[icenine]

Originally Posted by finnbow

We live in a country where significantly more law enforcement officers died in the line of duty in the single year of 2010 (177) as soldiers killed in Iraq in all years from 2010 to the present (118).

Yet, we expect them to make perfect split-second decisions at the risk of their own death or criminal prosecution if their split-second decisions prove incorrect after the fact. Furthermore, these decisions are made on the mean streets of the most dangerous country in the industrialized world with 300 million guns in circulation and a plethora of social problems. How would you like to have a job where your decisions had to be made in seconds and wrong decisions cost you your life, livelihood or freedom?

I've been to over 60 countries and the only places remotely as dangerous as the rougher streets of the American cities I've lived (DC, Baltimore and New Orleans) are Mombasa and Colon, Panama, and then only at night.

This is the backdrop for our laws which state that a cop must only reasonably perceive a threat (even if, after the fact, a threat didn't truly exist) before using deadly force. It's a chicken and egg conundrum. Some seem to contend that tough cops beget tough streets, whereas others seem to contend that tough streets beget tough cops. As usual, the answer lies somewhere in between, though skewed toward the latter IMHO.

OK Mr Law and Order (oh you have not been to Iraq by the way, and I doubt you would get off of plane in Honduras or El Salvador today) give me the statistics of how many people have been killed by the police in any given year.
Good luck.