|
|
Post by Obadiah on Jul 11, 2016 7:56:14 GMT -6
It seems like the lack of risk would do the opposite, remove the incentive (personal survival) to use unnecessary force.... In that kind of instance, sure. Police would be less prone to kneejerk reactions that use force. ... Unless we're operating with the belief that the only thing holding cops back from beating the crap out of everyone is fear of retaliation. I guess that's one argument for less gun control. It could also break down whatever bit of empathy cops were supposed to have left with the communities they police (a common suggestion for reform is to integrate cops more with community policing) which could remove giving a damn as a disincentive from using unnecessary force. I'm thinking of decisions made at a higher level on when to use police. Decisions like, "Go disperse this crowd of demonstrators." Since there is a personal risk to officers to be overly confrontational, there is an incentive to (a)not use the police and let the demonstration end, and (b)to de-escalate the situation, and bring about a peaceful resolution. Without the risk, suddenly politicians will be elevating other incentives to use police like, "Hey that group of demonstrators is annoying this other constituency, business people with infrastructure near that demonstration, a constituency that is really rich and I'd like to ingratiate myself with. Send in the police, and be tough so it makes me look good!" or "let's enact some more get-tough-on-crime laws for the police to enforce!" The threat of violence against police is the threat of violence against the state - it's just one more thing to keep the state in check. Obviously, there are other factors that go into keeping the state in check, and police are already overpowering with respect to training and equipment anyway. I'm not sure there is that much difference in making them effectively invulnerable in confrontations, which is what drones do. Still its always worrisome when one of those checks gets taken off the table. Indeed, there is a similar argument in there for less gun control that I respect - this idea that once we give the state a complete monopoly on acts of violence, that the state will not act in a more responsible manner than we would. Of course, the state already massively dominates us in terms of firepower so *shrug*. But, I don't think gun advocates honestly think about it in those terms, I think they just fetishize guns. P.S. I suspect the lack of risk is also part of the reason interactions on the internet can be so incendiary and confrontational. |
|
