> More like "mostly NOT quite dangerous". LEO doesn't even make the top 10 in most deadly professions.
I'm afraid I've had this discussion before, on Slashdot. Please note that I did not say "deadly". I said "dangerous". And not being on the top 10 most fatal list does not mean a profession is safe, anymore than not being on the New York Times bestseller list means a novel is bad. Fatalities among police are continuing to drop, in the last few decades, partly due to better training, better equipment for most departments, and a rush of funding for police in the wake of 9/11. I think it's also partly due to even faster and more effective responses by emergency crews to injuries that would have previously proven fatal. But they're still at profound risk of traffic injuries, injuries from being the first effective rescue personnel on the scene and vulnerable to bruises, breaks, and burns while trying to help, and most especially to handling domestic violence.
>> It's why it's so important that police, prosecution, courts, and lawmakers are kept at odds, so they can and do limit each other's power.
> When did that start in the US?
Part of it was built into the Constitution, with federal lawmakers, courts, and military or enforcement powers kept deliberately separate. The theory is that if any one department runs amok, the others can collaborate to overwhelm them. The same principal applies to the Army, Navy, Marines, and in the last 100 years the Air Force. The frequent collaboration among the departments is _supposed_ to be about mutual benefits to the people as a while:
There is _nothing_ unique to the modern law enforcement or to the USA in wanting to appear "tough on crime", and the abuses that can result. The novel "Les Miserable" includes precisely this in the wake of the French Revolution.