creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion General Opinion
Thomas Sowell
Thomas Sowell
20 Aug 2014
The Media and the Mob

Those of us who admit that we were not there, and do not know what happened when Michael Brown was shot by a … Read More.

19 Aug 2014
Random Thoughts

Random thoughts on the passing scene: I don't know why we are spending our hard-earned money paying taxes to … Read More.

12 Aug 2014
Attacking Achievement

New York's mayor, Bill de Blasio, like so many others who call themselves "progressive," is gung-ho to solve … Read More.

Facts vs. Visions

Comment

The political left has been campaigning against the use of force since at least the 18th century. So it is not surprising that they are now arguing that heavily armed or aggressive police forces only inflame protesters and thus provoke violence.

Statisticians have long warned that correlation is not causation, but they have apparently warned in vain.

There is no reason to doubt that heavily armed police in riot gear may be more likely to show up where outbreaks of violence are expected. But when violence then breaks out, does that prove that it was the appearance of the police that caused it?

I strongly suspect that people who travel with armed guards are more likely to be murdered than people who do not travel with armed guards. After all, they are not paying to have armed guards for no reason.

If so, should we conclude from a higher murder rate among people with armed guards that having armed guards increases your chances of getting murdered? Shall we also conclude from this that we the taxpayers should no longer pay to have Secret Service agents guarding our presidents?

Actually, the history of assassinations of American presidents could be cited as evidence that armed guards are correlated with higher murder rates, if we proceed to "reason" the same way the advocates of weaker police presence seem to be reasoning.

There have been 43 Presidents of the United States, of whom four — Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley and Kennedy — have been murdered. That is a murder rate of 9 percent.

If the murder rate in the general population — most of whom do not have armed guards — were 9 percent, that would mean more than 27 million Americans murdered today. We haven't quite gotten up to a murder rate that high, even in Chicago.

Does anyone seriously believe that leaving presidents unguarded would reduce assassinations? Probably not. But this is the golden age of talking points, as distinguished from serious thinking about serious issues.

These talking points are often based on a prevailing social vision, rather than on hard facts.

According to the prevailing vision, ghetto riots are due to racial injustices — and the way to deal with them is to make concessions in words and deeds, while severely restricting the use of force by the police.

Factual evidence cannot make a dent in that vision.

But, for those who are still so old-fashioned as to rely on facts, here are a few: Back in the 1960s when ghetto riots broke out in cities across the country, the region with the fewest riots was the South, where racial discrimination was greatest and police forces least likely to show restraint.

In Detroit, with a liberal mayor in the city and a liberal governor in the state, where the police were warned against shooting during the 1967 riots, there was the largest death toll of any city during any riot during that whole decade — 43 people dead, 33 of them black.

Both the New York Times and the Washington Post expressed astonishment that such a riot could occur in a city with such liberal policies. But neither of them changed its vision in response to facts which contradicted that vision.

In Chicago, there were three nights of rioting on the westside in 1966. These riots were brought to a halt with what a Chicago correspondent for the Los Angeles Times called an almost "miraculous" low death rate of two. Yet that same reporter called the use of both troops and police a "serious over-reaction."

Any force sufficient to prevent riots from getting out of hand is almost certain to be characterized as "excessive force" or "over-reaction" by people with zero experience trying to stop riots.

During a later and larger riot in Chicago, Mayor Richard J. Daley went on television to inform all and sundry that he had given orders to his police to "shoot to kill" arsonists — provoking outraged denunciations across the country.

The number of people actually killed during that riot was less than a third of the number killed in kinder and gentler Detroit the following year, even though Chicago had a larger population.

Do you prefer that fewer people get killed or that kinder and gentler rhetoric and tactics be used?

Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305. His website is www.tsowell.com. To find out more about Thomas Sowell and read features by other Creators Syndicate columnists and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2014 CREATORS.COM



Comments

3 Comments | Post Comment
I appreciate a police presence, in downtown Chicago recently a midnight stroll yielded an average of three friendly policemen or women, wearing the familiar checkered hat band, at every corner. They were there to protect and serve, and they looked that was their mission.

You put a guy in camo, arm him to the teeth, armor plate his body and take him to work in a humvee, and you don't have someone there to protect and defend. You have the psyche of a soldier in enemy territory. Wear a suit, act like a suit. Dress like a thug, behave like a thug. Dress like a soldier at war, act like a soldier in a warzone.

I say that video of the two reporters at the McDonalds in Ferguson, and yes they were fishing, but only a little. The cop dressed as soldier, was unbearable and it made me realize there was a lie i had been telling myself for years; American Soldiers would never open fire upon American citizens. Wrong. The modern soldier will shoot anyone in his path with as little emotional restraint as knocking off zombied in a video game.

If you are going to a war zone, dress appropriately. Kill and destroy, that is your mission. If you are needed to restore peace in a confused American city, look like you are there to protect and serve.

I prefer that those whose job it is to serve and protect look and behave as if they are there to serve and protect. Police should be recognizable as police. That's not too much to ask.
Comment: #1
Posted by: Tom
Tue Aug 26, 2014 7:33 AM
So, Tom, send a city's finest into a riot zone with no riot gear?
Comment: #2
Posted by: Eric Wixom
Wed Aug 27, 2014 5:32 PM
So... Eric. Did you even "get" what Tom was saying at all? You missed his point entirely. Please read the article again... and I also suggest you read more of Tom's work so you "get" how he thinks and makes arguments. It's pretty clear that he would probably be in favor of riot gear for police... if that is the situation they might be facing.

His entire point is that a strong (and credible) police presence (who are adequately prepared and dressed for the worst) is a deterrent to people getting killed - as evidenced by the facts he cites from history.
Comment: #3
Posted by: L Lawliss
Fri Aug 29, 2014 9:28 PM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Thomas Sowell
Aug. `14
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
27 28 29 30 31 1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31 1 2 3 4 5 6
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Authorís Podcast
Walter Williams
Walter E. WilliamsUpdated 3 Sep 2014
Mark Levy
Mark LevyUpdated 30 Aug 2014
Patrick Buchanan
Pat BuchananUpdated 29 Aug 2014

25 Dec 2007 Computerized Confusion

27 Jul 2010 How Smart Are We?

20 Feb 2014 The Lesson of Dunkirk