Comment by Fargren | Hacker News Reader

Comment by Fargren | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

The number of deaths of police officers on duty has not exceeded 141 for over ten years [1]. Considering every city has cops, I can hardly consider it to be a dangerous jobs. There's almost a million cops on duty[2]. With a yearly chance of death of roughly 1 in 10000, being a cop is probably safer than not being a cop! [3]

Cops in the US receive training to protect their own safety at all costs, even if that may endanger the lives of innocent people around them. If their duty is to protect and serve, they should not be trained and equipped like this. We don't need to fix crime, we need to fix police training, and yes, we have to be willing to increase the risk policeman are exposed to as part of their work.

On a different point, you mention "bad apples will happen". The expression is "a bad apple ruins the bunch". That is to say, if you don't eliminate all the bad apples quickly, the bunch is ruined.

[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2019/05/08/the-nu...

[2] https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2018/crime-in-the-u.s.-...

[3] http://www.bandolier.org.uk/booth/Risk/dyingage.html sorry this data is from 2005, hopefully it's not too different from current

> If their duty is to protect and serve

It isn't: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

> We don't need to fix crime,

We do, by making less things crimes. "Resisting arrest" should not be a crime, for example. Should a suspect attack police, we have assault laws to cover this; why do we need another law for "was not absolutely passive while being put in handcuffs"? (Genuinely curious here, happy to hear other perspectives).

> It isn't: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

Gosh, that sounds awful (both the actions of the police, and the decision of the judge). This failure to hold the police to a high standard is what brings about these situations.

What do you think the police should have done differently in this particular situation (it's an interesting thought exercise)?

Also, if you haven't done it, there's a really sobering mental exercise that you might want to try.

Median police response times in the United States are about ten minutes for violent crimes. 90th percentile is something like an hour.

Don't know the breakdowns beyond that, but I would also imagine that there's a sharp wealth divide in response times.

Imagine that a bunch of large, angry men are trying to break into your home to kill you. Set a timer for ten minutes. Wait. As you do, imagine what's happening, for those ten minutes, because that's how long it will take for police to arrive.

Regarding what the police should have done, I think the Wikipedia article is quite clear:

> 'a call was dispatched to officers on the street as a "Code 2" assignment, although calls of a crime in progress should be given priority and designated as "Code 1."'

> ' This second call was received at 0642 and recorded merely as "investigate the trouble;" it was never dispatched to any police officers. '

The dispatchers failed twice to notify correctly about the situation.

> Also, if you haven't done it, there's a really sobering mental exercise that you might want to try.

I'm not sure what your point is here. For what it's worth, given where I live I don't see how they could break in less than ten minutes (with a key I guess?), and without alerting neighbors in at least 5 adjacent units, who I could ask for help through the window.

> The number of deaths of police officers on duty has not exceeded 141 for over ten years

My point wasn't that cops gets killed a lot, but that young black men are about 40 times more likely to get killed by criminals then cops. Stronger policing actually makes things safer for dangerous areas.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com