You're not alone with the s******ing,
Stone 
.
We've had a few discourses on the nature of the 'Warrior' and they ran into difficulties as there was something of a schism over just what a warrior is.
Ultimately, these discussions end up boiling down to what one defines as a warrior. And the problem (as I believe has been discussed in previous threads) is that the word "warrior" is emotionally charged. People, particularly personality types who study martial arts, have a lot of emotional/identity investment with the idea of "warrior." What I find more often then not is that people adjust the definition of the word "warrior" so that they can be included in the definition. Or, they adjust the definition so that NO ONE in this day and age can be a "warrior," because if they can't be one, then no one can.
Anyway, this is just my observation. So, to answer the original question, one needs to clarify (without there being any "right" or "wrong" answers) what being a "warrior" means to them first.
That said, I believe that a warrior is someone who is willing to, without hesitation or question, put themselves in danger to fight for the betterment of mankind. This type of person is, by nature, selfless to a degree, and does at least try to follow a morality and ethos fitting of the kind of person who would do such a selfless act. There is just something inside this kind of person that makes them run towards the danger to help or to fight (metaphorically speaking), and this kind of person couldn't see themselves doing anything different.
Now that I have defined what I think a warrior is, I think that there are many people who are warriors. Soldiers and Cops are usually safe assumptions, but not all soldiers and cops are actually willing to put their *** on the line in a selfless manner, so it isn't always as obvious as it seems. There are plenty of community watchdogs who are warriors as well, but they are even less obvious.
But, I do believe that warriors exist...
So, really, before one answers