Hacker News Reader

Comment by vacri | Hacker News Reader

Personal safety is the #1 priority of any emergency worker. If you don't keep yourself safe, then that's one less person to be able to help out. Add to this that there isn't an endless stream of people both willing and able to do the job in the first place, and also that training takes a fair while, and it's clear that self-preservation is a requirement for emergency workers.

By all means, question police methods. But to snidely chide them for putting their personal safety first suggests that you don't really understand their job at all.

View on HN

I'm not being snide. I'm saying that they want to minimize the negative aspects of their arrangement with society while maximizing the positive aspects.

Positive aspect: Cops have a benefit of the doubt that other citizens don't have when it comes to the use of force.

Negative aspect: They stop someone that resists arrest.

If you are trying to maximize the positive things you get from the job and minimize the negative you will treat every person that resists arrest as if it were life threatening.

When you add up the benefits that actually accrue to the police (and not just from asking them... like other conservative organizations they generally are very sensitive to perceived losses of authority) you see that they get a middle class life, authority over the physical safety of people around them, and higher burden of proof required to convict them. They also maintain one of the only government sanctioned unions so they have greater economic democratic power as well. They are super-citizens and they have come to believe that the deference paid to them is in fact owed to them. They have convinced themselves that their lives are always in danger in every interaction so they are owed greater deference by society. Its my contention that the danger's they face are not immediately present in every interaction and that they have actually been involved in creating the policies that put them in the situations where danger is greatest.

Its time that they stop taking for granted the powers and position that society bestows. Its also time for us to decriminalize some of the behaviors that the police depend on to bolster their position politically.

> Personal safety is the #1 priority of any emergency worker.

They created a dangerous situation that required guns drawn by not contacting the building's management with an ex-military guy that might have reacted violently.

How the fuck are you going to argue that meshes with personal safety is #1?

> By all means, question police methods. But to snidely chide them for putting their personal safety first suggests that you don't really understand their job at all.

Or, I am capable of thinking beyond talking points and realizing the police actively create a dangerous situation by not even bothering to contact the building's management.

I'm sorry but its ridiculous that they didn't even bother to confirm with the property owner that someone was trespassing.

Could you please reference where I said that the specific activity in the article was some form of best practices? Or where I even mentioned (or even implied) the article at all in that first response to you?

You've created your own contradiction, by the way. In this frothy rebuke to me, you've claimed that the police in the article do not care about their personal safety much, yet the first comment you made is bitching about them putting their personal safety as a priority.

Perhaps you should do some of this 'thinking' you so proudly throw in my face?

> Could you please reference where I said that the specific activity in the article was some form of best practices? Or where I even mentioned (or even implied) the article at all in that first response to you?

Given I was responding to specifically what happened in the article, you are taking my response out of context if you are applying it to anything other than the population of the police in the article.

> You've created your own contradiction, by the way. In this frothy rebuke to me, you've claimed that the police in the article do not care about their personal safety much, yet the first comment you made is bitching about them putting their personal safety as a priority.

> It honestly sounds like they are so self-centered that they only care about their arrest stats/job performance + personal safety. They care nothing for anyone else's safety if it gets in the way of their job performance numbers. That is a horrific concept, honestly.

I pretty much baldly stated they care about job performance numbers more than anyone else's safety. I also focused on job performance over their personal safety. I think the issue here remains you just didn't understand I'm talking about "job performance is #1" followed by personal safety as #2.

> Perhaps you should do some of this 'thinking' you so proudly throw in my face?

I pretty clearly said "job performance is #1" and you are insisting otherwise. I just didn't say it literally which is why I guess you got confused?

> I pretty clearly said "job performance is #1" and you are insisting otherwise.

No, I'm not. I was talking about the part of your complaint where you were saying that police shouldn't particularly care about their own safety.

> you are taking my response out of context if you are applying it to anything other than the population of the police in the article.

The part of your comment I responded to was directly after a quote from a comment talking about the issue in general. Similarly, your comment was also general - after all, if you were specifically talking about the event in the article, it would have been in past tense.

Anyway, arguing about arguing now. Time to sign off.

I quoted the article but I wasn't responding to it?

k..........if you say so

What happens to the concept of service? Public service is not meant to be completely and perfectly safe. Hell, life doesn't come with any guarantees. How does being in a constant state of stress and fear about life help you in preserving your life?

You're telling me that it's ok for a police officer in civilian life in the U.S to pull out a gun and intimidate a person like this article's author who did foot patrols deep in enemy territory, patrolling those very people who would initially have gladly watched him being gorily dismembered by IEDs or worse.

The concept of service is what you're forgetting. There are some jobs, some careers which can never be adequately compensated for in material benefits or guarantees of life.

You do it because of the intangibles- your values, your society's welfare, you country's welfare.

And service never ever comes with a sense of entitlement on the part of the person serving. Entitlement to life even. The only thing that matters is getting the job done right. If this is expected of your military, why shouldn't it be expected out of police officers or any other emergency worker or any other public servant?

It's the mark of a better society that realizes what public service means, values it, respects people who've served their society and still expects and holds up the highest standards of service from service members and not just the military.

Are you an LEO?

"Priority of life" for law enforcement is:

1) Victims

2) Innocent Bystanders

3a) Other Responders (Fire/EMS)

3b) Law Enforcement Officers

4) Bad Guys

"Priority of life" was developed for an 'active shooter' situation, not day-to-day policing. It also doesn't suggest that an officer should take a bullet for someone else, bodyguard style. It's talking about who to protect first, and emergency workers are lower on the list because they have chosen to be there and they generally have the training to deal with the situation.

Priority of life applies to any tactical entry situation (e.g. the scenario described in the article)

Okay, you win. So let's apply the priority of life to the scenario described in the article.

Are there any victims? No.

Are there any innocent bystanders? No.

Are there any non-police responders? No.

Are there any police? Yes.

Are there any 'bad guys'? Yes.

So, running down the list... in the situation where the police are apprehending someone... hey, police welfare does come before apprehendee welfare. In the article's scenario, police welfare does come first.

The guy asleep in bed is an 'innocent bystander', not a 'bad guy'. If officer safety was actually the motivating concern here, then they absolutely would have spoken with security (if for no other reason than to get a quick idea of the apartment layout).

The guy asleep in bed is a 'bad guy', as those police saw the situation. Yes, they were wrong and stupid. But that was their interpretation of the situation.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com