if you worked a job where your life is legitimately at risk then you would know that you prepare for the worst every time.

My line of work routinely puts me in the immediate vicinity of equipment which will kill me if I make a mistake. (Huge winches and their associated power systems - some in the megawatt range)

I have yet to injure myself; in large part I ascribe this to the fact that I always think and think again about what I am about to do, and how it may conceivably put me at risk, then take the required measures to eliminate that risk.

However, more importantly - I have also yet to have anybody else injured on my watch. Why? Because I am not only concerned about my own safety, but also that of anybody who are, or may possibly come, within the blast radius in case something goes pear-shaped.

I would expect police officers to do the same - though granted, most of the time they have to make their decisions much faster (which makes it even more important to think things through beforehand - and, hopefully, come up with alternatives to "Shoot at anything you are not 100% certain is harmless, then sort out the details after the gunsmoke clears."

Do troy routinely destroy that equipment if you suspect it’s dangerous? Should cops routinely point their weapons at unknown citizens, with safeties off and their fingers on hair triggers?

If I suspect it is dangerous, I do whatever I can to eliminate - or, if not possible, at least mitigate the risk to make it as low as practically possible - then see what can be done to ensure the safety of people within range even with that residual risk present.

Now, I appreciate that my circumstances are not directly comparable to that of a police officer responding to an emergency call; however, the basic methodology should be applicable in both cases.

Police officers are granted a monopoly on applying force on the civilian population; with that privilege comes great responsibility to use that privilege sparingly and proportionate to the situation they are sent to resolve.

I do not expect the police to disarm completely - that wouldn't be realistic - but as a member of the public I do expect them to show restraint and train -and aim for- non-lethal outcomes in encounters with the public. They have, after all, taken an oath to serve us. I hardly think the best way of serving is to assume civilians are hostile until proven otherwise.

Perhaps this is the problem. When you go into every encounter prepared for the worst, you'll probably find the worst more often than otherwise. Perhaps if they went into every encounter thinking that it could one a hundred different ways, they'd valorize keeping their wits about them, rather than pulling the trigger the first time "the worst" seems like it's about to happen.

Multiple policemen killing random unarmed people is not the worst?

The death of a single innocent civilian is objectively worse than the death of a single police officer.

While any unnecessary loss of life is a tragedy, I would agree with your statement simply because the LEO puts on the badge knowing the risks they are accepting. The victim from this article did not. He simply answered his door, and lost his life for it.

Ironically, militarized police training teaches the exact opposite: the officer must protect their lives and the lives of their fellow officers above all else.

Source?

With unaccountable murder machines freely roaming the streets with the power to kill you at the slightest provocation (real or perceived), you don't have to have be in a particular profession to fear for your life.

Exactly my point: “prepare for the worst”, meaning me a police officer preparing for the worst that happens to me personally. This is not service, it is self serving.

Preparing for the worst means wearing body armor, not pointing your hair triggered gun at unknowns who aren’t aggressive and whom don’t appear to have weapons.