Read on Twitter
In 2019, there were 16,425 murders in the US, on a population of 328,200,000.
So, at most, 0.005% of USians killed somebody.
The same year there were 697,195 cops in the U.S., and 999 fatal police shootings.
So 0.14% of cops killed someone, making cops 28x more likely to kill.
So, at most, 0.005% of USians killed somebody.
The same year there were 697,195 cops in the U.S., and 999 fatal police shootings.
So 0.14% of cops killed someone, making cops 28x more likely to kill.
This is actually probably a conservative estimate, because it doesn& #39;t account for multiple murders in the non-cop population (I assumed one killer per murder, which isn& #39;t realistic).
It& #39;s also not accounting for lifetime likelihood of killing, just for that one particular year.
It& #39;s also not accounting for lifetime likelihood of killing, just for that one particular year.
That being said, I do think even this small snapshot shows that police training programs, which aim to combat the innate human RELUCTANCE to kill human beings, are successful in decreasing police officers& #39; resistance to killing.
Which is a scary fuckin& #39; objective.
Which is a scary fuckin& #39; objective.
Police training heavily uses:
- Psychological distance (see other people as fundamentally dissimilar to yourself to make it easier to kill them)
- Habit training (react to certain stimuli by shooting without conscious thought)
These are both tactics adopted from the military.
- Psychological distance (see other people as fundamentally dissimilar to yourself to make it easier to kill them)
- Habit training (react to certain stimuli by shooting without conscious thought)
These are both tactics adopted from the military.
The military, however, while obviously a force of great violence, does at least have a few checks and balances that police departments lack.
Under international law, a person taken into custody on the battlefield is the total responsibility of the party taking custody.
Under international law, a person taken into custody on the battlefield is the total responsibility of the party taking custody.
That responsibility means all their basic needs must be accounted for.
Obviously this doesn& #39;t always happen (Abu Ghraib) but when procedures are followed, enemy combatants must receive needed medical care, food, bedding, and sanitation—all of which police often deny arrestees.
Obviously this doesn& #39;t always happen (Abu Ghraib) but when procedures are followed, enemy combatants must receive needed medical care, food, bedding, and sanitation—all of which police often deny arrestees.
In addition, the U.S. military publicizes reports of internal discipline by court-martial.
Here& #39;s the Marines& #39; report for March 2021: https://media.defense.gov/2021/Apr/28/2002629838/-1/-1/0/2021%20MARCH.PDF
The">https://media.defense.gov/2021/Apr/... public receives no similar level of access to internal disciplinary actions against police officers.
Here& #39;s the Marines& #39; report for March 2021: https://media.defense.gov/2021/Apr/28/2002629838/-1/-1/0/2021%20MARCH.PDF
The">https://media.defense.gov/2021/Apr/... public receives no similar level of access to internal disciplinary actions against police officers.
So what we& #39;ve got right now is a civilian force that has received military-level training designed to make it psychologically easier for them to kill, who are not governed by the disciplinary procedures of the military or by international laws and treaties that apply to war.
I would make the modest proposal that perhaps we do NOT want to allow every city and town in the country the right to create an armed paramilitary organization and train its members out of their innate psychological resistance to killing, then purchase surplus military weaponry.
Moundsville, West Virginia, has 9,000 people and an annual homicide rate of 0, but their police department owns a $1,000,000 armored military vehicle: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/police-tank-moundsville-west-virginia-armoured-truck-a9576766.html">https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl...
From every possible perspective—from ethics to just simple economics—this does not seem like the most efficient way to make a given society safer.
The most evidence-based approach to public safety? Has nothing to do with law enforcement at all. It& #39;s economic access.
The most evidence-based approach to public safety? Has nothing to do with law enforcement at all. It& #39;s economic access.
There& #39;s very good evidence that the following effectively reduce crime:
- Lowering high school dropout rates (giving youth access to jobs!)
- Offering high-quality preschool education for free (giving parents greater ability to work!)
- Family therapy!
https://www.strongnation.org/documents/1219 ">https://www.strongnation.org/documents...
- Lowering high school dropout rates (giving youth access to jobs!)
- Offering high-quality preschool education for free (giving parents greater ability to work!)
- Family therapy!
https://www.strongnation.org/documents/1219 ">https://www.strongnation.org/documents...
Probably the single best evidence-based way to combat crime:
Reduce childhood exposures to environmental toxins. For example, phasing out lead in gasoline appears to have been responsible for as much as 56% of the 1990s drop in crime: https://jwreyes.people.amherst.edu/papers/LeadCrimeBEJEAP.pdf/15/abortion-and-crime-who-should-you-believe/">https://jwreyes.people.amherst.edu/papers/Le...
Reduce childhood exposures to environmental toxins. For example, phasing out lead in gasoline appears to have been responsible for as much as 56% of the 1990s drop in crime: https://jwreyes.people.amherst.edu/papers/LeadCrimeBEJEAP.pdf/15/abortion-and-crime-who-should-you-believe/">https://jwreyes.people.amherst.edu/papers/Le...
There& #39;s also good evidence that legal and freely available abortion reduces crime.
Hard to discuss bc people tend to think "less poor children born" is the benefit, but the reality is "less miserable & economically disadvantaged parents" is probably it. http://freakonomics.com/2005/05/15/abortion-and-crime-who-should-you-believe/">https://freakonomics.com/2005/05/1...
Hard to discuss bc people tend to think "less poor children born" is the benefit, but the reality is "less miserable & economically disadvantaged parents" is probably it. http://freakonomics.com/2005/05/15/abortion-and-crime-who-should-you-believe/">https://freakonomics.com/2005/05/1...
So, to sum up, here& #39;s how we actually reduce crime:
- More and better-targeted services for children and families
- Safer homes and neighborhoods free of environmental contaminants
- Access to reproductive healthcare
But unfortunately... all our city budgets are going to cops.
- More and better-targeted services for children and families
- Safer homes and neighborhoods free of environmental contaminants
- Access to reproductive healthcare
But unfortunately... all our city budgets are going to cops.
