5 ms·

Slippery slope argument, meet Reality. Reality, this is Slippery slope!

fapjacks 11y ago
Apparently you don't know many police officers. This, in fact, was inevitable, following specifically from the circumstance that many police officers are also reserve soldiers and spent time in Iraq and Afghanistan using those tools. I'd estimate the vast majority of law enforcement organizations in the US have personnel that are also in the reserves or guard. I deployed with many police officers, and heard many of those police officers talk specifically about getting a hold of these biometrics tools for use in law enforcement back home. You're right that not everyone shares my somewhat unique perspective, and so to those who have no relationship with police officers and are therefore ignorant of the facts, it may seem fallacious. And also it's fun to make those quippy accusations, so I understand the impulse.
- marincounty 11y ago
  Personally, I kinda of tired of veterans thinking they would be great cops when their tour ends! I was told by a Cop friend that what matters is still how well you do on the written, physical tests, and the Psy. Evaluation. They do like some college, and civilian experience. Military experience is not seeked out like it was in the past. Being a soldier and being a Cop are take different skill sets. I don't want to get into all the differances, and I don't want to argue with anyone, but I'll take a shy security guard, over a "gung ho" guy who wants to see some action? Our streets are not the streets of Iraq, or Afganistan. I have the highest regard for any ex-military. I think you guys/ladies should get first shot at any federal job--including jobs that involve public safety. I think most of you know by now that being veterans doesn't mean much to most civilian police departments in the hiring process. It should because you served your country, and need a job when you get home. Most of you are intelligent enough to realize civilian police departments should not be run like military operations. I do cringe when I hear, usually ex-marines talk/think they will be shoe-ins when they get home and apply to the academy. (I hope you guys don't take this wrong way, but I think most you know what I'm getting at?). Meaning--war is vastly different than basically revenue collection, and dealing with the public! Yes--most departments are still training officers in a military fashion, but that's been changing. Hopefully, it will change quicker? The more progressive departments are changing training procedures as I write this, at least that's what I heard. One of the biggest reasons, I was told was the proliferation of lawsuits that are being levied against aggressive, illegial police tactics, and cameras are Everywhere. The days of coverups/"Blue code of Honor" are over, for the most part. My friend said they are over. I haven't seen much of a change yet.
  - fapjacks 11y ago
    No, your perspective is absolutely the right one: It is critically imperative that we separate warzones from domestic law enforcement in every way possible. I personally believe that combat vets should not be allowed to serve as police officers. Security guards? Sure. Bodyguards? Sure. Law enforcement? No. That's my personal opinion, because it should not be normal to flashbang a building, kick the door in, and rush inside with weapons drawn. But that's how American police departments are beginning to serve warrants for traffic violations. And it doesn't end there, but in particular that distinction is incredibly important. You hit the nail on the head and I could not possibly agree with you more.
- msandford 11y ago
  > This, in fact, was inevitable Agreed! This is a perfect example of people arguing "slippery slope!!" when the tech first came out and getting shouted down repeatedly. Now they're being vindicated, as it's absolutely happening exactly as predicted. My point is that the slippery slope argument is often used and no matter how many times people say it's invalid or unlikely, is often right.
  - fapjacks 11y ago
    I completely misinterpreted your comment. I read your comment as saying that I was guilty of the fallacy. You're right, though, it seems people are quick to make this kind of argument about this issue, as though we're supposed to believe that our police forces aren't being militarized.
- woodman 11y ago
  Your perspective is not very unique, there are a lot of veterans due to high churn. It is my experience that there is very little crossover between the military and police. Of the hundred-something guys in my last company, only two went on to law enforcement. A few years ago I had a nonmilitary friend go through one of the country's top police academies, and his stories aligned with my experiences - there weren't a lot of veterans in his class. The local PD has 120 officers, of that only two are veterans (neither of them were combat arms). I have my theories about why this is, but that is another discussion. So the whole narrative, where police militarization is due to veteran hires, rings pretty hollow for me. What we are seeing here is the result of an end-justifies-the-means mentality. The military has the same mentality, but this is very deliberately tempered by a focus on honor and duty - something that law enforcement lacks by comparison.
  - fapjacks 11y ago
    That's interesting. What was your MOS? In the infantry, we had a much higher ratio of police officers, and I was in a few different units which had higher ratios than yours. In my last company alone we had -- roughly estimating here -- fifteen or twenty law enforcement officers of various kinds.
    - woodman 11y ago
      0331, infantry machine gunner. We saw a lot of combat in Fallujah, which might have taken the starch out of most. There is also the timing to consider, 01 to 05 were interesting years for the military - a very large injection of middle and upper middle class folks.
      - fapjacks 11y ago
        Maybe there are more police officers are in the Army than the Marines. It is definitely a significant demographic in line units in the Army guard and reserves. FWIW we had the opposite happen: When I joined in 2000, there were a lot of college kids and middleupper-middle class people. After the wars started, it was basically people coming off of active duty to serve the rest of their 8 years (four active, four guard/reserve), poor people that couldn't afford college otherwise (myself included) and law enforcement. There was an enormous shift, and a kind of unspoken understanding before Iraq that anybody that didn't want to be in combat needed to get out. And so they found ways -- like PT tests and paperwork (and I suppose drug tests and DUIs) -- to get out.

Apparently you don't know many police officers. This, in fact, was inevitable, following specifically from the circumstance that many police officers are also reserve soldiers and spent time in Iraq and Afghanistan using those tools. I'd estimate the vast majority of law enforcement organizations in the US have personnel that are also in the reserves or guard. I deployed with many police officers, and heard many of those police officers talk specifically about getting a hold of these biometrics tools for use in law enforcement back home. You're right that not everyone shares my somewhat unique perspective, and so to those who have no relationship with police officers and are therefore ignorant of the facts, it may seem fallacious. And also it's fun to make those quippy accusations, so I understand the impulse.

marincounty 11y ago
Personally, I kinda of tired of veterans thinking they would be great cops when their tour ends! I was told by a Cop friend that what matters is still how well you do on the written, physical tests, and the Psy. Evaluation. They do like some college, and civilian experience. Military experience is not seeked out like it was in the past. Being a soldier and being a Cop are take different skill sets. I don't want to get into all the differances, and I don't want to argue with anyone, but I'll take a shy security guard, over a "gung ho" guy who wants to see some action? Our streets are not the streets of Iraq, or Afganistan. I have the highest regard for any ex-military. I think you guys/ladies should get first shot at any federal job--including jobs that involve public safety. I think most of you know by now that being veterans doesn't mean much to most civilian police departments in the hiring process. It should because you served your country, and need a job when you get home. Most of you are intelligent enough to realize civilian police departments should not be run like military operations. I do cringe when I hear, usually ex-marines talk/think they will be shoe-ins when they get home and apply to the academy. (I hope you guys don't take this wrong way, but I think most you know what I'm getting at?). Meaning--war is vastly different than basically revenue collection, and dealing with the public! Yes--most departments are still training officers in a military fashion, but that's been changing. Hopefully, it will change quicker? The more progressive departments are changing training procedures as I write this, at least that's what I heard. One of the biggest reasons, I was told was the proliferation of lawsuits that are being levied against aggressive, illegial police tactics, and cameras are Everywhere. The days of coverups/"Blue code of Honor" are over, for the most part. My friend said they are over. I haven't seen much of a change yet.
- fapjacks 11y ago
  No, your perspective is absolutely the right one: It is critically imperative that we separate warzones from domestic law enforcement in every way possible. I personally believe that combat vets should not be allowed to serve as police officers. Security guards? Sure. Bodyguards? Sure. Law enforcement? No. That's my personal opinion, because it should not be normal to flashbang a building, kick the door in, and rush inside with weapons drawn. But that's how American police departments are beginning to serve warrants for traffic violations. And it doesn't end there, but in particular that distinction is incredibly important. You hit the nail on the head and I could not possibly agree with you more.
msandford 11y ago
> This, in fact, was inevitable Agreed! This is a perfect example of people arguing "slippery slope!!" when the tech first came out and getting shouted down repeatedly. Now they're being vindicated, as it's absolutely happening exactly as predicted. My point is that the slippery slope argument is often used and no matter how many times people say it's invalid or unlikely, is often right.
- fapjacks 11y ago
  I completely misinterpreted your comment. I read your comment as saying that I was guilty of the fallacy. You're right, though, it seems people are quick to make this kind of argument about this issue, as though we're supposed to believe that our police forces aren't being militarized.
woodman 11y ago
Your perspective is not very unique, there are a lot of veterans due to high churn. It is my experience that there is very little crossover between the military and police. Of the hundred-something guys in my last company, only two went on to law enforcement. A few years ago I had a nonmilitary friend go through one of the country's top police academies, and his stories aligned with my experiences - there weren't a lot of veterans in his class. The local PD has 120 officers, of that only two are veterans (neither of them were combat arms). I have my theories about why this is, but that is another discussion. So the whole narrative, where police militarization is due to veteran hires, rings pretty hollow for me. What we are seeing here is the result of an end-justifies-the-means mentality. The military has the same mentality, but this is very deliberately tempered by a focus on honor and duty - something that law enforcement lacks by comparison.
- fapjacks 11y ago
  That's interesting. What was your MOS? In the infantry, we had a much higher ratio of police officers, and I was in a few different units which had higher ratios than yours. In my last company alone we had -- roughly estimating here -- fifteen or twenty law enforcement officers of various kinds.
  - woodman 11y ago
    0331, infantry machine gunner. We saw a lot of combat in Fallujah, which might have taken the starch out of most. There is also the timing to consider, 01 to 05 were interesting years for the military - a very large injection of middle and upper middle class folks.
    - fapjacks 11y ago
      Maybe there are more police officers are in the Army than the Marines. It is definitely a significant demographic in line units in the Army guard and reserves. FWIW we had the opposite happen: When I joined in 2000, there were a lot of college kids and middleupper-middle class people. After the wars started, it was basically people coming off of active duty to serve the rest of their 8 years (four active, four guard/reserve), poor people that couldn't afford college otherwise (myself included) and law enforcement. There was an enormous shift, and a kind of unspoken understanding before Iraq that anybody that didn't want to be in combat needed to get out. And so they found ways -- like PT tests and paperwork (and I suppose drug tests and DUIs) -- to get out.