4 ms·
The question here, in my opinion, is whether we're looking at actual causation or simple correlation. Is this an example of, "receiving free coyote-colored tac
by leroy_masochist 6y ago
The question here, in my opinion, is whether we're looking at actual causation or simple correlation.
Is this an example of, "receiving free coyote-colored tacticool gear and MRAPs prompts cops to become more aggressive, detached from the population they are ostensibly there to protect, and likely to unnecessarily end civilian lives in the course of doing their job"?
Or is it an example of, "police departments with toxic cultures -- e.g., power-tripping, roided-out hardos with motarded haircuts who treat black people like shit and maintain a blue wall of silence -- are more likely to jump through the hoops necessary to get the military surplus gear, and as a result, departments who have embraced the 1033 program generally do more bad cop shit"?
Or is it both, or is it something else?
- Pfhreak 6y agoIt seems like those two causes plausibly amplify each other - machismo warrior culture more likely to take military gear, which in turn makes it easier to recruit more machismo types.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- sandworm101 6y agoI would like to see if there is an correlation between the hiring of ex-military people, the purchase of military equipment, and any increase in police-related violence. Many people think that soldiers make good cops. In reality, the jobs share almost nothing in common.
- HarryHirsch 6y agoIn reality, the jobs share almost nothing in common That's right, the military has rules of engagement and no mirrored sunglasses. With cops it's opposite. Imagine, standing in formation with half of the men wearing cool sunglasses. It would be unthinkable.
- ordu 6y agoIn social sciences cause and effect often intermixed. It is pain in the ass for researchers. From the other hand, it means that it not so important to distinguish cause and effect. If we had a correlation, we would have a predictor, so we could do something about it. Just studying agencies with military gear would change outcomes. Even media discussing this correlation could change things. The role of an observer even more noticeable than with quantum phenomena.
- andreilys 6y agoCause and effect is important to distinguish. Spurious correlations exist everywhere (ice cream consumption is correlated with drowning, should we ban ice cream before swimming?) From my experience most people don’t understand this difference and assume any narrative around correlation equals causation.
- jmcqk6 6y ago>Cause and effect is important to distinguish. Alternatively we should probably abandon the notion that anything at the society level has a simple cause and a simple effect. When dealing with society, we're dealing with a chaotic system. I don't see much in society that can be clearly defined in terms of "if this then that." It seems like we would be much better off by being honest about the complexities of what we're dealing with.
- andreilys 6y agoThere is a lot of work being done in the casual space. Sure we might not be able to ever arrive at 100% causation but doesn’t mean we can’t improve our tooling and understanding. Policy decisions based on simple correlations can range from harmless to disastrous.
- ordu 6y ago> From my experience most people don’t understand this difference and assume any narrative around correlation equals causation. I know. Our thinking is built around cause and effect and when confronted by a correlational data it start to come to a wrong conclusions, because it have no idea what to do with correlations. It tends to assume that correlation is a causation, because such an assumption allow our thinking to do at least something with the data.
- srsQtho00 6y agoWhy does it have to be more than “police that get military gear kill more people? Rhetorical question, it doesn’t. It’s human biology. Ask a neuroscientist or biologist. Concretizing some probability model from your couch is asinine, as the probability of certain outcomes is proven. Simple-cause effect is all that’s needed and is highlighted. Stop gifting our neighbors (which is what police really are, fellow local tax paying halfwits pretending they’re an adults because their voice got deeper) dystopian dragnet gear.
- nabilhat 6y agoI'd suspect reinforcing. They're quoting a ratio of fatal shootings of 4:1 between with:without military gear. I don't think police departments are insular enough to maintain that level of work culture disparity. There is certainly significant variance, though, and toxic culture is more impactful when it's empowered and visibly supported. It would also would be unsurprising if providing overkill response methods resulted in, well, overkill.
- Someone 6y agoOr just the looks of the police makes de-escalation less likely, resulting in more officers getting attacked, resulting in more officers shooting back. That should be testable by looking at the “how often do officers get attacked seriously” metric. I haven’t checked whether the article discusses this, as I can’t read the article because AJC can’t, in two years, figure out how to handle GDPR requirements. I wonder what they do to visitors from California.
- dyeje 6y agoWhy does it matter which it is? Just ban police from purchasing military grade equipment.
- jonfw 6y agoWhy not explore the possibility that police departments who are more likely to be shot at are both more likely to shoot somebody and also more likely to take 1033 funding? This seems like a pretty obvious possibility to consider.
- jakelazaroff 6y agoThey did explore that possibility: > The newspaper’s analysis used the military’s database and paired it with a database of fatal police shootings from across the state, controlling for statistical variables like community income, rural-urban differences, racial makeup, and violent crime rates.