Originally Posted by copwriter
Originally Posted by GUWonder
That certainly is not the case when it comes to "terrorism suspects" in the world's largest democracy (and several others). [Plenty of innocent parties stopped and harassed. And the greater the level of "stopping", the greater the violence in the following year measured by "law enforcement officers and security forces killed".]
Your use of the word "harassed" betrays your bias. You assume that the only reason that officers stop people is to "harass" them, as if the officers got extra credit or a commission for every person they "harassed" in a shift. I have been stopped by police from time to time, but I have never been "harassed." In every case, there was something that caused the officer to direct his attention to me, and in every case, the officer promptly told me what had caused him to stop me.
1. The only biases I have in matters of security are: 1) a bias for the truth; and 2) a bias against ignorance/misunderstanding/misinformation and against actions that make the problems worse or just waste resources.
2. Contrary to your claim and your "reading minds" -- i.e., you state you know my unstated assumptions -- I do not assume that the only reason that people were stopped was to "harass" them; however, that too factors in on more than a rare occassion. Furthermore, the law enforcement/security types are not always or even often honest -- especially about the stopping of innocent people.
Given your response above, I am curious about what bias you think my use of "harassed" betrays. What bias does it betray in your opinion?
Perhaps, in the minds of others here, chasing after an attractive woman in the hallways of her hotel when she doesn't want to be chased is not harassment; however, in my mind it is harassment. Call it what you wish; but when it's your young daughter, you'll call it as it is: namely, harassment. As indicated above:
stopping and engaging innocent parties when they don't wish to be engaged is generally harassment in my book.
Originally Posted by copwriter
And, by the way, with the exception of anomalies like 2001, law enforcement officer fatalities due to criminal action have been decreasing steadily since the 1970s, when the FBI started keeping track. I don't think that is because the police have been less active over the last 30 years.
1. You are pulling selective data that is not broadly representative and is not even generally applicable to what I said. I suggest closely reading what I said above and keeping it in context when replying.
2. Law enforcement and security force fatalities due to murder and non-negligent homicide have not been universally decreasing since the 1975. And in the places where "stops" have been estimated to have risen the most, the numbers of law enforcement officers and security forces killed has generally risen the most there too.
Originally Posted by copwriter
It's tough making a living as a law enforcement/security consultant, given that everyone believes that they're an expert.
1. Contrary to your above claim that everyone believes that they're an expert, not everyone believes that they're an expert.
2. I am a perpetual learner and always hope to be; and I would never believe myself an expert in any matter other than being an "expert in my own feelings and private thoughts".
3. This perpetual student has been (in the past) an advisor to more than one senior official whose portfolio included security threats and responding to such.