4 ms·

> Potential for abuse exists, but the same can be said of tasers or guns. Given their track record with tasers and guns i'd imagine "inevitability" would be mo

> Potential for abuse exists, but the same can be said of tasers or guns. Given their track record with tasers and guns i'd imagine "inevitability" would be more accurate. Is there any evidence that police presence even reduces crime, let alone potential for terrorist attacks?

michaelangelho2 3y ago
(OP here, made another throwaway since I’m away from my password manager) Yes, the evidence that police reduce crime is dispositive. Even post-2020 NPR admits this: https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2021/04/20/988769793/when-you-add-more-police-to-a-city-what-happens https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2021/04/20/988769793/when... > Williams and his colleagues find adding a new police officer to a city prevents between 0.06 and 0.1 homicides, which means that the average city would need to hire between 10 and 17 new police officers to save one life a year. They estimate that costs taxpayers annually between $1.3 and $2.2 million. The federal government puts the value of a statistical life at around $10 million (Planet Money did a whole episode on how that number was chosen). So, Williams says, from that perspective, investing in more police officers to save lives provides a pretty good bang for the buck. Adding more police, they find, also reduces other serious crimes, like robbery, rape, and aggravated assault. The white-collar meme that more police != less crime has caused hundreds if not thousands of excess deaths and many more excess rapes, robberies, and assaults, mainly within minority populations.
- diogenes4 3y ago
  Sorry, I meant in comparison to every other form of crime reduction (namely, poverty reduction, which comes in many forms). We spent an absolutely insane amount of money on what amounts to one of the world's largest militaries and we still have a much higher crime rate, especially weighted by GDP.
  - lazide 3y ago
    You’ll still need cops in some form. Either civilian vigilantes, or a uniformed force. Too many people for anything else, frankly. Even if you’re just trying to prevent the inevitable civilian vigilante groups from terrorizing people!
    - diogenes4 3y ago
      [flagged]
lazide 3y ago
Given the NYPD’s track record of abuse, I wouldn’t even say ‘inevitably’ and just go to ‘shortly’, or even just go with ‘already occurring but so far successfully covered up’. Based on their historical track record anyway.

michaelangelho2 3y ago

(OP here, made another throwaway since I’m away from my password manager) Yes, the evidence that police reduce crime is dispositive. Even post-2020 NPR admits this: https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2021/04/20/988769793/when-you-add-more-police-to-a-city-what-happens https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2021/04/20/988769793/when... > Williams and his colleagues find adding a new police officer to a city prevents between 0.06 and 0.1 homicides, which means that the average city would need to hire between 10 and 17 new police officers to save one life a year. They estimate that costs taxpayers annually between $1.3 and $2.2 million. The federal government puts the value of a statistical life at around $10 million (Planet Money did a whole episode on how that number was chosen). So, Williams says, from that perspective, investing in more police officers to save lives provides a pretty good bang for the buck. Adding more police, they find, also reduces other serious crimes, like robbery, rape, and aggravated assault. The white-collar meme that more police != less crime has caused hundreds if not thousands of excess deaths and many more excess rapes, robberies, and assaults, mainly within minority populations.

diogenes4 3y ago
Sorry, I meant in comparison to every other form of crime reduction (namely, poverty reduction, which comes in many forms). We spent an absolutely insane amount of money on what amounts to one of the world's largest militaries and we still have a much higher crime rate, especially weighted by GDP.
- lazide 3y ago
  You’ll still need cops in some form. Either civilian vigilantes, or a uniformed force. Too many people for anything else, frankly. Even if you’re just trying to prevent the inevitable civilian vigilante groups from terrorizing people!
  - diogenes4 3y ago
    [flagged]

lazide 3y ago

Given the NYPD’s track record of abuse, I wouldn’t even say ‘inevitably’ and just go to ‘shortly’, or even just go with ‘already occurring but so far successfully covered up’. Based on their historical track record anyway.