The benefit of officer risking his life is that he/she a literal stake in making a decision. It is not supposed to be an easy job. The moment that officer is plopped down behind a screen, the situation immediately becomes less real. He does not have stakes in the situation, which has benefits ( less officers killed ) and serious drawbacks ( population is policed by unaccountable robots, which does wonders for the population accepting that level of control ). And police already has a LOT of latitude is US, when it comes to policing.
Do I really need to explain the basics of policing? The only reason it even works to begin with is that society allows it to be so ( because you know.. there is only so many officers and so many more non-officers surrounding them ). You do NOT want to further separate them from the society, in which they operate as it will become easier for the populace to believe that they, the police, is, in fact, the enemy. Even despots know this, which is the reason why they absolutely fear any real demonstrations, because they are hard to quell with pure, brute force -- especially these days.
Do you need proof? Look at BLM protests. Note, that police was literally afraid to touch those for fear that it could really escalate.
<< People generally don't like dying.
I think like with a solider, that person picked a wrong job. The job comes with a risk. It is not in small print either. Them are the breaks.
Killing someone is not supposed to be a simple choice, but this is a step to make police even less accountable.
<< Removing all risk from the situation for an officer only serves to make them more accountable.
Removing all risk means they will be reckless. That is how an average human responds to 'no stakes' situation.
With very few exceptions, anybody in a life threatening (or what they perceive to be a life threatening) situation is going to pick themselves over a person that they don't know and believe is trying to kill them. It is exceedingly hard to train this out of people and the only way to know whether or not you successfully have is to observe them in actual gunfights. I would even go as far to say that the trait is probably concerning from a psychological standpoint and the pool of people you would reliably find it in would raise some eyebrows, too.
Getting an officer's skin in the game doesn't make them think about what they're doing. It results in them deciding in 1-2 seconds that they're in a dangerous situation, and they're going home no matter what. I really don't think you understand what being in a life-or-death situation does to normal, mentally sound people. The idea that officers having time to decide whether or not lethal force is necessary is a bad thing just doesn't make sense.
<<I really don't think you understand what being in a life-or-death situation does to normal, mentally sound people.
I absolutely accept that life or death situations have an immediate and huge impact on anyone ( edit: maybe with exceptions of true psychopaths, but how rare those are is hard to accurately estimate it seems ). There is zero argument about that. However, my argument is not that it does not have an impact. My argument is that their life being threatened and them having to make a decision that happens to involve them physically is better for a society as a whole in an abstract than a remotely controlled AR-15 on wheels, because this is where the this argument is logically headed. My argument is: pick your poison. I am saying: send a human in.
Because, and here is the kicker, the moment cops start using those, you can rest assured it will not stay in those hands exclusively as people adapt to new normal ( edit: I do not want to spell those out on a public forum for fear of giving people ideas, but I am sure you can think of some ways this arms race could escalate further ). Unless this is the goal ( further destabilization of society ), in which case that is a really good approach.
<<Getting an officer's skin in the game doesn't make them think about what they're doing.
Maybe some clarification is needed on my point. The moment an officer is walking on the street, their skin is in the game literally and figuratively. It is their job to be visible arm of the law and confirm to the general population that the rules are, in fact, being enforced. If they are not considering what they are doing, maybe this is not a career for them.
<< I would even go as far to say that the trait is probably concerning from a psychological standpoint and the pool of people you would reliably find it in would raise some eyebrows, too.
I am willing to agree and it goes back to my previous point. It is not a job for everyone.
Note. I am saying all this with cops in my extended family. I do not want them to die. I do not want expansion of police state either. Some balance is required. That balance is not achieved with gun toting robots - whether they are remote controlled or not.
The benefit of officer risking his life is that he/she a literal stake in making a decision. It is not supposed to be an easy job. The moment that officer is plopped down behind a screen, the situation immediately becomes less real. He does not have stakes in the situation, which has benefits ( less officers killed ) and serious drawbacks ( population is policed by unaccountable robots, which does wonders for the population accepting that level of control ). And police already has a LOT of latitude is US, when it comes to policing.
Do I really need to explain the basics of policing? The only reason it even works to begin with is that society allows it to be so ( because you know.. there is only so many officers and so many more non-officers surrounding them ). You do NOT want to further separate them from the society, in which they operate as it will become easier for the populace to believe that they, the police, is, in fact, the enemy. Even despots know this, which is the reason why they absolutely fear any real demonstrations, because they are hard to quell with pure, brute force -- especially these days.
Do you need proof? Look at BLM protests. Note, that police was literally afraid to touch those for fear that it could really escalate.
<< People generally don't like dying.
I think like with a solider, that person picked a wrong job. The job comes with a risk. It is not in small print either. Them are the breaks.
Killing someone is not supposed to be a simple choice, but this is a step to make police even less accountable.
<< Removing all risk from the situation for an officer only serves to make them more accountable.
Removing all risk means they will be reckless. That is how an average human responds to 'no stakes' situation.