4 ms·

To your point about non-lethal weapons: it seems to me that we haven't yet claimed the low-hanging fruit in the US when it comes to this problem. Why not indulg

To your point about non-lethal weapons: it seems to me that we haven't yet claimed the low-hanging fruit in the US when it comes to this problem. Why not indulge the most base impulses of both silicon valley and police militarization with high tech, non lethal weapons? It will probably introduce new problems, such as even more unnecessary use of force. It addresses absolutely none of the cultural or institutional problems. But it may also save lives and better maintain justice. A family of a person wrongly tazed has been afforded more justice than a family of a person wrongly shot and killed. People who hold out for either a panacea or nothing will be unsatisfied. But if we can at least separate incapacitation from lethality, we may be able to save lives while still satisfying the cultural and institutional lust for violence.

qaq 9y ago
I'd rather be unnecessarily tasered vs being unnecessarily shot at
mgkimsal 9y ago
"Why not indulge the most base impulses of both silicon valley and police militarization with high tech, non lethal weapons?" You're leaving witnesses and complicating any potential legal cases in the aftermath.
adrianN 9y ago
There are only "less lethal" weapons. People can very well die from being tasered for example.
- smithhallam 9y ago
  Yes, but it is less likely that they will die from being tasered than from being shot.
- glenstein 9y ago
  And in special circumstances a butter knife could probably kill someone. But I don't think getting trapped in a continuum fallacy represents forward motion in this kind of conversation. Maybe a tazer should count as lethal and should be excluded. Let's draw the line somewhere, most definitely. But I'm not any closer to understanding whether you merely object to that example or the principle itself, and the latter is the pertinent thing.
  - avar 9y ago
    It's not the lethality of the weapon, but the police response that's the problem. In most (northern) European countries the response to somebody brandishing a knife would be to set up a perimeter around that person, rather than directly engage them. Only as a last resort would you resort to violence. Instead you try to tire them out. By comparison, the American police response would be to immediately subdue the person with any force necessary.
    - glenstein 9y ago
      If you really mean what you are saying, then you seem to be suggesting that police armed with butter knives, tazers, or guns all represent exactly equally dangerous situations that can't be distinguished from one another. It's not just lethality, but it's also not just the way police respond, because it's not one or the the other. If you don't agree that the lethality of the weapon is a significant input to whether or not a dangerous outcome is more likely, we can't have a serious conversation.
      - avar 9y ago
        I'm mostly replying to the thread at large, which started with lb1lf pointing out that the police response was the problem, and this side-thread is now bogged down in the quagmire of arguing what constitutes as a non-lethal and lethal weapon. Of course the weapon in question is also a variable, but I by far the biggest variable is police behavior in the US, where it seems every situation calls for force escalation and solving the matter at hand with a full-on assault of some sort.
        glenstein 9y ago
        I agree that the thread was needlessly bogged down with a continuum fallacy about the word lethal. I think you're right that escalating behavior is a significant variable. But I think that's a very tough thing to change. It may be that the low hanging fruit consists in changing the equipment rather than the culture. But I don't disagree with you in the big picture. Anyway, I'll be careful not to assume your comments are attempting to be responsive to the things they reply to when I see them in the future, to prevent my misunderstanding.
stordoff 9y ago
A Taser can kill. Removing the presumption that you are shooting to kill seems like it would make the police more readily, and in more situations, use the weapons, so I'm not sure it's clear that a switch to less-lethal weapons would be a net positive (in terms of deaths).
- glenstein 9y ago
  That's an interesting way of thinking about it. That would mean we are either already at an unimprovably optimized combination of lethality and inclination to use force, or that the real problem is police weapons are not lethal enough.
anigbrowl 9y ago
Why not indulge the most base impulses Because indulging such impulses is a good way to get them to proliferate. I see your approach is to treat them as matters of fact and try to redirect them towards some less-lethal-than-guns solution for mutual benefit, but this is just going to give you more of what you don't want. Right now a police officer in my area is typically equipped with: baton; taser; pepper spray; knife; handgun shotgun (in the car); flashlights (high powered, doubles as a club in a pinch) 5 weapons, with others in reserve, is already a lot to carry. Indeed, it's partly because of this proliferation of weapons (and all the training and liability issues that go with them) that many police are under-trained in physical combat (this from undercover and head-of-training officers I've known, whose opinion I'm inclined to take at face value). So you've got heavily armed individuals who are trained/socialized to maintain a somewhat irrationally elevated perception of danger and most of their training if focused on using weapons to induce coercion. This is a bad combination. not just for the job and the public, but for the police themselves. I know a former police officer who doesn't keep any weapons in the house, but who's also paranoid about crime because he's been rtained to think about all the bad things that could happen to the point that he's afraid to hire someone to clean his house because they might case it on behalf of burglars or home invaders. This despite the fact that he doesn't own anything especially valuable; he lives in an ordinary suburban home and probably has less stuff than most people.
- glenstein 9y ago
  You're arguing that coercion is bad. I don't need to be persuaded of that. I'm suggesting that potential increases in coercion be tolerated if they can be part of a tradeoff that results in fewer deaths. I also didn't mean to suggest anything about increasing the total amount of equipment carried by an officer. Are you suggesting that proliferation of a greater total number of weapons is a likely practical outcome? Variety coincides with proliferation, or something to that effect?

qaq 9y ago

I'd rather be unnecessarily tasered vs being unnecessarily shot at

mgkimsal 9y ago

"Why not indulge the most base impulses of both silicon valley and police militarization with high tech, non lethal weapons?" You're leaving witnesses and complicating any potential legal cases in the aftermath.

adrianN 9y ago

There are only "less lethal" weapons. People can very well die from being tasered for example.

smithhallam 9y ago
Yes, but it is less likely that they will die from being tasered than from being shot.
glenstein 9y ago
And in special circumstances a butter knife could probably kill someone. But I don't think getting trapped in a continuum fallacy represents forward motion in this kind of conversation. Maybe a tazer should count as lethal and should be excluded. Let's draw the line somewhere, most definitely. But I'm not any closer to understanding whether you merely object to that example or the principle itself, and the latter is the pertinent thing.
- avar 9y ago
  It's not the lethality of the weapon, but the police response that's the problem. In most (northern) European countries the response to somebody brandishing a knife would be to set up a perimeter around that person, rather than directly engage them. Only as a last resort would you resort to violence. Instead you try to tire them out. By comparison, the American police response would be to immediately subdue the person with any force necessary.
  - glenstein 9y ago
    If you really mean what you are saying, then you seem to be suggesting that police armed with butter knives, tazers, or guns all represent exactly equally dangerous situations that can't be distinguished from one another. It's not just lethality, but it's also not just the way police respond, because it's not one or the the other. If you don't agree that the lethality of the weapon is a significant input to whether or not a dangerous outcome is more likely, we can't have a serious conversation.
    - avar 9y ago
      I'm mostly replying to the thread at large, which started with lb1lf pointing out that the police response was the problem, and this side-thread is now bogged down in the quagmire of arguing what constitutes as a non-lethal and lethal weapon. Of course the weapon in question is also a variable, but I by far the biggest variable is police behavior in the US, where it seems every situation calls for force escalation and solving the matter at hand with a full-on assault of some sort.
      - glenstein 9y ago
        I agree that the thread was needlessly bogged down with a continuum fallacy about the word lethal. I think you're right that escalating behavior is a significant variable. But I think that's a very tough thing to change. It may be that the low hanging fruit consists in changing the equipment rather than the culture. But I don't disagree with you in the big picture. Anyway, I'll be careful not to assume your comments are attempting to be responsive to the things they reply to when I see them in the future, to prevent my misunderstanding.

stordoff 9y ago

A Taser can kill. Removing the presumption that you are shooting to kill seems like it would make the police more readily, and in more situations, use the weapons, so I'm not sure it's clear that a switch to less-lethal weapons would be a net positive (in terms of deaths).

glenstein 9y ago
That's an interesting way of thinking about it. That would mean we are either already at an unimprovably optimized combination of lethality and inclination to use force, or that the real problem is police weapons are not lethal enough.

anigbrowl 9y ago

Why not indulge the most base impulses Because indulging such impulses is a good way to get them to proliferate. I see your approach is to treat them as matters of fact and try to redirect them towards some less-lethal-than-guns solution for mutual benefit, but this is just going to give you more of what you don't want. Right now a police officer in my area is typically equipped with: baton; taser; pepper spray; knife; handgun shotgun (in the car); flashlights (high powered, doubles as a club in a pinch) 5 weapons, with others in reserve, is already a lot to carry. Indeed, it's partly because of this proliferation of weapons (and all the training and liability issues that go with them) that many police are under-trained in physical combat (this from undercover and head-of-training officers I've known, whose opinion I'm inclined to take at face value). So you've got heavily armed individuals who are trained/socialized to maintain a somewhat irrationally elevated perception of danger and most of their training if focused on using weapons to induce coercion. This is a bad combination. not just for the job and the public, but for the police themselves. I know a former police officer who doesn't keep any weapons in the house, but who's also paranoid about crime because he's been rtained to think about all the bad things that could happen to the point that he's afraid to hire someone to clean his house because they might case it on behalf of burglars or home invaders. This despite the fact that he doesn't own anything especially valuable; he lives in an ordinary suburban home and probably has less stuff than most people.

glenstein 9y ago
You're arguing that coercion is bad. I don't need to be persuaded of that. I'm suggesting that potential increases in coercion be tolerated if they can be part of a tradeoff that results in fewer deaths. I also didn't mean to suggest anything about increasing the total amount of equipment carried by an officer. Are you suggesting that proliferation of a greater total number of weapons is a likely practical outcome? Variety coincides with proliferation, or something to that effect?