← Back to context

Comment by foxglacier

13 days ago

> I suppose what I don't understand is why giving them access to more and easier-to-abuse technology would be a "good" thing.

I see. It's clear that you're ignoring the whole reason police exist which is to prevent crime. Of course a handicapped police force would prevent less crime than a well-resourced one. That's why it would be a good thing to give them more and easier to abuse technology.

The question is where the right balance is. Maybe having cars is OK because it helps them prevent more crime than what they cause by, say, running people over. Whereas having guns could be a net negative because more people are shot by police than protected by them with their guns. But without data, it's just opinions, probably formed from whatever bias the news has. The fact that you named an individual case suggests your opinion is based on biased news instead of data.

Hoss, you're gonna have a real, real hard time in life if you think that people presenting specific cases means that they aren't aware of the larger patterns of data.

But that level of logic follows from what you're writing here, so it's not surprising you think that...