Which has been the point I've been trying to say for quite some time, while others say I have been police bashing.  Here is an article written by former policeman that even more eloquently states the problem that we have in our police forces, especially when it comes to the first rule of policing.  

Here are some snippets:
"Spend time at any law enforcement training facility in the country and you will likely hear a familiar refrain, “Officer safety is our number one priority.” In fact, this may be the most revered of our guiding principles. When considered figuratively, it can create appropriately strong motivation for law enforcement officers to approach their duties carefully, even cautiously. If interpreted literally, it becomes problematic and perhaps even paradoxical.

A number of law enforcement agencies are currently under fire for their patterns and practices of “stop and frisk.” This is only the present manifestation of what has been for decades a national epidemic of illegal police practices rationalized by the mantra “officer safety.” Frisks are not supposed to be the rule in Terry-type stops; the rule would be no frisk. The same is true for handcuffing subjects and placing them in the back of police cars.  

Yet, some officers perform these actions as “routine officer safety precautions” even in the most ordinary of investigative detentions. These intrusions on privacy and liberty are supposed to be reserved for those exceptional Terry-type situations in which there is an articulable reason to believe that present threats require them. "

And the most important portion in my mind:

"Every officer understands that obligation at a basic level, but this clarity of purpose can quickly become clouded when viewed from the perspective of officer safety above all else. Constitutional law does not make police officer safety the highest priority. Rather, particularly in Fourth Amendment law, the Supreme Court uses a balancing test to decide what police officers can and cannot do under the Constitution. On the one hand are individual freedoms and privacy. On the other hand are the interests of government, including officer safety.  

So, where does one find the officer safety exception to the Constitution? Generally speaking, it doesn’t exist. Generally, the rights of the people trump the rights of an officer to be guaranteed a safe outcome in dangerous situations. This can be an uncomfortable truth, but to ignore it is to operate in a virtual reality that only exists in one’s own mind. The truth is law enforcement is a hazardous undertaking and there is nothing that can be done to eliminate all of its physical risks.

If the choice is between feeling safer by violating someone’s Constitutional rights or taking calculated risks while honoring our oath, the pledge we made when our badges found their home on our chests  is supposed to win every time. As in military service, doing our duty and following lawful orders will regularly put us at heightened physical risk.