Okay, losing vacation days does imply a significant lack of paid income. But at every other job when you do something that can or does get someone injured or killed you get fired.
Most jobs don't demand a steady stream of life and death decisions on 12+ hour shifts with terrible pay. The closest would be the medical industry, and typically screwups are disciplined but rarely result in firing.
Most police jobs don't demand that either. I know retied cops who never had to make a life or death decision in their job. (except first-aid situations which happen often but are different than this discussion)
It is useful for police to have a gun (but not required!), and they should know how to use it. However that doesn't mean they should use one off the practice range.
The most stressful decision your median NYPD officer faces every day is whether to double-park in the bike lane or in front of a fire hydrant while getting their Starbucks. An MTA bus driver makes 1000x more life-or-death decisions per shift.
At other jobs, even committing an infraction that didn't injure nor kill anybody but was against company policy is enough to get terminated. It's often a liability issue for the company.
And that's still the case here? This is just one more possible punishment. I'm sure if at tech companies workers were receiving docked vacation they would be raging on HN.
Tech workers and police are extremely different types of workers with extremely different job responsibilities, working agreements/contracts, and level of impact on the groups that oversee them. We are not the same by a country mile.
current job? no.
a job with a strong union? yes.
a startup with a certain kind of work hard/play hard (really just lots of drinking) culture? definitely, there's plenty of stories like this (and worse) in the books.
Do you think the the people who hold the truncheon of the state's monopoly on violence should have a "work hard/play hard" culture, or union protections that absolve them of consequences when they impulsively act violently?
I think people who "hold the truncheon" should be intelligent enough to appreciate humor, yes.
FWIW framing things as if officers' job is to perform violence on behalf of the state is a big part of the problem. The state's monopoly on violence should be in the hands of the courts, and not individual officers doling out punishment. Police officers should be seen as citizens getting paid to do a good job at something that any other citizen could do if so inclined.
> The state's monopoly on violence should be in the hands of the courts, and not individual officers doling out punishment
I would generally agree, but at the end of the day any state prohibition must eventually be enforced by some level of violence or more mildly, coercive force.
One could write several books about the nonviolent crimes US police have killed people enforcing. And this is my point. The arm of the state must be reigned in somewhere.