zlacker

I am absolutely not objecting to oversight. I am not sure how you came to that. I am advocating for the opposite, for increased measurable data so that people don’t have to invent their own narratives.

>>austin+(OP)
> invent their own narratives

Your comments in this thread are recursively ridiculous and I'm not sure how far I want to unwind them, but people are "inventing their own narratives" (this is an astonishingly bad way of characterizing the problem here) in preference to siting hard numbers because the police are not holding themselves accountable, a phenomenon that includes the suppression of the hard data on how many abuses there are.

>>justin+h5
Then advocate for better data. You either want accountability or you just want to have something to complain about.

>>austin+Bl
Literally every person who is advocating for greater police accountability is, by definition, advocating for better data. I don't think there's an argument here about that. The point of disagreement would seem to be, most people don't believe being unable to fully quantify the corruption of the police means it does not exist.

>>justin+ew
The point isn’t whether there is corruption or not. In any government there is always some degree of perceived corruption. The point is the prevalence of corruption. Without some form of objective measure claiming corruption is largely meaningless, because there is nothing specifically identifiable to change.

>>austin+QH
> The point is the prevalence of corruption. Without some form of objective measure claiming corruption is largely meaningless, because there is nothing specifically identifiable to change.

This is particularly tone deaf in light of the subject matter of the article. I can point to specific things that happened and say "that should not be permitted" or "this is evidence of a corrupt system that is not holding itself to account." I can do this before I know precisely how often it's happening, and it would be wrong not to do that.