This is a great point, it's not in the job description of a police officer to punish criminals. But if you see the types of language that police officers frequently post with on social media, you see them framing themselves as warriors in a battle of good and evil.

Cops shouldn't see suspects as evil they the cops themselves are at war with. Formally their job is to keep the peace, get the suspect into the justice system and allow the justice system to work. Instead cops view themselves as armed enforcers on the side of "good" that the cops themselves define ad hoc.

> They could put the money into dealing with the social problems that cause it to be a "minefield".

I think you're missing the joke here, here's the relevant part of the gp:

> > including more than two dozen mine-resistant vehicles built to fight the war on terror abroad.

> How else will they protect themselves in the dangerous minefields of Atlanta?

Ah, I missed that.

Sorry about that. I’ve edited to add a /s.

It's funny you say that, because legally, the police have no requirement to protect people, as established by a long tail of caselaw; Gonzalez v. Castle Rock, DeShaney v. Winnebago County, and most recently Lozito v. New York City. Even in cases where you would think they were legally bound to protect you, e.g., if you had a restraining order against someone and called on the police to enforce it, the justice system in the US has found that they have no legal duty to do so.

The amount of money spent on this gear won't make a dent in resolving these societal issues. Our police are a bandaid on top of a deep wound that is our failings in mental health, poverty, and education.

>> Their job is to protect citizens

An interesting turn of phrase, but not reality. Cops are there to enforce laws. Some of those laws are meant to protect citizens. Other laws are to protect property, protect government interests, and enforce codes of behavior. This is particularly true when dealing with mental health issues. Protection of anyone quickly becomes secondary to physically stopping the person who is acting strangely.

That's an interesting set of distinctions without a difference.

> Some of those laws are meant to protect citizens.

Laws are made for the just common good. They may not be ideal, but that's what they exist for.

> Other laws are to protect property,

Again, for the sake of the common good. The ability to hold private property is a prerequisite for other goods we need to flourish.

> protect government interests

What is a government interest? You seem to be alienating government and construing it as some foreign body with competing interests. No, government exists for the sake of the common good of the society it governs. Once governments begin to turn into cliques that serve, e.g., some oligarchy (quite common), esp. at the expense of the common good, we call this a tyranny.

> and enforce codes of behavior.

For the sake of the common good.

No there's a real distinction, to the point that protecting citizens isn't a part of their job, legally.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

I think the parent comment is missing a "/s"arcasm tag there