Cops should also protect and serve, regardless of prosecution outcome. Granted it’s just an oath.

>Cops don't prevent crime, they only catch criminals after the fact. >I wouldn't arrest people either if I knew they wouldn't be charged.

These two quotes seem to be at odds with eachother. A cops job is only to arrest criminals, if they are prosecuted should not be their concern.

Good thing the psych eval for cops has questions that relates to this, and someone with your sentiment would not be selected for training.

"A cop should risk his life to effect an arrest, even if that act will be immediately undermined by the prosecutor and will have no measurable difference on society."

Are you saying they shouldn't value their own lives, but instead behave as instruction-following robots.

I don't know where you pulled that quote from, as it's very 'leading' which usually makes for a terrible quote. a better quote would be.

"A cop should uphold the law they swore an oath to protect, even if it means putting their own life at risk"

... putting their own life at risk, even for no discernable purpose.

Cops aren’t really risking their lives. Statistically they’re more likely to die of Covid than they are of trying to arrest someone. They have armor in their uniforms, carry multiple manners of debilitating a person from multiple ranges. This puts them at a massive advantage compared to your average homeless person or impoverished criminal, who likely can’t even afford a gun.

1. The average person doesn't have your grasp of probabilities.

2. You're still asking him to take a small chance with his life.

I don’t know what you mean here. I’m not trying to be stupid, I just have no idea what you’re trying to get at. I don’t see what either point has to do with my statement.

I don't know how I can be more clear. Maybe you can explain what you don't understand.

The idea that police officers are in constant danger of coming home in a body bag is copaganda. Police work is one of the safer occupations. We don't idolize the guys/gals who pick up our trash, but they have higher death rates.

You are stuck in the normal paradigm of cop arrests criminal -> criminal goes away for several years. But there is a middle step, DA prosecutes criminal, that went missing in SF. So instead, it's, cop arrests criminal -> DA refuses to prosecute -> criminal back on streets tomorrow. So really it is the DA that is responsible for 99% of the crime prevention effect of arresting criminals. Would you do your job if you knew that no one else on your team was doing theirs? That's what you are asking the cops to do.

>Would you do your job if you knew that no one else on your team was doing theirs?

Can and have. Because if I didnt then I am still at fault, just like these police.

> A cops job is only to arrest criminals

I know you were contrasting arrest with prosecution, but "only arrest" is still an idea that shouldn't be put forward even in that context. A cop's job is to preserve public safety. Sometimes that does and should mean arrest, whether or not that arrest leads to prosecution. More often it should mean prevention. That might just mean being visible as a deterrent. It might mean intervening to arbitrate or de-escalate a situation before it leads to a criminal act. It might mean investigating suspicious activity. It might mean helping a desperate person find the aid they need before their desperation turns into criminality. The possibilities are almost endless. If police did their job according to Peel's original principles, there would be no doubt in anyone's mind that the DA's actions are irrelevant.

> A cops job is only to arrest criminals, if they are prosecuted should not be their concern.

Police departments don't have enough resources to arrest every criminal, so they should try to maximize their effectiveness and avoid wasting what resources they do have by deprioritizing arrests of criminals who they know won't be prosecuted.

Then there is no reason for the PD to exist anymore, it's a total waste of taxpayer's money.

The DA, Chesa Boudin, prosecuted various crimes at the same or higher rate than his predecessor.

Over the last 7 years, arrests by sfpd have gone down. This includes before the election of the prosecutor that "legalized stealing" (how?).

Chesa specifically complained about this a few times, trying to work with sfpd on why they were simply bringing less criminals to his office.

The common argument is that the police were doing as they promised: the union came out hard against Boudin during his election, and then held public safety hostage until the public finally recalled Boudin.

Now he is recalled and crime continues to rise.

How does your argument square with the data?