What is the difference between a police officer and a fire fighter?

[STALINwasntSTALLIN]

I have been hearing all of these stories of police brutality as of recently in the cases of Eric Garner, Tamir Rice, etc. (I know that police brutality started a long time ago, but bear with me.) Then I started thinking about another set of government workers, fire fighters. It occurred to me that you never hear the following stories about fire fighters:




A fire fighter attacked an individual with an ax
A fire fighter raised a false alarm about a fire in order to break into another person's house and steal their stuff
A fire fighter raped a woman while he was pretending to rescue her from a burning building, etc.

Yet you hear these kinds of stories all the time about police officers. Fire fighters are generally liked by the populace. As matter of fact, most Marxists would agree that fire fighters would be necessary in a future communist state/society/utopia/future, but the same could not be said for police officers. My question is what is the difference between these two groups. Do both groups start off good, but police officers are corrupted by the system? Do police officers go into their profession wanting to be tyrants while fire fighters just want to help people? Are police officers corrupt because their jobs give them more opportunity to be corrupt than fire fighters? After all it is easier to steal a person's belongings when the building is not on fire.

[RedWorker]

While I believe that it would be interesting to address this issue from the economic point of view (e.g., police officers are often said to not be exploited workers in any way, but would fire-fighters also not be? after all police also do some socially useful services), I think the perspective you're talking about here is pointless.

Individuals of all professions rape. What is relevant, rather, is that the police is the state's instrument of repression. It is part of their duties. Whereas firefighters are just performing a socially useful service. Police officers could exploit their position to rape someone, whereas a firefighter couldn't.

[STALINwasntSTALLIN]

While I believe that it would be interesting to address this issue from the economic point of view (e.g., police officers are often said to not be exploited workers in any way, but would fire-fighters also not be? after all police also do some socially useful services), I think the perspective you're talking about here is pointless.

Individuals of all professions rape. What is relevant, rather, is that the police is the state's instrument of repression. It is part of their duties. Whereas firefighters are just performing a socially useful service. Police officers could exploit their position to rape someone, whereas a firefighter couldn't.

I meant abuse their power in general. Forget for the time being about rape. I just brought that up as an example. Why are fire fighters rarely accused of misdeeds and generally liked by the populace while police officers are not? It is the job, the individuals attracted to the job, or something else?

[John Nada]

I have been hearing all of these stories of police brutality as of recently in the cases of Eric Garner, Tamir Rice, etc. (I know that police brutality started a long time ago, but bear with me.) Then I started thinking about another set of government workers, fire fighters. It occurred to me that you never hear the following stories about fire fighters:




A fire fighter attacked an individual with an ax
A fire fighter raised a false alarm about a fire in order to break into another person's house and steal their stuff
A fire fighter raped a woman while he was pretending to rescue her from a burning building, etc.

Yet you hear these kinds of stories all the time about police officers. Fire fighters are generally liked by the populace. As matter of fact, most Marxists would agree that fire fighters would be necessary in a future communist state/society/utopia/future, but the same could not be said for police officers. My question is what is the difference between these two groups. Do both groups start off good, but police officers are corrupted by the system? Do police officers go into their profession wanting to be tyrants while fire fighters just want to help people? Are police officers corrupt because their jobs give them more opportunity to be corrupt than fire fighters? After all it is easier to steal a person's belongings when the building is not on fire.

I'm almost certain that all three of those things do happen. A lot.

I'm not sure about other countries, but in the US firefighters were deployed for riot control at least till the 60's. They operated the fire hose. In this situation they're enemies of the working class.

I think the difference, besides better PR, is that cops defend property via direct social control. With firefighters, their defense of property is direct and not primarily by enforcing laws, although they often do that too. One is offensive, the other defensive.

[RedWorker]

Police is the bourgeois state's mechanism for repressing the people. Firefighters are there to save lives.

[contracycle]

The police are the body of the state that exercises violence against the public. In principle this should only be according to necessity, but more realistically, like an army, they dehumanise their 'enemy'. And seeing as they cannot distinguish easily between criminals and the public, steadily the entire public becomes that enemy.

[Oksanr]

firefighters have very limited power over the public. Really if it doesn't relate to fire they are normal citizens.

[Red Eagle]

I had this same thought too (including paramedics) and I believe it's because firefighters and paramedics perform useful functions that don't repress people in any way (generally speaking of course.) Their function is to put out fires, stabilize someone that is injured etc. While police perform functions that keep class rule and hold bourgeois rule such as clashing with worker and student protests and protecting private property over people. This translates to people supporting them because of their useful functions.

[Slavic]

I think it is also interesting that outside of dense population centers; most firefighters are voluntary. They volunteer because they believe that they are directly benefiting society, and rightfully so they are.

I have never heard of a volunteer cop.

@ Juan Moreno
I think that you are reaching when you state that firefighters are defending property.

A fire is a fire, is a fire, is a fire. Unless firefighters are willfully ignoring the fires of personnel residences over that of private properties, then I think the firefighter as the "defender of property" is a bit much.

[Bala Perdida]

I'm not sure about other countries, but in the US firefighters were deployed for riot control at least till the 60's. They operated the fire hose. In this situation they're enemies of the working class.
I liked were you where going with this, but you lost me after that. So obviously in cases like this it's not as simple as it seems. However when it isn't a case like this, I stand in the position that firefighters put out fires and are usually just payed to lounge around otherwise.
Also many countries have armoured vehicles to spray water now, so I remain unsure.

[RevUK]

Police is the bourgeois state's mechanism for repressing the people. Firefighters are there to save lives.

If you remove the police, you get more repression, not less. You facilitate the rise of militias and warlordism.

[Creative Destruction]

I have never heard of a volunteer cop.

Reserve officers.

[Creative Destruction]

If you remove the police, you get more repression, not less. You facilitate the rise of militias and warlordism.

Hmmm... you mean like the worker's militias in Paris that Marx talked about?

[John Nada]

@ Juan Moreno
I think that you are reaching when you state that firefighters are defending property.

A fire is a fire, is a fire, is a fire. Unless firefighters are willfully ignoring the fires of personnel residences over that of private properties, then I think the firefighter as the "defender of property" is a bit much.They don't usually have the same role defending property as cops, but they do defend property, it's just more often against accidents. And it wouldn't surprise me if a fire department prioritized some property over others, particularly in relation to race.

I was think of protests and riots. They put out the fires, and in some places/times they directly help with crowd control. Haven't you seen pictures/videos of protesters getting hit with a hose? In the US that used to be the job of firefighters, not sure about other places.

It's no coincidence that the two politically untouchable "unions" in the US are the police and firefighters.

[Lord Testicles]

I have never heard of a volunteer cop.


Until now.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Constabulary

[John Nada]

I liked were you where going with this, but you lost me after that. So obviously in cases like this it's not as simple as it seems. However when it isn't a case like this, I stand in the position that firefighters put out fires and are usually just payed to lounge around otherwise.
Also many countries have armoured vehicles to spray water now, so I remain unsure.Oh, no I don't think they're the same as cops, if they're not deployed for crowd control/ law enforcement purposes. However the course of their work is to defend property from fires. I'm sort of thinking in a more general "gatekeeper" kind of way.

[Bala Perdida]

If you remove the police, you get more repression, not less. You facilitate the rise of militias and warlordism.
That profile pic fits you.

[Creative Destruction]

Oh, no I don't think they're the same as cops, if they're not deployed for crowd control/ law enforcement purposes. However the course of their work is to defend property from fires. I'm sort of thinking in a more general "gatekeeper" kind of way.

Well, they "defend property" in a way, mostly, that keeps people's houses from burning to the fucking ground. I mean, christ, when people say that the cops are "defenders of property" they mean that they're defenders of the bourgeoisie and the bourgeois right to own the means of production. Even when firefighters put out fires at businesses, it still isn't even the same. The fires could go on to burn down other buildings and actually harm others, force them out of their homes, etc. Firefighters, generally, aren't the "defenders of property" we mean when we call the cops the same.

[Palmares]

I don't think anyone here is trying to equate fire-fighters to police. Because of course, they are two distinct roles in society.

I believe, what some here are trying to point out, is that sometimes fire-fighters also assume other roles beyond simply putting out fires (which I guess does relate to protection of property, we are living in capitalism afterall) and attempting to saves lives from thus. There's rescuing cats from trees of course. :lol:

But more to the point, the fire department is an institution. It's not homogeneous, of course. So for example, the more rural volunteer brigades have a specifically different character to their more specialised counterparts. And these more urban fire-fighters have been know to, at the very least, collaborate with the police in certain tasks. And again, I'm not painting all these actions they perform together as necessarily problematic. However, at least some are.

For example (and I'm sure there's many others), there was this large squat occupied by maybe like 30 or 40 people. It was pretty well secured, as the squatters were quite well organised. And due to this difficulty, the police were unsure how to handle it. Suddenly, the fire department arrived at the squat saying they needed to enter for safety reasons. And of course, the fire-fighters are here to protect us aren't they? And in they came, with full consent of the squatters. Followed by the police... Squat evicted.

So I think, like any institution, the fire department should be critiqued. Of course we should have people, who are well organised, to help protect others when there is a fire. I've been burnt before, so I certainly know how much that sucks. But the point is, the role of fire-fighting is necessary, but it doesn't necessarily have to come in the form bourgeois society dictates to us.

[John Nada]

Well, they "defend property" in a way, mostly, that keeps people's houses from burning to the fucking ground. I mean, christ, when people say that the cops are "defenders of property" they mean that they're defenders of the bourgeoisie and the bourgeois right to own the means of production. Even when firefighters put out fires at businesses, it still isn't even the same. The fires could go on to burn down other buildings and actually harm others, force them out of their homes, etc. Firefighters, generally, aren't the "defenders of property" we mean when we call the cops the same.You could say the same about cops, that they just stop crime, the criminal could move on to a prole's house.

Now I don't think they usually defend property the same as cops do. But what I had in mind where they would take on a similar role is the Watts Insurrection (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watts_Riots). Here the Black resistance defended themselves against police, National Guard and firefighters. The firefighters attacked them also, so they fought them too.

[Sabot Cat]

I think the main difference is that of power, generally speaking. The police have handcuffs and firearms, among other things intended to detain and maim. The firefighter has a water hose, and sure, an ax, but these are usually tools to put out fires and save people. Functionally speaking, the firefighter is more comparable to an emergency medical technician while a police office is more comparable to a soldier than each are to the other.