[kqr]

I'm sure statistically even the US police are relatively safe (as in they might well be more likely to die or be injured from car crashes, like the rest of us.)

But when the stakes are that high, being statistically safe on average does not take into account what the gamblers' call the individuals risk of ruin.

So yes, I think they have to consider that an armed citizen could incapacitate them for life at a distance with nearly no warning. And this risk is many times greater in the US than elsewhere.

[saurik]

Which is then why police see it as OK to semi-arbitrarily incapacitate random people for life (by hitting them with rubber bullets, for which there are ridiculously many stories of people losing eyes or having internal organ damage--think about how you don't even want to be hit in your lower back with a fist for fear of it damaging your kidney--with studies showing like a 15% rate of permanent disability of some form from being hit by the things) and then tell sob stories about how a protestor threw something at them, which of course barely hit/hurt the officer because throwing things is really difficult? Yeah, no: I have absolutely zero sympathy for police officers taking this position.

[kqr]

It's important to distinguish sympathy and understanding. To solve a problem, understanding is required.

[Nursie]

> So yes, I think they have to consider that an armed citizen could incapacitate them for life at a distance with nearly no warning

That's different, and a valid consideration of risk, as compared to what you said before - "pretty much always have to approach a situation fearing for their lives."

Approaching a situation in a state of mortal fear, every time, rather than with a calm understanding of real risks, and this fear mindset feeds into their behaviour, this might be part of the problem.