What are you trying to say?
That a piece of jargon with a very specific contextual meaning is at risk of being dumbed down when it's used in the wrong context. As it was in this case.
Elon Musk's Mars Colony Would Have a Horde of Mining Robots
Good, because it sure as hell won't have any humans.
dangerous jobs have risk.
don't like it don't become one.
So, you'd be in favor of cops not being allowed to wear body armor. Because, after all, the job is risky, and it's not fair to give them any sort of advantage that might save their lives while they're acting on your behalf and dealing with someone who wants to kill them.
Your absurd false dichotomy (the police must either allow themselves to be killed, or they are baby killers) shows that you are either pretending to have given this no actual thought, or you really can't muster the critical thinking skills to think this through. Here's an idea: go, right now, today, and ask your local city/county cops about their ride-along program. Do it for a week or two, in a rough urban area. Report back.
police are not warriors.
they absolutely ARE guardians.
No, they are not guardians. They generally are asked to gather evidence and start the process of prosecution after someone has violated the law. They aren't, and can't be "guardians" without being everywhere, all the time, and able to stop everything that might threaten you. That's not even close to their mandate or their capability. If an ongoing violent event happens to occur for long enough to allow them to arrive on the scene while it's still in progress (or, by luck, they happen to be there when something starts), then they become warriors if the circumstances require that. Which is why they carry weapons.
"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh." - Voltaire