4 ms·
Better to have it and not need it.
by bdibs 7y ago
Better to have it and not need it.
- saagarjha 7y agoWorse to have it and escalate the situation to the point where it is needed…
- bdibs 7y agoPolice being killed due to a lack of equipment is the bigger issue in my opinion.
- penagwin 7y agoIs that better than Police + otherwise innocent people from being hurt/killed because the people freaked out with a miniature army charging at them yelling?
- bdibs 7y agoOf course not, but does that happen a lot? There is no perfect solution, so I think it's better to go with the one that most often protects lives. I don't have the numbers, but I'd assume wearing body armor and having proper equipment protects more lives than it causes harm (via "freaking out").
- jtmcmc 7y agoreally? because police killing people is my much bigger concern...
- mindslight 7y agoWhat is the injury rate for parking enforcement or process servers?
- stonogo 7y agoI would agree with you, if that ever happened in the United States.
- dmix 7y agoYou never know. Susan from accounting might be packing, waiting for the random day they get surprised raided by the feds...
- drak0n1c 7y agoIt did happen in 1986, back when the FBI agents were woefully outgunned. The current trend of militarization is a reaction to that incident, and now the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_FBI_Miami_shootout https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_FBI_Miami_shootout
- dmix 7y ago> between eight FBI agents and two serial bank robbers and murderers. What does a SWAT team responding to a heavily-armed bank robbery have to do with raiding the offices of a well-known biotech startup in San Francisco over billing irregularities?
- drak0n1c 7y agoThe parent comment asked a rhetorical question implying that FBI officers never died due to being under-equipped. I provided a counter-example, and that event was what motivated a lot of heavier armament in the FBI. The problem is not that they have equipment, it's that they are incentivized to abuse the entire toolbox for every situation under the sun.
- dmix 7y agoJust because you can find a very weakly related example doesn't make it a good counter-example. If you can find a single example where raiding a corporate office over financial reasons (or basically anything not involving weapons, violent crime, or a dangerous person) required anything beyond a holstered service weapon then I'll be convinced...
- 7y ago
- IfOnlyYouKnew 7y agoBy that vacuous logic, you should be armed to the teeth any time you get back home. Because there’s no absolute certainty that your spouse has not been abducted by aliens and replaced with an almost-exact replica that will kill you the second you turn your back.
- bdibs 7y agoThe odds of someone harming the police and my spouse becoming an alien are the same?
- IfOnlyYouKnew 7y agoIt’s called reductio ad absurdum. Your argument is, basically, that one should not disregard the possibility of some foosball-steeled accountants pulling a gun, no matter how low it is. I extended this argument to an even less likely scenario to show its absurdity. You’re now back to arguing over specific probabilities, proving my point. Also, you knew all this, and are arguing in bad faith.