quote:

Originally posted by DrDan:
I have wrestled round-n-round about what makes an LEO's job "worse," in a danger sense, than other high-risk occupations. For concreteness, let's look at lumberjacks. Of course, they face the same risks everyone else does, including vehicle accidents, chunks of airplanes hitting them from the sky, etc. What is unique for them is the high-risk nature of their specific activity - cutting timber. Similarly, LEO's have a high-risk activity - interacting with criminals(*). Not all trees are deadly, not all criminals are deadly. The difference is that, once a logger is out of the woods, he isn't any more likely to be killed by a falling tree than anyone else. Sure, all the other hazards are present, but that is no different than anyone else. The LEO, however, can encounter a criminal at anytime, in any location, and under any circumstance. Even when they are off duty, their risk of interacting with a criminal is higher than non-LEO's, due to the fact that they are increasingly being targeted for simply being cops. A lumberjack is not going to get ambushed by a Ponderosa Pine while getting dinner at McDonald's. Cops do get ambushed while eating. I do not know the specific statistics, but even if the off-duty stats are low, the mental toll it must take to always have to be on guard must be exhausting.

I guess this thought can be summarized this way: most high-risk jobs have their risks limited in time and location allowing those facing the risks to manage their stress and alertness, whereas LEO's have a much wider time frame and locality where they face their risks.

(*) I specifically say criminal, since anyone causing or attempting to cause harm to a cop is committing a crime. While a cop does not always know who is the dangerous criminal up front, a logger can't always tell what tree is dangerous, either. In both cases, knowledgable and experienced practitioners will be better in their predictions, but neither is perfect.

quote:

Originally posted by DrDan:
I guess this thought can be summarized this way: most high-risk jobs have their risks limited in time and location allowing those facing the risks to manage their stress and alertness, whereas LEO's have a much wider time frame and locality where they face their risks.

quote:

Originally posted by DrDan:
I have wrestled round-n-round about what makes an LEO's job "worse," in a danger sense, than other high-risk occupations. For concreteness, let's look at lumberjacks. Of course, they face the same risks everyone else does, including vehicle accidents, chunks of airplanes hitting them from the sky, etc. What is unique for them is the high-risk nature of their specific activity - cutting timber. Similarly, LEO's have a high-risk activity - interacting with criminals(*). Not all trees are deadly, not all criminals are deadly. The difference is that, once a logger is out of the woods, he isn't any more likely to be killed by a falling tree than anyone else. Sure, all the other hazards are present, but that is no different than anyone else. The LEO, however, can encounter a criminal at anytime, in any location, and under any circumstance. Even when they are off duty, their risk of interacting with a criminal is higher than non-LEO's, due to the fact that they are increasingly being targeted for simply being cops. A lumberjack is not going to get ambushed by a Ponderosa Pine while getting dinner at McDonald's. Cops do get ambushed while eating. I do not know the specific statistics, but even if the off-duty stats are low, the mental toll it must take to always have to be on guard must be exhausting.

I guess this thought can be summarized this way: most high-risk jobs have their risks limited in time and location allowing those facing the risks to manage their stress and alertness, whereas LEO's have a much wider time frame and locality where they face their risks.

(*) I specifically say criminal, since anyone causing or attempting to cause harm to a cop is committing a crime. While a cop does not always know who is the dangerous criminal up front, a logger can't always tell what tree is dangerous, either. In both cases, knowledgable and experienced practitioners will be better in their predictions, but neither is perfect.