Cops will routinely put themselves in harm's way but it's almost always on a fishing expedition. They have the person's license number, they can do the stop later in force.
If they think the stop is sketchy, call for backup.
In this part of the world, a cop making a suspected DUI or excessive speeding stop might well be 50 miles from the nearest backup. A trailer without working lights is a real safety hazard on rural, dark roads and a stop is fully warranted. Is the driver just a nice rancher or Good Sam Club member whose trailer electrical connection came lose? Or is he a violent felon, smuggling a few sex slaves, and he isn't go back to prison no matter what?
I spend a bit of time on the roads and I don't care to share them with dangerous drivers or with drivers who won't maintain some minimum safe level of operation of their vehicles.
The same kind of math that helps explain why carry laws can reduce violent crime even if only a small percentage of people carry, also applies to traffic stops.
If only 1 traffic stop in 1,000 is dangerous, how long can an officer go before he faces a dangerous stop? At 10 routine stops a day, an officer has about a 97% chance of having a dangerous stop in any given year. Call it 1 in 10,000 and he still has a 30% chance of facing a dangerous stop in any given year.
And what indicates that an otherwise routine stop is going to be dangerous such that he even knows he ought to call for back up? Should I only carry my gun or wear my seat belt when I think I might need them?
We also know from studies that being a LEO is NOT the most dangerous profession.
Actually, we know no such thing. What we know is LEOs are less likely to be killed on the job than are those working in about a dozen other careers. But it is somewhat simplistic, lazy, or dishonest to equate "statistical risk of being killed on the job" with "most dangerous job".
It may be that being a cop is actually more dangerous than many other jobs, but the type of danger faced can be mitigated through the very types of techniques that are being criticized. Maybe lumberjacks actually face life threatening risks less often than do police officers, but the particular risks faced by lumberjacks are harder to mitigate. Which job is actually more "dangerous", the one where you face a deadly risk twice a year but can survive if your skills are good enough, or the one where you face a deadly threat once in 10 careers but it is pure luck whether you survive or not?
Furthermore, death does not fully capture the full realm of "danger". How often do lumberjacks face the risk of contracting HIV/AIDS or Hep C from a dirty needle stick as part of their jobs? You ever get to go home and tell the wife no unprotected relations for the next 6 months until tests can come back clean? I'll bet that does wonders for a marital relationship.
How often do lumberjacks come into contact with others' blood in situations where donning protective gloves and goggles may not feasible? How often are crab fishermen exposed to the nasty chemicals used to cook up meth?
"Danger" encompasses a lot more than just death.
That doesn't mean cops get a pass to violate rights or demand I surrender my rights to make their jobs easier. They signed up for the job knowing what it entails and they are free to quit any day they like.
But those of us who recognize the dangers from violent criminals sufficiently to go through the hassle of carrying a gun even though odds are we'll never need it, should be a bit less hostile to those who sign up to try to get violent criminals off the street, to keep traffic reasonably safe, and otherwise maintain law and order in society. They deserve a little better than being accused of fishing expeditions being their biggest risk.
Charles
