3 ms·
Well, flip the response around - respond low and then upgrade. It's possible that this would lead to less death overall. But it would also mean that any situati
by dibujante 11y ago
Well, flip the response around - respond low and then upgrade. It's possible that this would lead to less death overall. But it would also mean that any situation requiring escalation would probably indicate such through the death of a police officer. Would you want to be the sacrificial officer who knocks on the door to find out if the situation is worth escalating? The overall numbers might work out better in that case, but the whole "someone will definitely die" factor is a big psychological hurdle.
- mikeash 11y agoI don't want to be a police officer at all, but for those who are, "put your life on the line for others" is pretty much the job description. By all means, we should minimize their risk as much as is reasonable. But when you get to the end of what's reasonable, you have to accept that they're still going to be at risk, because that's what the job is.
- Zigurd 11y agoThe US has unusually aggressive police, with tactics and doctrine that result in far too much shooting and killing compared to other advanced nations. Yet those other places don't get lots of dead police. Maybe there is a way to do this without "responding high?"
- dibujante 11y agoYou're missing my point; I'm not arguing in favor of responding high, but instead pointing out that responding high is more psychologically comfortable than its numerical consequences would otherwise indicate.