A building is burning; inside an elderly couple is struggling to survive. A group of firefighters arrive on scene. Seeing the fire, they decide the elderly couple are likely to die and drive away.
The United States is on the precipice of war, the military is on alert and readies all troops, aircraft, and ships. Before the enemy can attack, the entire US military evacuates to allied nations. The US is bombed and US citizens pay the price.
Both scenarios are unbelievable. The military and firemen understand that they exist to protect the citizenry. I expect that both groups would be willing to face a greater chance of dying at a chance save a US citizen. Firemen and members of the US military take place in a social contract where their lives are valued less than the lives of other US citizens. For that reason, we celebrate these civil servants; they value their lives less than they value the lives of an average citizen.
Are police civil servants? Did they sign the same contract? Obviously not, although I’m not sure how the police ended up in a different position in the societal priority stack. In contrast to the military or firemen, we value police lives higher than the lives of other US citizens. As evidence of this claim, we need only to look at rates of police deaths vs deaths caused by police in the US. In 2018, 106 police officers died on duty (an increase over the year before). In contrast, in the same year, police killed 582 people--in California alone… Nationally the police killed over 900 people. I could never point to a statistic where US firefighters killed 8 citizens with fire per one citizen saved. It’s evident that society values police lives at over an 8:1 ratio in favor of police lives.
Is that because police arrest criminals and firefighters save innocents? I hope not. If that were the case than the US should abolish the innocent until proven guilty standard. It should not be up to the court of public opinion to determine the position of a police officer compared to the life of an alleged criminal.
Is it possible that the police have only killed alleged criminals that pose an imminent existential threat to numerous, non-police citizens? Sure it is possible that it is sometimes the case, but it wouldn’t explain the death of George Floyd (see Protests for more info).
What am I advocating? I’d like to see the US reprioritize where police fit in the societal priority stack. Disarming traffic cops is not a radical proposition when compared to the expectations of firemen and our military. I am not advocating for the total removal of police or creating a government that is unable to protect its citizens. In fact, I am advocating the opposite, a police force that kills more than is killed is incapable of protecting us.
Polly Wanna Math 