4 ms·

No, the error is yours, I think. We trust experts like police and surgeons to do certain dangerous tasks because their expertise offsets much of the risk; howev

No, the error is yours, I think. We trust experts like police and surgeons to do certain dangerous tasks because their expertise offsets much of the risk; however, they're still more likely to make a mistake since they have to roll the dice more frequently. If the probability of a layperson wrongly killing someone is 20% per police-like-encounter, and the probability of a trained police officer killing someone is 1%, who has the greater odds of killing someone? The layperson who rolls the dice one time or the police officer who roles the dice a couple times a year (or a couple times a week in some places)? > A doctor doesn't get a free pass if they kill someone due to incompetence when performing a surgery just because they do it more often. So you have data that police are being acquitted of shootings (when a jury finds that the shooting occurred due to incompetence) at a higher rate than surgeons? Or are you using different standards for "incompetence" (for surgeons, presumably the result of an investigation, but for police it's the opinion of the first pundit you heard?). Mind you, none of this has any bearing on comparing police shootings with civilian shootings, which was the topic of your original point...

zzalpha 9y ago
We trust experts like police and surgeons to do certain dangerous tasks because their expertise offsets much of the risk; however, they're still more likely to make a mistake since they have to roll the dice more frequently. And therefore the consequences should be significantly lessened for them relative to an untrained civilian? The approach you advocate will result in the perverse incentive that a cop is better off always pulling a gun in any situation, as the lack of consequences means the incentive is to always minimize personal risk in an encounter in the short term, as there's no risk as a result of a mistake in the long term. It's perverse. In effect you place the power of life in death in the hands of a trusted individual, and then create a situation where they're incentivized to use it, especially in situations where even a whiff of short-term personal risk is perceived (like, say, in an encounter with a person in a minority where racial biases may come into play).
- weberc2 9y ago
  You're confusing a reasonable standard of proof with complete impunity.
  - zzalpha 9y ago
    And you're assuming a reasonable standard of proof is applied. I'm not willing to make that assumption. This case is yet another example of why.
    - weberc2 9y ago
      I'm not assuming a reasonable standard of proof is applied, only that the standard for proof in police shootings should account for the fact that they're far more likely than civilians to be involved in escalated situations.

zzalpha 9y ago

We trust experts like police and surgeons to do certain dangerous tasks because their expertise offsets much of the risk; however, they're still more likely to make a mistake since they have to roll the dice more frequently. And therefore the consequences should be significantly lessened for them relative to an untrained civilian? The approach you advocate will result in the perverse incentive that a cop is better off always pulling a gun in any situation, as the lack of consequences means the incentive is to always minimize personal risk in an encounter in the short term, as there's no risk as a result of a mistake in the long term. It's perverse. In effect you place the power of life in death in the hands of a trusted individual, and then create a situation where they're incentivized to use it, especially in situations where even a whiff of short-term personal risk is perceived (like, say, in an encounter with a person in a minority where racial biases may come into play).

weberc2 9y ago
You're confusing a reasonable standard of proof with complete impunity.
- zzalpha 9y ago
  And you're assuming a reasonable standard of proof is applied. I'm not willing to make that assumption. This case is yet another example of why.
  - weberc2 9y ago
    I'm not assuming a reasonable standard of proof is applied, only that the standard for proof in police shootings should account for the fact that they're far more likely than civilians to be involved in escalated situations.