2 ms·

And I put it to you that being safely miles away in an airconditioned box without risk of being swarmed by a mob for shooting first will make police more likely

And I put it to you that being safely miles away in an airconditioned box without risk of being swarmed by a mob for shooting first will make police more likely to escalate violence much sooner. How are we supposed to know which is correct before it's too late?

AYBABTME 5y ago
Historically, providing alternative methods of de-escalating situations to law enforcement has proven effective in diminishing usage of lethal force. In the end it's speculation, and your guess or mine. Your guess is premised on (1) the belief that police officers will act more carelessly, thinking they're in a video-game if they control remote machines. My guess is premised on (2) the belief that undue escalation of force happens when police officers feel their life is at risk, and removing this element from the situation will improve things. (1) assumes that police officers are acting violently out of disregard for others, and (2) assumes that police officers are acting violently out of fear for themselves. I'm a humanist and I think (2) is more likely than (1). It seems a simpler and more pragmatic assumption, to me, that police officers may act overly violently due to fear. I much prefer dealing with someone who's able to maintain a cool head, than dealing with someone who feels threatened.