When I was just a small boy with boundless dreams, I hated seatbelts. I saw them as a conspiracy by faceless adults to make me uncomfortable. In my defense, I was a child.
The seatbelt manufacturers had a rather better defense: the windshield. That distinction came back to me after Newsweek asked whether ICE’s proposed electric-shock gloves might sometimes make arrests safer. To be fair, the Fairness Meter itself drew only a handful of votes.
Given ICE’s alleged recklessness, the gloves would be “total license to torture.” Another disagreed: “Perhaps they should make the entire uniform a shock weapon and increase the voltage.” Between the outrage and Nazi comparisons were more practical concerns. One reader had no problem with the technology “as long as the gloves are used appropriately,” but worried about unsupervised officers. Another wanted details on “training, rules of engagement.” Quite right.
Those are reasonable questions, but they don’t answer the question we raised. If officers are badly trained, denying them shock gloves does not make them well trained. Others argued that if ICE is badly run, it should simply be abolished.
But that isn’t going to happen. Even Democrats can’t agree on it. Francesca Hong, the Wisconsin Democratic socialist, once made a similar argument around law enforcement violence, saying she supported defunding police “as a first step towards abolishing the police.” She reversed course during campaigning in August.
Hong then lost the Democratic gubernatorial primary anyway. Woke 1 wasn’t a winner, as AOC might say. One reason is that less-lethal tools may reduce harm.
Extract — continue reading at the source.
