"nothing ... is more important than officers’ personal security"
I'm not sure this is true. If it were, why would they put themselves into potentially violent situations? It seems to me the priorities are
1. Make the arrest.
2. Officer safety.
3. Public safety.
4. Justice.
In that order. They are related, to get 4 you sometimes need 1-3. But not always.
'Militarised police' is correct, because this corresponds exactly to what we'd want of our warfighters.
1. Carry out the mission.
2. Be safe.
3. Keep 3rd parties safe.
4. Be ethical and moral.
It's a far cry from 'to protect and serve'. Personally I'd be happy with a squatter in an empty apartment getting away more often in return for not deploying an armed raid with no confirmation based on a single report.
I'm not sure this is true. If it were, why would they put themselves into potentially violent situations? It seems to me the priorities are
1. Make the arrest. 2. Officer safety. 3. Public safety. 4. Justice.
In that order. They are related, to get 4 you sometimes need 1-3. But not always.
'Militarised police' is correct, because this corresponds exactly to what we'd want of our warfighters.
1. Carry out the mission. 2. Be safe. 3. Keep 3rd parties safe. 4. Be ethical and moral.
It's a far cry from 'to protect and serve'. Personally I'd be happy with a squatter in an empty apartment getting away more often in return for not deploying an armed raid with no confirmation based on a single report.