3 ms·
Is that better, or worse? I would argue the expensive tool might be more appropriate in cases, if it means it will be used more judiciously.
by twinkletwinkle 10y ago
Is that better, or worse?
I would argue the expensive tool might be more appropriate in cases, if it means it will be used more judiciously.
- sampo 10y ago> Is that better, or worse? If you trust the police to mostly do the right thing, be responsible, and accountable if they sometimes make mistakes, then it would be a good thing that they can get their job done cheaper, and save some tax money. This would be for the benefit of all of society. In my country in Northern Europe this would be the case. But maybe there is a real danger that when busting and blowing up places becomes N times cheaper, the police will get trigger-happy and bust and blow up stuff N times more often, irresponsibly, with lots of false positives, and with no accountability. Then the net effect of making attacks cheaper and safer to execute might be a net negative for the society.
- twinkletwinkle 10y agoThis is HN so I don't want to make an argument without data, and certainly people are on edge because of events of the last few days. But characterizing police actions (in the USA where I live) as > irresponsibly, with lots of false positives, and with no accountability sounds spot-on to me.
- Nadya 10y agoSometimes I think people forget officers are people, not tools. When the more expensive tool is a human it shouldn't be used at all if there is an increased chance of death. The fact we do is because there haven't been or aren't other options in certain scenarios.
- twinkletwinkle 10y agoThe suspects are people also. Remote warfare trivializes human life, and not the humans that signed up for the risks.