Am I supposed to hate this? Idk despite the literally horrible clickbait headline and sub-header there's not too much I disagree with in there after a quick read. I think he could be a little more empathetic towards regular citizens but I generally agree that both sides should be more empathetic. He could also use fewer absolutes.
He says he's been in danger in many circumstances and most often been able to diffuse or deescalate the situation, so idk why the headline would be stated the way it is. I feel like this author is probably a good cop who got too defensive in writing this, and then the editors added the stupid headline to get clicks. I hate the title, but while I don't love it I also don't really hate the article.
There is A LOT I hate and I think you should hate. I'm going to use some GIF's to illustrate my own emotional reactions.
1. "No officer goes out in the field wishing to shoot anyone, armed or unarmed."

He starts out with just a shameless lie. If you have any exposure to large police forces (he does), you know there are plenty of cowboy wannabe-bad asses with authority complexes. There are plenty of instances, despite the difficulty that the public has in getting any remotely thorough investigations into cops, of officers
reveling in the chance to beat up civilians and even being glad that "nobody can tell us apart!!!!" so they can be even more liberated.
2. "Working the street, I can’t even count how many times
I withstood curses, screaming tantrums, aggressive and menacing encroachments on my safety zone,
and outright challenges to my authority."

Wow,
outright challenges to your authority??? My god, the thought!
3. "One time, for instance, my partner and I faced a belligerent man who had doused his car with gallons of gas and was about to create a firebomb at a busy mall filled with holiday shoppers. The potential for serious harm to the bystanders would have justified deadly force."
Could you at least maybe think of a scenario that actually involved imminent threat of death? A guy lighting a car on fire shouldn't have even made your trigger finger itch considering that the worst case scenario was that he'd light the match and you'd have minutes before the gas tank ignited.
4. "We are still learning what transpired between Officer Darren Wilson and Brown, but in most cases it’s less ambiguous —
and officers are rarely at fault."

Oh, cool. Glad we got that settled. Hundreds of unarmed people are killed every year by police, but it's rarely the officers' fault. Nothing conclusory or moronic about that.
5. "Even though it might sound harsh and impolitic, here is the bottom line: if you don’t want to get shot, tased, pepper-sprayed, struck with a baton or thrown to the ground, just do what I tell you."

Hmm, yeah, the constitution is supposed to protect against arbitrary use of force by the government. And, while you seem tooootally reasonable and wouldn't throw your weight around, maybe consider that plenty of your meathead colleagues aren't so retrained. So how about: if you want to keep carrying a gun on the public dole, you calm the fuck down and don't kill anybody, you fragile bitch.
6. "An average person cannot comprehend the risks and has no true understanding of a cop’s job."

Yes they can, you self-aggrandizing cunt. Plenty of us have experienced dangerous environments. The only difference is that we weren't armed to the teeth and allowed to use deadly force against anyone we want with no earthly consequences.
Honestly, it takes a HUGE granting of the benefit of the doubt for someone who is remotely familiar with urban policing to think this dude isn't being a hack. Come to St. Louis, see giant armies of cops chanting "WHOSE STREETS? OUR STREETS" as they beat the shit out of unarmed protesters so liberally
that they end up hospitalizing an undercover cop, and tell me these are just scared snowflakes wanting to me home with their wives and kids.