Quote (Black XistenZ @ Jul 26 2020 09:01pm)
This argument only makes sense if the police harm innocents at the same rate as unrestricted criminals. Even now, with the police keeping criminals in check, criminals commit far more murders, rapes, assaults etc. than the police. The disparity can reasonably be assumed to get far worse when criminals are allowed to act with impunity.
No offense, but I cant wrap my head around how out of touch someone has to be to even argue this.
Problem: "Last year, there were 5 murders committed by the police, 100 murders committed by criminals, and 500 murders prevented by police work"
Solution A: "Try what we can to single out the bad apples among the police, investigate systemic causes of police violence with a cool head, without turning it into a witch hunt"
Solution B: "Gut the police to the point where they're unable to deal with armed criminals."
I wonder which solution will lead to more victims of murder. :unsure:
I'm taking GRE practice tests since I'm considering doing a biomedical engineering Ph.D, so I'm gonna write my response in the style of a GRE asses the argument essay, but without going through all the same steps to clean it up for a professional grader.
Your response relies on a few assumptions about my argument that aren't necessarily true.
The first assumption is that damage is equal regardless of who does it. I disagree with this. I think the police doing damage is fundamentally more damaging than equal physical damage done by a civilian. Damage done by a civilian is just a civilian's damage. Damage done by the police reflects on them as an institution, and since they need the trust of the public to do their job and maintain legitimacy of the people, from whom their power derives, it is fundamentally more damaging to the cause of justice and preventative measures to allow the police to do damage.
The second assumption is that the police using these tactics are preventing violence. This is not a supported assumption since the police have been using these tactics, and in many cases it has only emboldened the rioters. When you have a clear enemy using violent tactics it will lead to more violent reaction by the other side. In my city personally, there have been a ton of protests and virtually no property damage, and I live pretty close to Ferguson. The police response here has been tame, and I attribute part of that to the fact that the police never got involved to quell protests the way we have seen in places like Buffalo and Seattle.
The third assumption is that there are individual "bad apples" among the police. This actually betrays the entire idea of the "bad apple" turn of phrase. The turn of phrase is "one bad apple spoils the bunch", not "one bad apple can be picked out and the rest of the bunch is fine". There is a systemic problem with the police, and sending a message that tools will be removed if they cannot be used without damaging the problem is one way to stop abuse using those tools. This is fine IMO if it is done by elected officials who are directly accountable to the public, such as in this case. The public has a vested interest in how they are policed, and if they don't like this move they will certainly turn around and fix the problem next election, or instigate other measures as allowed by the process.
Conclusion conclusion conclusion... blah blah blah, restate things and conclude with something quippy about how a political process exists for a reason.
This post was edited by Thor123422 on Jul 26 2020 09:06pm