Another article in the same vein is this one, criticizing the increasing role of former special officers people in military planning roles: https://secretaryrofdefenserock.substack.com/p/the-triumph-o..., seeing it as catalyzing a lot of destruction of US military capabilities.

People need to be bigger on efficacy. If it worked, we'd see evidence of it. No one's bringing that evidence forward and frankly its questionable if US officers are better than their international peers.

I don't think it's accidental the overlap between lack of accountability and the fact that warriors historically are a class, not a job.

That doesn't explain the first ~230 years of US history though, where police weren't this way and we had the same Constitution.

I suspect this fear of guns largly explains the additional risks police face.

assuming everyone has a gun and is willing to use it, raises the stakes of every encounter. so instead of a police encounter starting at a very low risk level (casual conversation), it starts a very close to deadly force risk.

This causes both sides to be a lot more tense, with a lot less room for mistakes. It also makes any encounter feel very risky.

I don't think people having a gun prevents police from starting an encounter at a casual level. But the assumption everyone is out to harm them, and has the means to do so, does.

Even if the right changed, the main actual causes of police caution would remain:

- a land border with a large continent that has a lot of guns and violence and criminality

- millions and millions of existing guns, the criminal holdings of which would not decrease following a change in the law

- subcultures that glorify violence and teach it as a path in life, particularly how to be a man and what sort of man to be attracted to

There’s not much to back this up, at least that you’ve included as reference.

The bigger issue that comes to mind and that you can actually look in to is the practice of teaching police departments about “Killology”. This is (or was) a kind of seminar that taught departments this mindset of “everyone that an officer interacts with is a potential threat”. Add this to the “super criminal” bs that was popular in the 80s/90s, the constant right-wing fearmongering about dangerous criminals in blue cities, and the militarization of police, and it feels more like they’ve been primed for violence from the power structure more-so than any actual threat from the public.

At the range nearly all casual police interactions like traffic stop happen happen at (<20ft), a knife has to be treated just as deadly as a gun. So even if you remove the guns you'll still have to treat everyone as a deadly threat under such a model.

If everyone is really armed, that's the single biggest reason why standard doctrine should be de-escalation first.

But US Cops always escalate instead. They want the fight, they aren't looking for safety.

And more relevant with each passing year. This is a meme that seems to have infected every law enforcement organization.

https://youtu.be/Dz5VzLz67WA?is=pLpKbcgZ59sJP7Co

Those days never existed. In real life Andy Griffith would be an alcoholic who beats his wife and lynches black people who don't get out of Mayberry before the sun sets.

Cops have always been this way.

American police forces evolved from slave patrols. The image of the benevolent police officer only ever existed in media. If ever there was an officer or sheriff that hewed to those ideals they were a unicorn among burros.

[0] https://naacp.org/find-resources/history-explained/origins-m...

[1] https://nleomf.org/slave-patrols-an-early-form-of-american-p...

There's an entire book on this topic if you want to read more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rise_of_the_Warrior_Cop

why not? if its a professional force. plenty of other countries people use as models have military and police linked together, imo we're (USA) just missing the punishment part. Need to court martial police more :). Whole point of police is internal force application right. Can't really enforce any laws without use of force.

I think a lot of the questions you pose have some interesting psychology behind them. Other countries don't have this same level of policing, but also have different prison systems.

I think a large amount of the danger American police face is due to how easily a single arrest can ruin your productive life. One facing the loss of their home, pets, job, important documents, sentimental items might not see the difference between losing everything, and losing everything and taking the guy who's taking it from you, with you.

If we had an actual system based on reform rather than punishment, I think the danger police would be in would be greatly reduced.

You also have things like qualified immunity and general protections for police against being sued for an unlawful arrest. An officer can incorrectly arrest you and you could lose everything and be simply shit out of luck.

If there's no repercussions for bad cops, there's no justice. If there's no justice, why would one play nicely with the law, therefore police are in danger.