable because there is no way to guarantee that all officers would report all injuries. Moreover, just because an attack did not create a recordable injury does not mean an attack wasn't dangerous--it may mean that the only reason an injury did not occur is because of an officer's training and weapons.) [My response would be that the FBI statistics list all assaults against officers, including whether the assaults caused a recordable injury; therefore, there is no need to speculate about the total number of assaults against officers.]
Other people (not my sister) alleged that the mere fact that officers wore bulletproof vests and carried guns and tasers proved their job was dangerous. I really disliked this particular argument. If KPMG decided tomorrow that all of its accountants will be assigned bulletproof vests and given guns and tasers, does that necessarily make accounting jobs more dangerous or more safe? Of course not. What if the government's stimulus package allowed local police officers to buy machine guns and F-22s? Does that mean their job is extra-dangerous now?
I suppose what people meant is that the only rational reason officers would be required to wear vests and have guns and tasers is because rational people would not decide to wear or buy vests unless they believed the vests and guns would come in handy. I still don't think that argument passes muster. It's the old chicken-and-egg problem. What if officers and the public over-estimate the actual job-related danger and decide to go overboard just to be extra-safe? There's nothing wrong with supplying officers with vests and guns because we think these items will help them stay safer, but the act of giving them vests and guns doesn't mean there is a statistically higher chance that an officer is actually in danger.
So, in conclusion, most people should be able to agree with the following: one, patrol officers probably have a higher risk of getting injured than other professions, but we cannot know for certain until the injury stats begin to list officer injuries in more detail and by specific position; and two, because of great technology and training, officer deaths nationwide are thankfully rare compared to what is commonly believed.
Update: John Seiler has an interesting book review here, where he lists the most dangerous jobs, as complied by the Bureau of Labor Statistics:
1. Fishing-related workers.
2. Logging workers
3. Pilots and flight-related workers
4. Iron and steel workers
5. Taxi cab drivers
6. Construction workers
7. Farmers and ranchers
8. Roofers
9. Electrical power workers
10. Truck drivers and sales-related drivers
11. Garbage collectors
12. Law enforcement
Bonus: here is another link/article on police officer fatalities and risks.
Update on June 14, 2012: according to the United States Census, in 2010, there were 946,196 police protection jobs in local and state governments. This figure does not include federal police jobs, such as the FBI. More here: http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/governments/cb11-146.html
Update on July 20, 2012: from Washington Times article, July 19, 2012: according to the National Law Enforcement Memorial Fund, a "total of 53 officers across the country have been killed since January [2012]." According to the same article, "Among those killed, the leading cause of death came from traffic-related incidents; 18 officers died in crashes during pursuits or routine patrols, while three were struck by traffic during a stop." Also, "Approximately 800,000 law enforcement officers currently serve across the country, according to the Fund. In 2010, the FBI reported that about 53,000 officers were assaulted in some way, being threatened or injured in the course of their official duties."
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Another Debate on Officer Safety
Question: how safe is it to be an American law enforcement officer? Below are edited portions of a debate that took place recently on Facebook.
Erica: [on her Facebook wall] In honor of the four murdered Lakewood Police Officers in Washington, tag yourself in my profile pic and make it your own profile pic. The blue line represents all law enforcement who daily protect this nation. The black background was designed as a constant reminder of our fallen officers. Please change this to your profile pic until after their funerals which will be held on Tuesday.
Matt: Erica, we all feel terrible about the ambushing of the Washington police officers. It's important to note, however, that being a law enforcement officer is one of the safest [least deadly?] jobs in the country. In 2008, according to the FBI, only 41 law enforcement officers were feloniously killed in the line of duty in the entire country. When it comes to being killed on the job, police officers generally have one of the safest jobs in America. [Note: I should have said that officer deaths are extremely rare, not that police have "one of the safest jobs in America"--that would have been a more accurate statement.]
Marie: I respectfully disagree with your opinion. Just because more law enforcement officers are not killed on the job does not make it generally safer. There was the SJPD officer earlier this year who got into a wrestling match with a parolee who did not want to go back to prison. He ended up taking the officer's gun and shooting at the officer. The officer was able to escape, the parolee hid out in a gas station until the MERGE unit got there. The parolee took the easy way out and saved the taxpayers some money. And let's not forget the daily scuffles that occur with people who either don't want to go back to jail or prison, hate cops in general, or are high on drugs or drunk. The poor Lakewood officers were just sitting there report writing and enjoying some coffee...then there's the four Oakland police officers who stopped a parolee who was wanted for attempted rape, and looked what happened to them. I fear the day the police chaplain shows up at my door. I think that many in the law enforcement community, or those people who have loved ones in law enforcement would balk at your opinion that it is generally one of the safest jobs.
I'm sure the family of Jeff Fontana would also disagree with you.
Michael: Stating that Police have one of the safest jobs in America is one of the most ignorant and unsubstantiated statements I have heard in a long time. Given the current string of violence against officers, it is also incredibly insensitive.
Me: Marie, for every instance you cite, other ppl can cite a Phuong Ho or a Johannes Mehersle. [Note: for the record, there may be circumstances in both of these cases that indicate either an accident or the justified use of force. I'm not making any judgments until all the evidence is made public.] We tend to think of officers' jobs as dangerous because whenever an officer is killed, it becomes front page news. In reality, the FBI stats show that officers have a higher chance of being killed in auto accidents than by any perp. I do, however, agree with you in one respect: anyone with a job requiring random interaction with the general public--taxi drivers, gas station attendants, 7-Eleven owners, officers, etc.--has to deal with potentially dangerous people. Officers, b/c of their training and ability to use weapons (tasers, guns), usually end up alive and well.
Mike, I specifically cited the FBI stats, so I'm not sure where you get the "unsubstantiated" part. Here is a direct link to those stats, in case you're interested in actual numbers instead of speculation:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/killed/2008/feloniouslykilled.html
I'm also not sure how I'm being insensitive or ignorant when I'm basing my statement on objective evidence. The families of officers ought to feel much better knowing the truth--that the chances of an officer being killed or injured while working is thankfully small. If you want to believe in a myth based on what the media chooses to aggrandize, that's your choice. Personally, I don't see any benefit in making the families of officers feel more scared than justifiably necessary.
Denise: It's good to know that you can read. Unless you have worked as an officer then you have no idea that the true dangers we face on a daily basis. Typical lawyer...
Me: Denise, I've presented objective, reliable evidence supporting my position. You've responded with name-calling and ad hominem attacks. Perhaps you see some benefit in unjustified fear-mongering, but I don't...
There have been many countries with strong police forces--1940's Germany, the USSR, Iran, etc.--but few countries where the majority of citizens have been intelligent enough to value lawyers as well as police officers.
May God bless the families of all Americans--especially Americans who have died while serving their country. [Note: I was trying to show appreciation for all Americans who risk their lives serving the public, not just police officers, but in retrospect this entire comment sounds preachy.]
Marie: Both cases you site have been tried in the media, not yet in the courts. But you bring up another interesting point. Criminals are innocent until proven guilty, yet law enforcement is always guilty until proven innocent, and even then, their professional life is basically over because of the trial by media.
Your stat about felonious slayings of officers, does not address the massive amounts of other causes of fatalities: electrocution, car crashes, poisonings, hazmat...There are very few occupations where so many hazards exist, ON A DAILY BASIS. [Therefore,] "One of the safest jobs" is a flawed statement!
I have had to go to the emergency room to see my husband because of on the job incidental exposure to PCP, I've had my husband call me in the morning and say "It's not me" when a young officer was killed in cold blood after a "routine" traffic stop. You can cite all the numbers you want, but until you a walk a mile in their shoes, please feel free to sleep safe at night knowing that there are people out there who would take bullets, get maimed, and leave families behind, working for strangers just like you to keep them safe. [Note: I never said there were no risks to being a police officer, just that we should examine the likelihood of the risk of injuries or deaths.]
Me: I want to give Marie some more info. The FBI also publishes the number of officers killed due to accidents (i.e., no malicious intent): in 2008, only 68 law enforcement officers were killed in accidents while performing their duties in the entire country. The majority of those officers (39/68) were killed as a result of automobile accidents.
You keep citing instances that are obviously emotional to you, but the FBI has already included those deaths and accidental deaths in their statistics. If the FBI stats leave out relevant info, please let me know. To prevail in a discussion, you have to attack the other person's data, not bring up anecdotal evidence that is already included in the data cited by the other side. Maybe we need better reporting of officer injuries. In other words, maybe the stats don't include PCP exposure and other harmful injuries. Under-reporting of injuries/deaths is one way of criticizing my position, but no one has actually attacked the FBI's data. Perhaps none of us thinks the FBI's data is unreliable.
Marie, I think what you are saying is that officers have to put up with things most people don't. In other words, a secretary at a law firm doesn't usually deal with incidental exposure to PCP. I get that. But determining whether a job is safe depends on how many people are actually injured or die, not by potentially dangerous incidents. For example, doctors and nurses deal with contagious and deadly diseases every single day. However, if the stats show that only 200 nurses out of 800,000 nationwide die and 15,000 are injured from contact with patients (only a 0.025% chance of death and less than a 2% chance of injury), wouldn't you agree their job is one of the safest ones in the country? [Note: I make the same mistake again--using the phrase, "one of the safest," without comparing the "danger" rates to another profession's.]
Denise: Sorry I couldn't respond quicker, I spent the evening out in the rain/snow protecting and serving the citizens of the city I work for...
Matt- I looked at the data from the FBI and based on the injuries portion, it states that 11.3 officers per 100 will be assaulted in some way. That means I work for a 90 person department. My chances of getting assaulted this year will be approximately 1 in 10. A 10% chance of being assaulted--that doesn't seem very safe to me. It should also be noted that approximately 75% of the nation's departments gave the FBI data for this study. I think your timing stinks about how safe my job is, considering it's in the wake of remembering my fallen brothers, but thanks for re-assuring me and my family. I am sure they will sleep better because of the FBI statistics say my job is safe. [Note: Denise makes a relevant point. Denise has attacked the completeness of the data I've cited, which is a legitimate way to criticize the other side's position.]
Jen: I'm sorry but the FBI doesn't know their head from their *ss. They are nothing but glorified accountants. I have the highest respect for my brothers and sisters that risk their lives every day so that we rest a little easier. How dare you disrespect the job or an officer but spouting off some statistic you got off the FBI website. As a current Criminal Justice student and future law enforcement officer, I read daily how officers are killed in the line of duty, commit suicide, or have alcohol/drug addictions just to deal with the evil things they have seen that we can't even imagine. Four officers lost their lives, while drinking coffee, because our justice system failed us. Maybe you should look up those statistics.
A total of 1,640 law enforcement officers died in the line of duty during the past 10 years, an average of one death every 53 hours or 164 per year. There were 133 law enforcement officers killed in 2008, the lowest annual total since 1960. Click on the link for more accurate statistics.
http://www.nleomf.org/facts/enforcement/
Me: [Here, I let my inner snark out, but only a little bit.]
Marie, as admirable as your husband is, he doesn't create his own salary. He requires "desk jockeys" like me to produce something and generate taxes, which support you and your husband. It's interesting that you and Denise are so contemptuous towards someone who essentially helps pay your bills.
Jen, assuming 800,000 law enforcement officers nationwide, the stats show less than a 2% chance of actual injury from assault. Your own link cites numbers similar to the FBI's (133 officers killed in 2008 vs. 109 killed; and about 15,000 officers injured in 2008 from assaults). It's obvious all of you are emotionally invested in this issue, and it is clouding your judgment. That's fine. You have a right to be unreasonable, and you have a right to believe in something that isn't supported by the actual evidence. (Although I have a feeling you guys would have burned Galileo at the stake if you had the chance.) It's a shame good officers have so many supporters who use emotional pleas instead of reason, but I guess that's sort of like blaming Republicans because Glenn Beck is popular, i.e. you shouldn't judge anything by the unfounded passion of some of its supporters.
Dave: I'm not standing up for anyone here [referring to me], and I think that cops ARE under-appreciated, and I feel sorry for any cop injured or killed in the line of duty, but isn't being a police officer a "choice"? Denise- I know you had several jobs before being a cop but didn't you choose to be one? I'm pretty sure you and every cop out there knew what they were getting into and knew the risks before they became an officer. Officers sign a contract stating that they could be placed in harm's way DAILY. Maybe I'm mistaken but isn't that part of the job? Isn't that why police officers make $25-45 an hour? Officers continually make over 100k a year with overtime. I'd love a job where children love me, women flock over guys in "blue" and I get free coffee all the time, but instead I deal with the same cracked out nut cases the cops deal with but without the gun, badge and taser or my God-given right to protect myself like the police do, but that's my choice. I used to like the fact that the sides of the cop cars said "to protect and serve" now they don't say anything at all, go figure...
Jen: when you have the nerve to post some statistic that offends my friends that put their lives on the line to protect unappreciative people like you, yeah I get emotional. We can go back and forth all day on statistics but the truth is they are just numbers. Anyone that know about statistics knows they are not always accurate and there is always room for error. I'm sorry but an officer being killed in the line of duty every 53 hours is one officer too many. Why don't you stick to your pencil pushing duties and leave the real world stuff to us big people.
Me: [I couldn't resist publishing my inner dialogue when Jen continued to make illogical comments.]
Jen, you crack me up. You ignore statistics like they're some kind of dangerous flu (OMG, "numbers"), and then you cite statistics you like better :-) Pointing out the truth doesn't mean anyone is unappreciative. I happen to know a few police officers, and I appreciate any American who has a tough job and works hard. Saying a job isn't dangerous doesn't mean it isn't tough. (A job can be safe but still hard to do.) You guys just don't have the basic logic skills to make the distinction, so you resort to name-calling because you (unfairly) think I'm being unappreciative. Like I said, that's fine. It's a darn shame, though, that we don't teach logic in high school. An educated 14 year-old kid from ancient Greece would kick our butts on a symbolic logic test, and that should concern all of us. Without logic, all we have left is name-calling, speculation, and emotional pleas. That's not how great civilizations thrive or survive, especially in a democratic republic, which requires an informed, educated population.
Chantelle: I don’t know you, Matt, but I think you are an idiot. (Yes, I am a name caller, sue me). I don’t think you are an idiot because I don’t agree with your witty rhetoric or the data you’ve laid out for us. You’re an idiot because you took something that was close to someone’s heart and stomped on it. While it is clear you’ve offended many people, it isn’t really about the intellectual sewage you’ve spewed out. It’s the fact that you went there in the first place.
Police officers choose to be police officers. Lawyers choose to be lawyers, and electricians choose to take jobs as electricians. Do police officers know the risks when they make this choice? Of course they do, but it takes courage, dedication, and heart to make that choice. Somebody has to make the decision to be a sheepdog and keep the sheep, like me and you, safe from the wolves. Evil people exist in the world. We all take steps to protect ourselves from the dangers of the world and try to create a harmonious society based on rules, regulations, and laws. We need lawyers to write these laws and we need police to enforce them and keep order. Police officers get to deal with the people who decide not to respect these laws. What part of this isn’t dangerous? What part of the required uniform that includes bullet proof vests and carrying a gun isn’t dangerous? We can discuss statistics all day long, but it is all relative. What other jobs are we comparing this to? US Marines in war torn Baghdad, fishermen in Alaska, checkers at Safeway? I can name a handful of occupations that make police officers job look safe : Loggers, roofers, pilots. The reality is that being a police officer is inherently more dangerous than most jobs out there. While the statistics on how many officers were killed feloniously, died in accidents, or got punched in the face are true, the fact that there are statistics at all makes this job not safe. [Note: I think my brain froze when I read the last sentence.] One death, 10 deaths, 41 deaths, in 2007, 2008, 2055…it really doesn’t matter. Statistics alone are not a true measure of job safety. Statistics mean nothing when someone you love becomes one.
My intention is not to resort to “name calling”, but Matt, seriously….the fact you even responded the way you did to the first post and that you keep stroking yourself about it, makes you an idiot.
Me: Chantelle, I don't think I can change your mind, but I have to try. I responded to the original comment about the officers' deaths in a way that was really simple: "We all feel terrible about the ambushing of the Washington police officers," but let's not get carried away, thinking this kind of thing is common, b/c it's not. Let's make sure the families of officers understand that all evidence indicates that officers have an extremely high chance of returning home each night, physically safe and sound.
I have no idea how the above comments make me insensitive. In fact, if I wanted to talk like you, I would say, "You are an idiot. What moron likes scaring the crap out of officers and their families by exaggerating the dangers of their job? How insensitive!" As you can see, b/c my comment is subjective, I am just as right as you are when I call you "insensitive." That's why reasonable people don't rely on subjective evidence or name-calling to make a point--it's impossible to show who is right or wrong if people make comments that lack objective evidence.
I felt safe assuming that none of us knows the officers who were murdered, so it's not as if we're talking about friends or family members. Erica posted something to show her sympathy with people who were murdered. I posted something to remind people that such deaths are thankfully rare. We all deal with death differently.
What separates us from the animals is logic and our ability to reason. An animal can feel just like we can. An animal can claim insensitivity. An animal cannot, however, defend its positions or its actions using logic and evidence. It is precisely our ability to use logic that makes us uniquely human. When you disregard relevant, reliable statistics--i.e., objective evidence--in favor of unsupported, solipsistic rhetoric--i.e., subjective opinions--you eliminate what makes you uniquely human.
When you demand that others disregard evidence in favor your own unsupported, personal opinions, you are being supremely selfish. In effect, you are saying that "I, Chantelle, know more than you do about this, and b/c I believe I know more about this topic, I am right." What you fail to realize is that if we all think like you, we no longer have a reliable way of determining whether you actually speak the truth. Separated from logic, the truth becomes just what the majority of people think it is, which may be wrong. Socrates, St. Thomas More, Martin Luther King, etc.--these men suffered b/c of people like you--who believed, in their heart of hearts--that they were right b/c their friends thought the same way they did, and anyone who disagreed with them must be wrong (or, using your language, an "idiot").
150 years ago, educated Americans believed Africans were inferior. They enslaved Africans by force of law and continued to restrict their children through Jim Crow laws. Those same slave-owners disregarded evidence and logic in favor of your brand of "thinking"--that something is right not b/c it is grounded in objective evidence, but b/c the majority of people feel it is true, and therefore it must be true. I am certain American slaveowners also cited their own personal experiences as evidence. I am also sure the police officers who lynched African-Americans did so out of a desire to protect their women and citizens, just like the police who beat Phuong Ho did so b/c they believed they were protecting the public. (By the way, it astounds me that intelligent men like Thomas Jefferson were able to be logical and yet own and mistreat slaves. Jefferson shows that logic may not be enough to ward off evil, b/c a majority of people will always find ways to deem themselves superior to the minority. As a result, we must always be on guard against despotism, and the surest path to despotism is refusing to modify one's belief when objective evidence shows a flaw.)
The Taliban and other despotic groups think just like you. They believe that they risk their lives every single day to protect their people. They, too, are indignant that their citizens fail to understand the real threats against them. Like you, they also believe anyone disagrees with them is an idiot. If you ever think your personal beliefs are sufficient to gauge the truth, just remember the Taliban--they would love a society where personal beliefs continue to stand even when contrary evidence shows such beliefs are false. They would love such a society b/c they cannot be proven wrong with statistics or data. Without evidence and without data, the Taliban's opinion is just as good as yours.
This seems a good time to point out that the reason intelligent people do not inject name-calling into a discussion is b/c it destroys the point of discussion, i.e., to take someone's statement and to determine whether it is true. When I say someone's statement is wrong b/c reliable evidence clearly shows otherwise, it is not the same thing as name-calling. I am citing evidence that is either reliable or unreliable. When Denise talks about the lack of safety in her job, she fails to mention she works in Santa Cruz, CA--one of the safest cities in the entire world [Note: Santa Cruz had zero reported homicides in the past few years]. Obviously, the risks to her are lower than someone in a less affluent, high-violent-crime area--and the number of officer deaths in Santa Cruz over the last ten years supports my point. Even so, she believes--against the evidence--that she works a dangerous job b/c she feels that way. Like you, she has indicated that her own personal beliefs reign supreme over contrary data and logic. Like the Taliban, it is impossible to argue with her, b/c subjective beliefs cannot be proven wrong or right.
When you criticize me without offering a single shred of objective evidence, you do not attack me--you debase yourself. Millions of people have sacrificed their lives to get us here: a nation where people should never confuse unfounded personal opinions with the truth; where reasonable people realize they must use objective evidence to support their opinions; and where reasonable people do their best to avoid the morass of "groupthink."
Denise: Fact: I am a sworn officer for the city of Santa Cruz. Non-fact--that I "feel "unsafe doing so. The reality is I feel safe performing my duties; however, this does not make the job I do any safer. The reason I that I am safe is because if the training, experience, protective vest, and tools I carry including a gun. The fact that I wear a bullet proof vest and carry a gun to work would lead someone to believe that my job is dangerous than most.
You stated that "When Denise talks about the lack of safety in her job, she fails to mention she works in Santa Cruz--one of the safest cities in the entire world. Obviously, the risks to her are lower than someone in a less affluent, high-violent-crime area."
Fact: According to data provided from my department to the CA Department of Justice and then to the FBI, Santa Cruz is consistently above the national average for crime rates. While I do not work for the most violent city, I do not work for Mayberry or as you state "one of the safest cities in the entire world."
Here are two links to support my above statement:
http://www.ci.santa-cruz.ca.us/index.aspx?page=60
http://www.city-data.com/city/Santa-Cruz-California.html
You are correct that the odds of me being killed feloniously in the line of duty are very slim. But I do not know of another profession where more people have been killed "Feloniously" than law enforcement. The very fact that we have statistics for this would lead someone to believe that being a police officer is rather dangerous.
There are other factors that make a job dangerous than just the number of felonious deaths. I provided data from the FBI study in my second post about the number of officers than had been injured, roughly 10%. I do not claim that my job is the most dangerous, but I can cite actual events that have occurred at my department, that help support why this job is dangerous. While I have come home with only minor scrapes and bruises over the course of my career, other officers have not been as fortunate. About a month ago one of our officers was apprehending a fleeing suspect. During that foot pursuit, he was injured and was out of work for 3 weeks. He is currently on light duty. In April this year my department had it's first officer involved shooting in years, a SCPD detective located a stolen vehicle with two people inside of it. They decided to flee and hit the officer with the car. The officer suffered minor injuries. They were later apprehended and uninjured. Currently there are several more officers than are going to be out of work due to injuries suffered while working. I can cite several other examples if need be but I think you get my point.
[I sent her an email thanking her for the information and her commitment to public service.]
[Michael, in a message calling me "arrogant and agitating," said that I had to compare police fatality/injury stats with other occupations to prove that police services is "one of the safest jobs." He's right, even though he wrongly cited OSHA as the agency with the relevant stats (OSHA appears to list general categories of injuries, not injuries by occupation). The BLS publishes the relevant stats, and I'm just beginning to work my way through them.]
Update: I finally had a chance to research the BLS stats. My findings are HERE.
Erica: [on her Facebook wall] In honor of the four murdered Lakewood Police Officers in Washington, tag yourself in my profile pic and make it your own profile pic. The blue line represents all law enforcement who daily protect this nation. The black background was designed as a constant reminder of our fallen officers. Please change this to your profile pic until after their funerals which will be held on Tuesday.
Matt: Erica, we all feel terrible about the ambushing of the Washington police officers. It's important to note, however, that being a law enforcement officer is one of the safest [least deadly?] jobs in the country. In 2008, according to the FBI, only 41 law enforcement officers were feloniously killed in the line of duty in the entire country. When it comes to being killed on the job, police officers generally have one of the safest jobs in America. [Note: I should have said that officer deaths are extremely rare, not that police have "one of the safest jobs in America"--that would have been a more accurate statement.]
Marie: I respectfully disagree with your opinion. Just because more law enforcement officers are not killed on the job does not make it generally safer. There was the SJPD officer earlier this year who got into a wrestling match with a parolee who did not want to go back to prison. He ended up taking the officer's gun and shooting at the officer. The officer was able to escape, the parolee hid out in a gas station until the MERGE unit got there. The parolee took the easy way out and saved the taxpayers some money. And let's not forget the daily scuffles that occur with people who either don't want to go back to jail or prison, hate cops in general, or are high on drugs or drunk. The poor Lakewood officers were just sitting there report writing and enjoying some coffee...then there's the four Oakland police officers who stopped a parolee who was wanted for attempted rape, and looked what happened to them. I fear the day the police chaplain shows up at my door. I think that many in the law enforcement community, or those people who have loved ones in law enforcement would balk at your opinion that it is generally one of the safest jobs.
I'm sure the family of Jeff Fontana would also disagree with you.
Michael: Stating that Police have one of the safest jobs in America is one of the most ignorant and unsubstantiated statements I have heard in a long time. Given the current string of violence against officers, it is also incredibly insensitive.
Me: Marie, for every instance you cite, other ppl can cite a Phuong Ho or a Johannes Mehersle. [Note: for the record, there may be circumstances in both of these cases that indicate either an accident or the justified use of force. I'm not making any judgments until all the evidence is made public.] We tend to think of officers' jobs as dangerous because whenever an officer is killed, it becomes front page news. In reality, the FBI stats show that officers have a higher chance of being killed in auto accidents than by any perp. I do, however, agree with you in one respect: anyone with a job requiring random interaction with the general public--taxi drivers, gas station attendants, 7-Eleven owners, officers, etc.--has to deal with potentially dangerous people. Officers, b/c of their training and ability to use weapons (tasers, guns), usually end up alive and well.
Mike, I specifically cited the FBI stats, so I'm not sure where you get the "unsubstantiated" part. Here is a direct link to those stats, in case you're interested in actual numbers instead of speculation:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/killed/2008/feloniouslykilled.html
I'm also not sure how I'm being insensitive or ignorant when I'm basing my statement on objective evidence. The families of officers ought to feel much better knowing the truth--that the chances of an officer being killed or injured while working is thankfully small. If you want to believe in a myth based on what the media chooses to aggrandize, that's your choice. Personally, I don't see any benefit in making the families of officers feel more scared than justifiably necessary.
Denise: It's good to know that you can read. Unless you have worked as an officer then you have no idea that the true dangers we face on a daily basis. Typical lawyer...
Me: Denise, I've presented objective, reliable evidence supporting my position. You've responded with name-calling and ad hominem attacks. Perhaps you see some benefit in unjustified fear-mongering, but I don't...
There have been many countries with strong police forces--1940's Germany, the USSR, Iran, etc.--but few countries where the majority of citizens have been intelligent enough to value lawyers as well as police officers.
May God bless the families of all Americans--especially Americans who have died while serving their country. [Note: I was trying to show appreciation for all Americans who risk their lives serving the public, not just police officers, but in retrospect this entire comment sounds preachy.]
Marie: Both cases you site have been tried in the media, not yet in the courts. But you bring up another interesting point. Criminals are innocent until proven guilty, yet law enforcement is always guilty until proven innocent, and even then, their professional life is basically over because of the trial by media.
Your stat about felonious slayings of officers, does not address the massive amounts of other causes of fatalities: electrocution, car crashes, poisonings, hazmat...There are very few occupations where so many hazards exist, ON A DAILY BASIS. [Therefore,] "One of the safest jobs" is a flawed statement!
I have had to go to the emergency room to see my husband because of on the job incidental exposure to PCP, I've had my husband call me in the morning and say "It's not me" when a young officer was killed in cold blood after a "routine" traffic stop. You can cite all the numbers you want, but until you a walk a mile in their shoes, please feel free to sleep safe at night knowing that there are people out there who would take bullets, get maimed, and leave families behind, working for strangers just like you to keep them safe. [Note: I never said there were no risks to being a police officer, just that we should examine the likelihood of the risk of injuries or deaths.]
Me: I want to give Marie some more info. The FBI also publishes the number of officers killed due to accidents (i.e., no malicious intent): in 2008, only 68 law enforcement officers were killed in accidents while performing their duties in the entire country. The majority of those officers (39/68) were killed as a result of automobile accidents.
You keep citing instances that are obviously emotional to you, but the FBI has already included those deaths and accidental deaths in their statistics. If the FBI stats leave out relevant info, please let me know. To prevail in a discussion, you have to attack the other person's data, not bring up anecdotal evidence that is already included in the data cited by the other side. Maybe we need better reporting of officer injuries. In other words, maybe the stats don't include PCP exposure and other harmful injuries. Under-reporting of injuries/deaths is one way of criticizing my position, but no one has actually attacked the FBI's data. Perhaps none of us thinks the FBI's data is unreliable.
Marie, I think what you are saying is that officers have to put up with things most people don't. In other words, a secretary at a law firm doesn't usually deal with incidental exposure to PCP. I get that. But determining whether a job is safe depends on how many people are actually injured or die, not by potentially dangerous incidents. For example, doctors and nurses deal with contagious and deadly diseases every single day. However, if the stats show that only 200 nurses out of 800,000 nationwide die and 15,000 are injured from contact with patients (only a 0.025% chance of death and less than a 2% chance of injury), wouldn't you agree their job is one of the safest ones in the country? [Note: I make the same mistake again--using the phrase, "one of the safest," without comparing the "danger" rates to another profession's.]
Denise: Sorry I couldn't respond quicker, I spent the evening out in the rain/snow protecting and serving the citizens of the city I work for...
Matt- I looked at the data from the FBI and based on the injuries portion, it states that 11.3 officers per 100 will be assaulted in some way. That means I work for a 90 person department. My chances of getting assaulted this year will be approximately 1 in 10. A 10% chance of being assaulted--that doesn't seem very safe to me. It should also be noted that approximately 75% of the nation's departments gave the FBI data for this study. I think your timing stinks about how safe my job is, considering it's in the wake of remembering my fallen brothers, but thanks for re-assuring me and my family. I am sure they will sleep better because of the FBI statistics say my job is safe. [Note: Denise makes a relevant point. Denise has attacked the completeness of the data I've cited, which is a legitimate way to criticize the other side's position.]
Jen: I'm sorry but the FBI doesn't know their head from their *ss. They are nothing but glorified accountants. I have the highest respect for my brothers and sisters that risk their lives every day so that we rest a little easier. How dare you disrespect the job or an officer but spouting off some statistic you got off the FBI website. As a current Criminal Justice student and future law enforcement officer, I read daily how officers are killed in the line of duty, commit suicide, or have alcohol/drug addictions just to deal with the evil things they have seen that we can't even imagine. Four officers lost their lives, while drinking coffee, because our justice system failed us. Maybe you should look up those statistics.
A total of 1,640 law enforcement officers died in the line of duty during the past 10 years, an average of one death every 53 hours or 164 per year. There were 133 law enforcement officers killed in 2008, the lowest annual total since 1960. Click on the link for more accurate statistics.
http://www.nleomf.org/facts/enforcement/
Me: [Here, I let my inner snark out, but only a little bit.]
Marie, as admirable as your husband is, he doesn't create his own salary. He requires "desk jockeys" like me to produce something and generate taxes, which support you and your husband. It's interesting that you and Denise are so contemptuous towards someone who essentially helps pay your bills.
Jen, assuming 800,000 law enforcement officers nationwide, the stats show less than a 2% chance of actual injury from assault. Your own link cites numbers similar to the FBI's (133 officers killed in 2008 vs. 109 killed; and about 15,000 officers injured in 2008 from assaults). It's obvious all of you are emotionally invested in this issue, and it is clouding your judgment. That's fine. You have a right to be unreasonable, and you have a right to believe in something that isn't supported by the actual evidence. (Although I have a feeling you guys would have burned Galileo at the stake if you had the chance.) It's a shame good officers have so many supporters who use emotional pleas instead of reason, but I guess that's sort of like blaming Republicans because Glenn Beck is popular, i.e. you shouldn't judge anything by the unfounded passion of some of its supporters.
Dave: I'm not standing up for anyone here [referring to me], and I think that cops ARE under-appreciated, and I feel sorry for any cop injured or killed in the line of duty, but isn't being a police officer a "choice"? Denise- I know you had several jobs before being a cop but didn't you choose to be one? I'm pretty sure you and every cop out there knew what they were getting into and knew the risks before they became an officer. Officers sign a contract stating that they could be placed in harm's way DAILY. Maybe I'm mistaken but isn't that part of the job? Isn't that why police officers make $25-45 an hour? Officers continually make over 100k a year with overtime. I'd love a job where children love me, women flock over guys in "blue" and I get free coffee all the time, but instead I deal with the same cracked out nut cases the cops deal with but without the gun, badge and taser or my God-given right to protect myself like the police do, but that's my choice. I used to like the fact that the sides of the cop cars said "to protect and serve" now they don't say anything at all, go figure...
Jen: when you have the nerve to post some statistic that offends my friends that put their lives on the line to protect unappreciative people like you, yeah I get emotional. We can go back and forth all day on statistics but the truth is they are just numbers. Anyone that know about statistics knows they are not always accurate and there is always room for error. I'm sorry but an officer being killed in the line of duty every 53 hours is one officer too many. Why don't you stick to your pencil pushing duties and leave the real world stuff to us big people.
Me: [I couldn't resist publishing my inner dialogue when Jen continued to make illogical comments.]
Jen, you crack me up. You ignore statistics like they're some kind of dangerous flu (OMG, "numbers"), and then you cite statistics you like better :-) Pointing out the truth doesn't mean anyone is unappreciative. I happen to know a few police officers, and I appreciate any American who has a tough job and works hard. Saying a job isn't dangerous doesn't mean it isn't tough. (A job can be safe but still hard to do.) You guys just don't have the basic logic skills to make the distinction, so you resort to name-calling because you (unfairly) think I'm being unappreciative. Like I said, that's fine. It's a darn shame, though, that we don't teach logic in high school. An educated 14 year-old kid from ancient Greece would kick our butts on a symbolic logic test, and that should concern all of us. Without logic, all we have left is name-calling, speculation, and emotional pleas. That's not how great civilizations thrive or survive, especially in a democratic republic, which requires an informed, educated population.
Chantelle: I don’t know you, Matt, but I think you are an idiot. (Yes, I am a name caller, sue me). I don’t think you are an idiot because I don’t agree with your witty rhetoric or the data you’ve laid out for us. You’re an idiot because you took something that was close to someone’s heart and stomped on it. While it is clear you’ve offended many people, it isn’t really about the intellectual sewage you’ve spewed out. It’s the fact that you went there in the first place.
Police officers choose to be police officers. Lawyers choose to be lawyers, and electricians choose to take jobs as electricians. Do police officers know the risks when they make this choice? Of course they do, but it takes courage, dedication, and heart to make that choice. Somebody has to make the decision to be a sheepdog and keep the sheep, like me and you, safe from the wolves. Evil people exist in the world. We all take steps to protect ourselves from the dangers of the world and try to create a harmonious society based on rules, regulations, and laws. We need lawyers to write these laws and we need police to enforce them and keep order. Police officers get to deal with the people who decide not to respect these laws. What part of this isn’t dangerous? What part of the required uniform that includes bullet proof vests and carrying a gun isn’t dangerous? We can discuss statistics all day long, but it is all relative. What other jobs are we comparing this to? US Marines in war torn Baghdad, fishermen in Alaska, checkers at Safeway? I can name a handful of occupations that make police officers job look safe : Loggers, roofers, pilots. The reality is that being a police officer is inherently more dangerous than most jobs out there. While the statistics on how many officers were killed feloniously, died in accidents, or got punched in the face are true, the fact that there are statistics at all makes this job not safe. [Note: I think my brain froze when I read the last sentence.] One death, 10 deaths, 41 deaths, in 2007, 2008, 2055…it really doesn’t matter. Statistics alone are not a true measure of job safety. Statistics mean nothing when someone you love becomes one.
My intention is not to resort to “name calling”, but Matt, seriously….the fact you even responded the way you did to the first post and that you keep stroking yourself about it, makes you an idiot.
Me: Chantelle, I don't think I can change your mind, but I have to try. I responded to the original comment about the officers' deaths in a way that was really simple: "We all feel terrible about the ambushing of the Washington police officers," but let's not get carried away, thinking this kind of thing is common, b/c it's not. Let's make sure the families of officers understand that all evidence indicates that officers have an extremely high chance of returning home each night, physically safe and sound.
I have no idea how the above comments make me insensitive. In fact, if I wanted to talk like you, I would say, "You are an idiot. What moron likes scaring the crap out of officers and their families by exaggerating the dangers of their job? How insensitive!" As you can see, b/c my comment is subjective, I am just as right as you are when I call you "insensitive." That's why reasonable people don't rely on subjective evidence or name-calling to make a point--it's impossible to show who is right or wrong if people make comments that lack objective evidence.
I felt safe assuming that none of us knows the officers who were murdered, so it's not as if we're talking about friends or family members. Erica posted something to show her sympathy with people who were murdered. I posted something to remind people that such deaths are thankfully rare. We all deal with death differently.
What separates us from the animals is logic and our ability to reason. An animal can feel just like we can. An animal can claim insensitivity. An animal cannot, however, defend its positions or its actions using logic and evidence. It is precisely our ability to use logic that makes us uniquely human. When you disregard relevant, reliable statistics--i.e., objective evidence--in favor of unsupported, solipsistic rhetoric--i.e., subjective opinions--you eliminate what makes you uniquely human.
When you demand that others disregard evidence in favor your own unsupported, personal opinions, you are being supremely selfish. In effect, you are saying that "I, Chantelle, know more than you do about this, and b/c I believe I know more about this topic, I am right." What you fail to realize is that if we all think like you, we no longer have a reliable way of determining whether you actually speak the truth. Separated from logic, the truth becomes just what the majority of people think it is, which may be wrong. Socrates, St. Thomas More, Martin Luther King, etc.--these men suffered b/c of people like you--who believed, in their heart of hearts--that they were right b/c their friends thought the same way they did, and anyone who disagreed with them must be wrong (or, using your language, an "idiot").
150 years ago, educated Americans believed Africans were inferior. They enslaved Africans by force of law and continued to restrict their children through Jim Crow laws. Those same slave-owners disregarded evidence and logic in favor of your brand of "thinking"--that something is right not b/c it is grounded in objective evidence, but b/c the majority of people feel it is true, and therefore it must be true. I am certain American slaveowners also cited their own personal experiences as evidence. I am also sure the police officers who lynched African-Americans did so out of a desire to protect their women and citizens, just like the police who beat Phuong Ho did so b/c they believed they were protecting the public. (By the way, it astounds me that intelligent men like Thomas Jefferson were able to be logical and yet own and mistreat slaves. Jefferson shows that logic may not be enough to ward off evil, b/c a majority of people will always find ways to deem themselves superior to the minority. As a result, we must always be on guard against despotism, and the surest path to despotism is refusing to modify one's belief when objective evidence shows a flaw.)
The Taliban and other despotic groups think just like you. They believe that they risk their lives every single day to protect their people. They, too, are indignant that their citizens fail to understand the real threats against them. Like you, they also believe anyone disagrees with them is an idiot. If you ever think your personal beliefs are sufficient to gauge the truth, just remember the Taliban--they would love a society where personal beliefs continue to stand even when contrary evidence shows such beliefs are false. They would love such a society b/c they cannot be proven wrong with statistics or data. Without evidence and without data, the Taliban's opinion is just as good as yours.
This seems a good time to point out that the reason intelligent people do not inject name-calling into a discussion is b/c it destroys the point of discussion, i.e., to take someone's statement and to determine whether it is true. When I say someone's statement is wrong b/c reliable evidence clearly shows otherwise, it is not the same thing as name-calling. I am citing evidence that is either reliable or unreliable. When Denise talks about the lack of safety in her job, she fails to mention she works in Santa Cruz, CA--one of the safest cities in the entire world [Note: Santa Cruz had zero reported homicides in the past few years]. Obviously, the risks to her are lower than someone in a less affluent, high-violent-crime area--and the number of officer deaths in Santa Cruz over the last ten years supports my point. Even so, she believes--against the evidence--that she works a dangerous job b/c she feels that way. Like you, she has indicated that her own personal beliefs reign supreme over contrary data and logic. Like the Taliban, it is impossible to argue with her, b/c subjective beliefs cannot be proven wrong or right.
When you criticize me without offering a single shred of objective evidence, you do not attack me--you debase yourself. Millions of people have sacrificed their lives to get us here: a nation where people should never confuse unfounded personal opinions with the truth; where reasonable people realize they must use objective evidence to support their opinions; and where reasonable people do their best to avoid the morass of "groupthink."
Denise: Fact: I am a sworn officer for the city of Santa Cruz. Non-fact--that I "feel "unsafe doing so. The reality is I feel safe performing my duties; however, this does not make the job I do any safer. The reason I that I am safe is because if the training, experience, protective vest, and tools I carry including a gun. The fact that I wear a bullet proof vest and carry a gun to work would lead someone to believe that my job is dangerous than most.
You stated that "When Denise talks about the lack of safety in her job, she fails to mention she works in Santa Cruz--one of the safest cities in the entire world. Obviously, the risks to her are lower than someone in a less affluent, high-violent-crime area."
Fact: According to data provided from my department to the CA Department of Justice and then to the FBI, Santa Cruz is consistently above the national average for crime rates. While I do not work for the most violent city, I do not work for Mayberry or as you state "one of the safest cities in the entire world."
Here are two links to support my above statement:
http://www.ci.santa-cruz.c
http://www.city-data.com/c
You are correct that the odds of me being killed feloniously in the line of duty are very slim. But I do not know of another profession where more people have been killed "Feloniously" than law enforcement. The very fact that we have statistics for this would lead someone to believe that being a police officer is rather dangerous.
There are other factors that make a job dangerous than just the number of felonious deaths. I provided data from the FBI study in my second post about the number of officers than had been injured, roughly 10%. I do not claim that my job is the most dangerous, but I can cite actual events that have occurred at my department, that help support why this job is dangerous. While I have come home with only minor scrapes and bruises over the course of my career, other officers have not been as fortunate. About a month ago one of our officers was apprehending a fleeing suspect. During that foot pursuit, he was injured and was out of work for 3 weeks. He is currently on light duty. In April this year my department had it's first officer involved shooting in years, a SCPD detective located a stolen vehicle with two people inside of it. They decided to flee and hit the officer with the car. The officer suffered minor injuries. They were later apprehended and uninjured. Currently there are several more officers than are going to be out of work due to injuries suffered while working. I can cite several other examples if need be but I think you get my point.
[I sent her an email thanking her for the information and her commitment to public service.]
[Michael, in a message calling me "arrogant and agitating," said that I had to compare police fatality/injury stats with other occupations to prove that police services is "one of the safest jobs." He's right, even though he wrongly cited OSHA as the agency with the relevant stats (OSHA appears to list general categories of injuries, not injuries by occupation). The BLS publishes the relevant stats, and I'm just beginning to work my way through them.]
Update: I finally had a chance to research the BLS stats. My findings are HERE.
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
On India
Why India has a long way to go before I will believe in its long-term economic success:
We live in a democracy, but it is not for Muslims. We live in silent dictatorship.
-- an Indian Muslim lamenting the failure of inter-faith cooperation, in today's New York Times
There are 161 million Muslims in India.
We live in a democracy, but it is not for Muslims. We live in silent dictatorship.
-- an Indian Muslim lamenting the failure of inter-faith cooperation, in today's New York Times
There are 161 million Muslims in India.
Is Being a Cop a Safe Job? (More Than You Might Think)
File this under Counter-Intuition 101. In 2008, according to the FBI, only "41 law enforcement officers were feloniously killed in the line of duty" in the entire country. Thankfully, it is rare for a police officer to become seriously injured or to die on the job. For more, see HERE. [Updated links here for 2010: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/leoka/leoka-2010/officers-feloniously-killed and http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/leoka/leoka-2010/officers-feloniously-killed]
The FBI also publishes the number of officers killed due to accidents (i.e., no malicious intent). In 2008, only 68 law enforcement officers were killed in accidents while performing their duties in the entire country. The majority of those officers (39/68) were killed as a result of automobile accidents.
Depending on what types of law enforcement officers are included (corrections? sheriffs? BART cops? city? fed?), there are between 430,000 and 800,000 law enforcement officers in the United States [I know I should have a citation for this, but I can't find a reliable source, so I included a range of numbers based on the various stats I viewed]. [Update on 7/20/12: see HERE: "Approximately 800,000 law enforcement officers currently serve across the country."]
109 fatalities (41 + 68) out of 800,000 means police officers have less than a 0.014% chance of dying on the job each year. Of course, this percentage does not include the number of times an officer is assaulted by a perp or random stranger. Even so, law enforcement families should sleep soundly--a 0.014% chance of dying while working means officers have safer jobs than most people commonly think. Of course, that doesn't mean the job isn't tough. Being a street cop is a stressful job, and I wish we'd lower public employees' long-term benefits so we could put the money towards hiring more officers and reducing the number of continuous hours that individual officers spend on duty.
This is no idle debate--the more people who (incorrectly) think officers' jobs are overly dangerous, the more likely the public will allow officers to use excessive force against citizens. Also, if officers overestimate the actual danger they are in, they will use less patient methods of interacting with citizens. That impatience may make you the next Phuong Ho (an unarmed SJSU student who was beaten by police officers because of their failure to properly assess the actual level of the threat against them while Mr. Ho attempted to look for his glasses).
If, however, the public understands that officers have a tough job because they work excessive hours and suffer from sleep deprivation, then we can fix the problem by hiring more police officers, reducing hours spent on patrol, etc.--steps that will increase an officer's chances of accurately assessing the true level of a threat before resorting to force. But without understanding the actual problems of the job, we will focus on the wrong item--danger--which will increase friction between the public and the police as police continue to use impatient, violent methods of subduing/controlling citizens.
Advancing the truth--that police jobs are tough, but safer than people commonly believe--will mean better safety for all citizens, and better mental health for all police officers. Also, the more people who understand that it is rare for an officer to be killed on the job due to their excellent training, the more qualified applicants we will receive. Speaking the truth about officer safety is a fight worth having, even if it's a controversial one.
The FBI also publishes the number of officers killed due to accidents (i.e., no malicious intent). In 2008, only 68 law enforcement officers were killed in accidents while performing their duties in the entire country. The majority of those officers (39/68) were killed as a result of automobile accidents.
Depending on what types of law enforcement officers are included (corrections? sheriffs? BART cops? city? fed?), there are between 430,000 and 800,000 law enforcement officers in the United States [I know I should have a citation for this, but I can't find a reliable source, so I included a range of numbers based on the various stats I viewed]. [Update on 7/20/12: see HERE: "Approximately 800,000 law enforcement officers currently serve across the country."]
109 fatalities (41 + 68) out of 800,000 means police officers have less than a 0.014% chance of dying on the job each year. Of course, this percentage does not include the number of times an officer is assaulted by a perp or random stranger. Even so, law enforcement families should sleep soundly--a 0.014% chance of dying while working means officers have safer jobs than most people commonly think. Of course, that doesn't mean the job isn't tough. Being a street cop is a stressful job, and I wish we'd lower public employees' long-term benefits so we could put the money towards hiring more officers and reducing the number of continuous hours that individual officers spend on duty.
This is no idle debate--the more people who (incorrectly) think officers' jobs are overly dangerous, the more likely the public will allow officers to use excessive force against citizens. Also, if officers overestimate the actual danger they are in, they will use less patient methods of interacting with citizens. That impatience may make you the next Phuong Ho (an unarmed SJSU student who was beaten by police officers because of their failure to properly assess the actual level of the threat against them while Mr. Ho attempted to look for his glasses).
If, however, the public understands that officers have a tough job because they work excessive hours and suffer from sleep deprivation, then we can fix the problem by hiring more police officers, reducing hours spent on patrol, etc.--steps that will increase an officer's chances of accurately assessing the true level of a threat before resorting to force. But without understanding the actual problems of the job, we will focus on the wrong item--danger--which will increase friction between the public and the police as police continue to use impatient, violent methods of subduing/controlling citizens.
Advancing the truth--that police jobs are tough, but safer than people commonly believe--will mean better safety for all citizens, and better mental health for all police officers. Also, the more people who understand that it is rare for an officer to be killed on the job due to their excellent training, the more qualified applicants we will receive. Speaking the truth about officer safety is a fight worth having, even if it's a controversial one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)