Why I Said Radley Balko Got the Facts Wrong: Because He Did
When Radley Balko wrote a post at Reason about the Atlanta incident, and Instapundit linked it, I said that Instapundit “[made] the mistake of relying on Radley Balko for his facts.” This caused Balko to go ballistic and write a lengthy, fact-challenged screed calling me “sleazy” and distorting my arguments in several ways.
I’ll grant you that I could have said that more nicely. Balko and I have had conflicts before, and he has seen fit in the past to take swipes at the way I do my job, which I don’t appreciate.
But the fact is that, in this case, it was indeed wrong for Instapundit to have relied on Balko for his facts. Because, in the post that Instapundit had linked, Balko got the facts wrong. And he still hasn’t corrected the post.
In his post, Balko affirmatively claimed that the police were refusing to say whether they had found drugs in the house — despite the fact that he had already linked two stories saying the exact opposite. Those stories quoted police as saying they had indeed found suspected narcotics inside the home. All the while, Balko was furiously speculating that police had hit the wrong house — a conclusion that is much harder to support when you tell readers that there were drugs inside the house.
The guy really should correct the post.
Here’s what Balko said in his initial post, before the update:
Police in Altanta [sic] have apparently shot and killed a 92-year-old woman Tuesday night during a drug raid. Details are sketchy, but unless a nonagenerian was pushing dope and using lethal force to protect her supply, the most likely explanation here is that someone sent the tactical team to kick down the wrong door after a bad tip from an informant. Again.
The woman’s niece, Sarah Dozier, says that she bought her aunt a gun to protect herself and that her aunt had a permit for the gun. Relatives believe Johnston was frightened by the officers and opened fire.”They kicked her door down talking about drugs, there’s no drugs in that house. And they realize now, they’ve got the wrong house,” Dozier said. “I’m mad as hell.”
Note that Balko — after hypothesizing that police had hit the wrong house, and quoting the woman’s niece as saying there were no drugs — neglected to say that the police claimed that they had found suspected drugs in the location. This oversight is remarkable, given that this information was right there in the story he had already linked. If you follow the link in the above quote, you get this story, which quite clearly says:
Officials say they have not made any arrests in the case and they have not located the male suspect. [Atlanta Police Assistant Chief Alan] Dreher said suspected narcotics were recovered from the home but they are awaiting lab results to confirm the items are drugs.
Balko didn’t bother to share that with readers, even as he speculated that police had hit the “wrong house.”
Then, in an update, Balko affirmatively said (in direct contradiction to articles he had linked) that the police weren’t saying what they’d found inside, or announcing any seized contraband:
UPDATE: More from the AJC here. Police aren’t saying what they were looking for, or what they found inside. Johnston was the only person in the house at the time of the raid. Perhaps this case will prove different, but my experience in researching this stuff is that when police conduct a drug raid, they trot out everything they found — particularly when the raid resulted in violence. That they’ve yet to announce any seized contraband doesn’t bode well.
Except that they did announce seized contraband — both in the story linked in the original post, and in the story linked in the update. Follow the link in the above quote, and you’ll get this story, which contains this quote:
[Assistant Chief Dreher] said that “suspected narcotics” were found at the home at 933 Neal Street, an area west and north of the Georgia Dome known for drug activity.
That’s two stories linked by Balko in which the Assistant Chief said suspected narcotics were found inside. Yet, after linking those stories, Balko claimed that police “aren’t saying . . . what they found inside” and that “they’ve yet to announce any seized contraband.” Did Balko even read the stories?
If Instapundit didn’t follow Balko’s links, but merely read his Reason post, it’s no wonder Instapundit thought it was a wrong-house raid. Balko was speculating it was the wrong house, and telling readers that cops weren’t claiming to have found any drugs in the house — even though they had claimed to have found suspected narcotics, and Balko should have known that.
Even though I have been making the point all weekend that police found suspected drugs in the house, Balko still has not corrected his Reason post. Instead, his only response to me has been to write a screed about how it’s “bullshit” for me to say he got the facts wrong, and that I’m “sleazy.” In this screed, he misstates my arguments six ways from Sunday, but when I pointed that out, I got a post that said “whatever” and claimed that I wasn’t worth his time.
Look: I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. I’m not claiming that Balko gets it wrong all the time. And we all make mistakes — all of us. But when someone questions your facts, you shouldn’t simply get huffy and emotional about it, label the person “sleazy,” call their accusations “bullshit” — and fail to check your facts.
And if someone makes a good argument that you have distorted their positions, the thing to do is either: 1) explain why you haven’t, taking their best arguments head-on; or 2) apologize. Orin Kerr took the latter route tonight after Balko accused him of misstating his position on search warrants. I wonder how Balko would like it if, having shown that Kerr misunderstood him, Kerr had responded to him the same way Balko responded to me — with the comment: “Whatever. . . . I’ve already wasted enough time on the guy.”
Here is the quote you used… seems that you are both correct in a way:
rrsafety (09e9d0) — 11/26/2006 @ 4:07 amIf you can believe it, another case of police error:
Wrong House
rrsafety (09e9d0) — 11/26/2006 @ 4:27 amWrong house, maybe not. As I read the information, the guy listed the address as his residence on a previous occasion. The women is also related to the suspect.
davod (5fdaa2) — 11/26/2006 @ 4:46 amHe also neglected/forgot/didn’t think it worthwhile to mention that 3 police officers had been shot… even though the lead sentence of the article he linked to was “Three Atlanta police officers were shot and wounded and an elderly woman killed…”. Nor did he think it worthwhile to mention that the police officers were shot prior to opening fire themselves… again, notwithstanding the inconvenient fact that the story he linked to had mentioned that as well.
Hey, when you’re on a crusade to save us like he is, when you’re convinced of the righteousness of your position, anything goes, right?
steve sturm (d3e296) — 11/26/2006 @ 5:30 amWhat are you talking about? It was the wrong house. He never lived there.
Gee, do you think criminals ever give phony addresses?? Do you think the cops have ever thought of such a ruse? It’s another excellent example of why no-knocks are stupid..criminals sometimes give phoney addresses…
rrsafety (09e9d0) — 11/26/2006 @ 5:31 amI cannot say for sure how the Atlanta Police handle their evidence, but they probably did some field testing of the suspected narcotics. If the field test shows positive, they will then send it to a laboratory for a final say. Until they get the results from the lab, they will use the adjective “suspected” when describing the narcotics.
Humble Patriot (adfddf) — 11/26/2006 @ 5:36 amNeither “suspected narcotics” nor “suspected drugs” are actual narcotics or drugs, especially when the stories state that the substances are being sent to the lab for analysis rather than confirmation. I’d think a prosecutor would be able to make that distinction. However, I’m not a lawyer, and this may be one of those law-english vs engineer-english problems.
htom (412a17) — 11/26/2006 @ 6:03 amI got here from the agitator and before i did I knew the following
1. The police had sent some stuff out for testing that might be drugs.
2. Three officers had been shot.
3. Balko said that the officers on the scene were right to defend themselves.
His point seems to be that no knock raids are being used when they don’t need to be and that this is causing some tragedy. His larger point is that we could reduce this tragedy by fighting drugs with less military tactics. He also seems to think that there would be other benefits of such a policy.
Here’s the link where he says they sent out suspected drugs for testing
http://www.theagitator.com/archives/027255.php#027255
Here’s the link where he noted that three police officers had been shot
joe (de58bf) — 11/26/2006 @ 6:06 amhttp://www.theagitator.com/archives/027246.php#027246
So that’s the defense. If cops say “we seized what we believe is drugs, but until we hear from the crime lab we can’t confirm it” then it’s OK for Balko to say police have suspiciously not announced any seized contraband; must be the wrong house.
You guys will defend anything if it’s coming from a libertarian source.
It remains to be seen whether he uses this argument as a convenient but disingenuous alternative to correcting the post and admitting I was right all along about him screwing up the facts.
Patterico (de0616) — 11/26/2006 @ 8:04 amjoe,
The larger issue, which I think a lot of people would like to happily ignore, is that these pointless deaths – and this was a death without meaning or purpose – will continue as long as we are conducting a “war” on the civilian population of the U.S.
Horace (cbe5f9) — 11/26/2006 @ 8:18 amHa. In the same post where Patterico argues to “take their positions head-on,” he makes the following stateent:
“You guys will defend anything if it’s coming from a libertarian source.”
Anyway, maybe Patterico needs to learn how to read, or at least read in context. I hear the Sylvan Learning Center has some good programs that perhaps he should check out.
Patterico tellingly neglects to bold the one part of Balko’s post that makes clear what he meant:
“my experience in researching this stuff is that when police conduct a drug raid, they trot out everything they found — particularly when the raid resulted in violence” (with everything italicized)
What he’s saying is that in these violent raids, police are quick to bring out the 0.1 ounces of marijuana they got, the 2 specks of cocaine, and the poppy seed bagel.
He is contrasting this typical situation, based on his research, with the current one. Note how in the “updated post” linked to from the Agitator, what is different is that police AFFIRMATIVELY say that “Yes, narcotics was found,” as opposed to the previous articles which states “suspected narcotics” were being sent to the lab for “analysis.”
Again, Balko states:
“When police find drugs after one of these raids that at all implicate the person they shot, the variety and quantity are all over the news. Why won’t they release that information? And where in the home did they find the drugs?”
Methinks someone is being disingenuous here. And it isn’t Balko.
Tefnut (dfa9f2) — 11/26/2006 @ 8:42 amTefnut: do you think it was accurate for Balko to say the police had not announced any seized contraband?
He could have said “That they’ve yet to show us the contraband they claim they seized doesn’t bode well.” That would be more accurate. To claim they didn’t announce seized contraband, or that police aren’t saying what they found inside — it’s just wrong and misleading.
Patterico (de0616) — 11/26/2006 @ 8:50 amBut that Reason post explains why people came on here saying there were no drugs in the house.
Patterico (de0616) — 11/26/2006 @ 8:51 am“Suspected narcotics” being sent to the lab for “analysis” =/= “contraband”
0.1 ounces of marijuana, 2 specks of cocaine, etc. = “contraband” as those are known illegal substances.
Is this that tough?
Tefnut (dfa9f2) — 11/26/2006 @ 8:58 amThe story you cite as evidence shows an original post date of Nov 21, and a last update of Nov 23. Do you think it is possible that the original story did not include that information?
GS From FL (530c59) — 11/26/2006 @ 9:17 amGS From FL:
This story has only an original post date of Nov. 21. It is the story he cited in the update — the one where he denied that cops were claiming to have seized contraband, and that they were refusing to say what they’d found.
No, that won’t work. If you are determined to defend him, you’ll have to rely on pathetic and unconvincing arguments like the ones advanced above by the Balko acolytes.
Patterico (de0616) — 11/26/2006 @ 9:34 amAgain the Libertarian view point shows exactly why they will never become a major force in politics.I say thank G-D,they prefer anarchy to laws,every thing legal,ever thing left to the appitites of the individual.Why have any laws.
jainphx (8dadee) — 11/26/2006 @ 9:35 amjainphx,
Again the Libertarian view point shows exactly why they will never become a major force in politics. I say thank G-D, they prefer anarchy to laws, every thing legal, ever thing left to the appitites of the individual. Why have any laws.
Would one rather be a “major force” or be right?
Anyway, you are quite wrong about the general attitude of libertarians. Libertarians generally seperate vices from, well, crimes. Or rather, liberty v. license. License is a wholely appropriate area for government internvention. Now, there are some anarchists who are libertarians, but even they don’t think everything should be “legal,” they simply claim that one should be without government – that what is legal and illegal would be dealt with by private parties. I don’t take that tack for the same reasons that Robert Nozick doesn’t.
Horace (cbe5f9) — 11/26/2006 @ 9:44 am“taking their best arguments head-on”
“you’ll have to rely on pathetic and unconvincing arguments like the ones advanced above by the Balko acolytes”
Again, LOL.
Tefnut (dfa9f2) — 11/26/2006 @ 9:49 amPatterico,
You guys will defend anything if it’s coming from a libertarian source.
Wouldn’t a defense against such a statement merely be like trying to prove negative? I mean, how could one plausibly deny it without getting tangled up in a rather pointless argument?
Compare it to this statement:
You guys will defend the anything if it’s coming out of the J.Q. Adams administration.
Horace (cbe5f9) — 11/26/2006 @ 9:55 amHorace,
You seem one of the more reasonable of the bunch.
Read Balko’s Reason post.
Look at the articles he cited.
Am I correct that he was in error to say
I’m not dismissive of libertarian ideas in general, at all. I love Friedman. But this post is about him calling me “sleazy” and saying my accusations were “bullshit” when I pointed out that he got the facts wrong.
And he did.
Do you deny it?
Patterico (de0616) — 11/26/2006 @ 10:03 amPatterico, you don’t seem to be getting th point here. When you enter a house in plainclothes – you’re being extremely aggressive and there is a pretty high likelihood of somebody getting killed.
The police must never do this unless they reasonably believe lives are in immediate jeopardy. These cops didn’t bother to wait for their suspect (the lady killed was not suspected of being involved, if the police here were even aware she existed).
The police ANSWER TO ME AND ALL CITIZENS. They aren’t doing that anymore. They’re going lethal weapon on any house near a drug deal. That’s lazy, that’s stupid. I can understand why someone who works with one of the least effective and most notoriously abusive police forces in our country would lack perspective, so I’m not calling you stupid, but Balko is fighting the obvious and pervasive injustice of no-knock drug raids. Something that doesn’t save lives, but rather takes them.
You counter with a technical correction that doesn’t approach his reasoning at all.
Dustin (ea244e) — 11/26/2006 @ 10:20 amPatterico,
Well, I’m not a “bunch.” 😉
I think you may have noticed that I am steering clear of the debate between you and Balko. I clearly think that we need major legal reform, etc. in this area. That’s where I am coming from.
Horace (cbe5f9) — 11/26/2006 @ 10:28 amBalko’s ‘reasoning’ is: drug laws are bad… therefore, police no-knock drug raids are bad.
Keep in mind Balko would have objected to this raid even had the police found drugs, even if the police had gone to the house they wanted, even if the person named in the warrant was inside, even if the poor lady was a drug dealer, even if… even if…. even if.
But Balko knows he’s not going to score any sympathy or principle points with the public by objecting to no-knocks where everything ‘goes right’…. so he reads the papers and cherrypicks (he claims to have researched 1000 no-knocks in the last 18 months… but note he doesn’t provide numbers for how many of those 1000 raids resulted in something going wrong.) the cases where something is somewhat off, usually something along these lines, or where the police used a supposedly unreliable informant, or accidently went to the wrong house… then uses these exceptions to argue that these types of raids should be banned.
steve sturm (d3e296) — 11/26/2006 @ 10:39 amThis just in:
I just read a news story where a man (Mr. Smith) was suspected of murdering his wife. There are other plausible suspects as well. In the story, the police state, “Mr. Smith is suspected of murder, but we are running tests on the blood found at the scene to see if it matches his DNA.”
I guess if I post on my blog, “The police have not yet announced who the murderer is” before the results come back, that apparently makes me a liar.
Out of curiosity, did you go to a first tier school, Patterico?
Tefnut (dfa9f2) — 11/26/2006 @ 10:48 amI guess if you post on your blog: “I find it very suspicious that the police have not announced any blood found at the scene,” your facts are wrong.
I’m done talking to you. It’s a waste of my time.
Patterico (de0616) — 11/26/2006 @ 10:59 amHorace,
It’s a simple question, like whether I read a book. Did Balko get it right in the post or not?
Patterico (de0616) — 11/26/2006 @ 11:00 amPatterico,
Why should it matter to me? Whether Balko (or you) got it right doesn’t really say much about my position on the drug war, does it?
Horace (cbe5f9) — 11/26/2006 @ 11:03 amPatterico,
Maybe you and Balko could have a formal debate?
Horace (cbe5f9) — 11/26/2006 @ 11:05 amAbout what?
Patterico (de0616) — 11/26/2006 @ 11:18 amSee, here’s where you reveal yourself as not particularly bright.
The analogy is:
Suspected narcotics : Announcement of actual contraband
Suspected murderer : Announcement of actual murderer
The presence or absence of blood was not in question in the news story nor my blog post within my analogy. The presence or absence of contraband (that is, an illegal substance) is in question in the original linked news articles.
Well, since you no longer wish to discuss what you yourself posted I guess I’ll leave you with the following quotes:
“taking their best arguments head-on”
“I’m done talking to you.”
Ta-ta.
Tefnut (dfa9f2) — 11/26/2006 @ 11:20 amSteve, you’re either being disingenuous in the extreme or you don’t know what cherrypicking is.
Balko specifically states that his research is on police raids that have gone wrong. He’d be cherrypicking if he claimed that a larger proportion go wrong than actually do and used his specific examples as evidence, but that’s not what he does.
The purpose of his specific focus on raids that have gone wrong is to inform and support his wider claim that the tactics used increase the risks to both the officers and the civilians involved in a way that is out of proportion with any of the stated benefits. That’s something you’re quite welcome to disagree with, but it’s as well to understand it before commenting.
B (e8227e) — 11/26/2006 @ 11:21 amTefnut, I took your best arguments head-on at length, and you insulted my intelligence and made arguments that have no application to what we’re talking about.
First, your posts don’t address that Balko said the police aren’t saying what they found inside. That’s just wrong. They found suspected narcotics.
If you tried to suggest that the police did something wrong, and bolstered your argument by saying that the absence of blood was suspicious — but left out the fact that the police had found what they believed was blood — that would be highly disingenuous. And if you said the police aren’t saying what they found, it would be flat wrong.
Ta-ta yourself. I won’t miss your disingenuous failure to respond to simple points and make on-point arguments.
Patterico (de0616) — 11/26/2006 @ 11:29 amB:
Here’s Balko’s quote: “… the result of studying around 1,000 of these raids… and noticing the same patterns occurring over and over when one goes wrong”.
Where does he say the 1000 raids were ones that ‘gone wrong’? Maybe my interpretation is wrong, but I say 1000 is the number of total raids he looked at and not the number of raids ‘gone wrong’. In fact, given how agitated he gets over these raids and how quick he is to post on one when they go bad, I think we can infer from the fact that he hasn’t written up anywhere near 1000 of these ‘gone wrong’ raids that he is indeed cherrypicking the bad ones to try to support his claim that they should be banned.
What he is doing is somewhat akin to screaming that 3 people got sick from eating seafood… and not mentioning the 997 who didn’t. It’s not a lie, just misleading.
And you’re certainly more generous towards him than I am, as I don’t believe he objects to these raids because they increase the risks to the officers involved. It may be harsh to say so, but I just don’t think he cares about the officers involved at all.
steve sturm (d3e296) — 11/26/2006 @ 12:33 pmThe purpose of his specific focus on raids that have gone wrong is to inform and support his wider claim that the tactics used increase the risks to both the officers and the civilians involved in a way that is out of proportion with any of the stated benefits
No. A proportion is a comparison of two quantities, and can be expressed as a percentage, or a fraction. Fractions have a numerator and a denominator.
Balko is pointing and gesturing wildly at the Numerator… but where is the Denominator?
Every human endeavor has error… and unless people can see a true risks/benefits analysis (which should include wrong-house raids, accidental shootings, etc compared to SWAT operations as a whole), how can anyone objectively judge? Balko points out some heinous raids-gone-wrong, but the truth is that those are a tiny fraction of the whole.
TheNewGuy (114368) — 11/26/2006 @ 12:55 pmBalko’s paper is online. It appears that the “thousand” are probably cases where he thinks something went badly wrong. He seems to be saying that there are now upwards of 40,000 such dynamic entry raids annually. So over the twenty or thirty years, less than one percent would seem to be on his “cherry list”. That he could find things in common among them seems self-evident; that they would be things that put them on his list, rather than on the other non-list, likewise seems self-evident, especially since they seem to come in clusters, where the same department produces cherry after cherry.
I have skimmed, not read, his paper. Perhaps my impression is wrong.
htom (412a17) — 11/26/2006 @ 12:59 pm[…] He got his facts wrong this time around, but it was impolite of me, I think, to point that out in the way I did, by saying that Glenn Reynolds made a mistake in relying on Balko for his facts. Regardless of the accuracy of my claim, I didn’t need to say it that way. […]
Patterico’s Pontifications » An Attempt to End the Pissing Contest (421107) — 11/26/2006 @ 1:44 pmI’m not wildly interested in discussing what was or wasn’t said by someone who I read rather than by myself, but there are a few things to note.
Steve:
‘What he is doing is somewhat akin to screaming that 3 people got sick from eating seafood… and not mentioning the 997 who didn’t. It’s not a lie, just misleading.’
This is precisely where I think you’ve got it wrong. People who cherrypick don’t mention the sample size they’re using precisely because they want to imply that the phenomenon they’re citing is more common than it really is. By mentioning a sample size before referencing a smaller number of raids that have gone wrong he isn’t remotely trying to hide the figures he’s been working with.
‘”and noticing the same patterns occurring over and over when one goes wrong”.’
Not ‘and noticing the same patterns over and over again with raids’ or ‘and noticing that nearly all of them go wrong’. As I said, his specific interest is in the ones that go wrong, how they do and what the wider consequences are.
The emphasis is clear to me, and I see no attempt to deceive.
‘It may be harsh to say so, but I just don’t think he cares about the officers involved at all. ‘
There have certainly been people in the libertarian blogosphere vilifying the officers involved in these raids and welcoming their deaths, but he’s gone out of his way not to be one of them. A couple of sample quotes and links from his site to show you what I mean –
“What’s the solution? It isn’t to encourage people to start shooting raiding cops to kill. That kind of talk is foolish, and needs to stop. But it isn’t to encourage to people to refrain from defending their homes, either. Both of those suggestions will lead to more people dying — both police and citizens.”
http://www.theagitator.com/archives/027258.php#027258
“I have gone out of my way — in my paper and elsewhere — to emphasize that the individual officer who rightfully fears for his life and uses lethal force in one of these raids isn’t to blame. The policy that put him in that position is.”
http://www.theagitator.com/archives/027254.php#027254
TheNewGuy –
‘No. A proportion is a comparison of two quantities, and can be expressed as a percentage, or a fraction. Fractions have a numerator and a denominator.’
I don’t know what to make of this except to point out that ‘out of proportion’ is a universally accepted idiom. Dictionary.com is one of many places you can find the details –
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=out%20of%20proportion
If you really want to argue semantics based on one of the possible definitions of the word ‘proportion’ I’m not your man.
‘Balko points out some heinous raids-gone-wrong, but the truth is that those are a tiny fraction of the whole.’
As discussed with Steve, I’ve nowhere seen him claim that the number of raids which go wrong is a high percentage of the whole nor to ignore the fact that not all of them go wrong (see the ‘cherrypicking’ discussion). What he has done, and repeatedly, is to point out that the cost/benefit analysis doesn’t appear to be one the police force takes as seriously as it should. His site is awash with examples of this kind of discussion, but here’s one of dozens of examples:
http://www.theagitator.com/archives/026232.php#026232
B (e8227e) — 11/26/2006 @ 2:20 pm[…] Patterico notices how often this Balko gets his facts wrong: But the fact is that, in this case, it was indeed wrong for Instapundit to have relied on Balko for his facts. Because, in the post that Instapundit had linked, Balko got the facts wrong. And he still hasn’t corrected the post. […]
Flopping Aces » Blog Archive » The Cop Haters Up To Their Old Tricks (986d71) — 11/26/2006 @ 2:37 pmWhat he has done, and repeatedly, is to point out that the cost/benefit analysis doesn’t appear to be one the police force takes as seriously as it should
And I don’t appreciate his insinuation, or yours, that we’re all cowboys who could give a rat’s ass whether the raid goes right or wrong. He’s trying to indict “paramilitary” actions on the part of police as a facet of his opposition to the war on drugs. As far as I can tell, he’s yet to produce a serious paper where he crunches the total numbers of SWAT-served warrants done annually, and compares them to the tiny number that go wrong (and without ballyhooing the egregious outliers). When he does that, (as an actual researcher, and without the attendent editorialization), I’ll take him as an objective source. Until then, he’s just another guy with an agenda.
As for my “semantics,” I think you know exactly what I meant. To say that the risk of something is “out of proportion” to the benefits presumes that you know the actual, fungible benefits. You can’t weigh one quantity against an unknown.
It’s worth noting that anyone can make an academic, verbose diatribe against something, replete with all the flowery prose they can muster, and that’s fine… but once you strip all that away, they’re still an idealogue pushing their own point of view.
TheNewGuy (114368) — 11/26/2006 @ 3:18 pmTheNewuy,
…and compares them to the tiny number that go wrong (and without ballyhooing the egregious outliers).
I will note that we are of course talking people now, not, you know, widgets on an assembly line.
To say that the risk of something is “out of proportion” to the benefits presumes that you know the actual, fungible benefits. You can’t weigh one quantity against an unknown.
Well, what are the benefits?
…they’re still an idealogue pushing their own point of view.
Do you have a point of view?
Horace (cbe5f9) — 11/26/2006 @ 3:35 pmPatterico-
Once again, you need to learn how to read.
It is clear from the context of the Balko’s post that when Balko says the police haven’t said WHAT they found yet, he is referring to specific drugs. That is, he feels that if actual illegal substances were found at her home (that is, contraband), the police would “trot out” the 0.1 grams of marijuana and 2 specks of cocaine they found. In fact, he almost immediately contrasts the Johnson raid with what his typical experience is with these raids (based on his research). Namely:
“my experience in researching this stuff is that when police conduct a drug raid, they trot out everything they found”
And in another post:
“When police find drugs after one of these raids that at all implicate the person they shot, the variety and quantity are all over the news. Why won’t they release that information?”
As far as your analogy goes, you once again convenitently leave out the relevant parts. If you want to use blood, fine, we’ll use blood.
Let’s say that type B blood always belongs to murderers, whereas types O, AB, and A always belongs to non-murderers. Let’s say I had done research suggesting that police, after a murder vs. suicide investigation, always trot out the type B blood they found at the crime scene almost immediately to prove that a murder did in fact occur when they suspect it.
If a murder vs. suicide of a non-type B persons occurs, and the police announce that they found suspected blood on the scene (although it could just as easily be catsup), then I could rightly say that they haven’t announced what they have found (especially in contrast to my research which suggests they say they find definitive blood immediately and identify the type when a suspected murder occurs).
In fact, I could say:
Police haven’t yet said what they found inside. [True, as they haven’t said whether it is blood or catsup, much less what type of blood it is]. Perhaps this case will prove different, but my experience in researching this stuff is that when police conduct a murder vs. suicide investigation, they trot out the type B blood right away when they believe a murder has taken place. [True] That they’ve yet to announce any blood at all doesn’t bode well for this actually being a murder. [True, as, again, in contrast to my research, they haven’t announced that blood was definitively found or the blood type which is the norm when they suspect a murder.]
Anyway, the larger point is that YOU were the one who started this pissing match (regardless of your half-assed “apology”). Despite your pathetic liberalesque efforts to paint yourself as the victim, YOU are the one who initiated attacks on HIS credibility. YOU were the one who chose to largely ignore the substantive issues in order to concentrate on the pissing match.
Tefnut (329cc6) — 11/26/2006 @ 3:40 pmOK. I’m done with this site.
Bye!
Tefnut (dfa9f2) — 11/26/2006 @ 3:43 pmDon’t let the door hit you . . .
Patterico (de0616) — 11/26/2006 @ 3:47 pm‘And I don’t appreciate his insinuation, or yours, that we’re all cowboys who could give a rat’s ass whether the raid goes right or wrong.’
If I thought that was being said I’d be irritated too. I’d also be embarrassed to draw such a conclusion from the available evidence. The criticism is that the police force is insufficiently transparent or accountable to the citizens it serves both in the planning of these raids and the aftermath of those that end badly. I have neither commented on individual officer reactions nor stereotyped the police. Nor, as far as I’ve seen, has he. Your inference is not my or his implication, and so we can’t be held responsible for it.
‘As for my “semantics,” I think you know exactly what I meant. To say that the risk of something is “out of proportion” to the benefits presumes that you know the actual, fungible benefits. You can’t weigh one quantity against an unknown.’
The reason I didn’t figure that out is because the thrust of your argument is not true. It’s no harder to determine the benefits of dynamic entry raids than it is to determine the risks (both of which are subject to the same margins of error as any calculation of real world issues) and the police, as the people who carry them out, must have a way of calculating these things. The question, given that mistakes (however rare or not) have significant downside is how the benefit calculation is made. Where the suspects are considered armed and dangerous the benefit of sudden and armed entry is obvious. Where they aren’t they’re much more open to question. If the police were more open about their planning and the broad arguments were laid out, the discussion would be less adversarial. As they often don’t, it often is.
‘It’s worth noting that anyone can make an academic, verbose diatribe against something, replete with all the flowery prose they can muster, and that’s fine… but once you strip all that away, they’re still an idealogue pushing their own point of view. ‘
It’s further worth noting that this generic statement can be used in describing any discussion in the blogosphere. My way of dealing with it is to step away when the exchange of ideas becomes either repetitious or abusive.
B (e8227e) — 11/26/2006 @ 3:58 pmFor all of you who think these raids are great ideas, how many people dying per 10,000 of these raids is acceptable?
Drug king pins = ____
Small time drug dealers = ___
Heavy users = ___
Casual users = ____
People living with users = _____
People in the wrong place at the wrong time = ____
Innocents = _____
Cops = ______
Gerald (88e5f0) — 11/26/2006 @ 4:17 pmSame question for cars and swimming pools.
Patterico (de0616) — 11/26/2006 @ 4:30 pmWe should all realize that we are mere widgets and that are worth is to be found in statistics.
Horace (cbe5f9) — 11/26/2006 @ 4:34 pmSo Patterico, you don’t care how many die, just so it’s not you, or is at least your family included?
[Every decision carries with it the potential for loss of life. A car company that doesn’t make a car like a tank can be asked, “How many deaths were you willing to have occur because you didn’t take safety measure x?” If the answer is more than zero, the company appears heartless. But unless the company is going to make a $200,000 tank, tradeoffs are inevitable. It’s legitimate to ask whether these raids are worth it, and indeed in my upcoming interview with the use of force expert, he concludes that they generally aren’t. But asking “how many deaths are you willing to have occur?” strikes me as a loaded question. Do you support traffic enforcement? How many officers are you willing to have die for it? Come on, answer the question, how many cops have to die for your precious traffic enforcement? — P]
Gerald (88e5f0) — 11/26/2006 @ 4:38 pmHorace, where statistics help people to save and improve lives I’m all in favour. God help us if public policy were solely based on knee-jerk reactions to poignant but irregular events. While deaths are always unfortunate that has no bearing on the important question of whether public policy was at fault in ways that are fixable without breaking anything more serious.
B (e8227e) — 11/26/2006 @ 4:40 pmAnd by the way, people CHOSE to use a pool or car, I know of know one who CHOSES to have the cops bust down their door in the wee hours of the morning, especially when they done nothing wrong.
[Then go with the traffic enforcement analogy. Nobody CHOOSES to get pulled over by cops. — P]
Gerald (88e5f0) — 11/26/2006 @ 4:44 pmHorace, where statistics help people to save and improve lives I’m all in favour.
Can you give me an example of such? I took social statistics as an undergraduate, I am highly dubious of any claims based on such.
God help us if public policy were solely based on knee-jerk reactions to poignant but irregular events.
I’d say its a measure of “moral panics” and influence peddling largely.
While deaths are always unfortunate that has no bearing on the important question of whether public policy was at fault in ways that are fixable without breaking anything more serious.
Actually, I think you get ahead of the first question that must be asked: what is the presumption re: government intervention into society? Is it the presumption of government competance? The presumption of liberty? Etc.
Horace (cbe5f9) — 11/26/2006 @ 4:47 pmAnd while we’re at it
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/24/AR2006112401308.html
Yes, cops are upset that the officer who “accidently” shot and killed someone, will be getting 2 weeks suspension without pay, they think it’s too harsh.
Gerald (88e5f0) — 11/26/2006 @ 5:04 pmHorace #52:
Statistical information allows us to make better decisions regarding how to expend limited funds in order to maximize the benefit derived from those funds. For example, if a third world nation has $1M to spend on improving the quality of life of its citizens, statistics suggest it would be better to spend those funds on upgrading the water and sanitation systems (and thereby increase the number of people that have access to clean water) than to spend that same money on a new hospital.
How could this be? Because WHO statistics suggest more benefits will be realized from improving a negligible water and sanitation system – and thus preventing deaths due to water-borne illnesses – than are realized from spending those funds on a state-of-the-art hospital designed to cure those illnesses.
In a developed country with good water and sanitation systems, those funds would probably be better spent on medical care than an upgraded water supply. Statistics lets us better evaluate where, when, and how to make that decision.
DRJ (8b9d41) — 11/26/2006 @ 5:25 pmB,
I apologize if I misconstrued your remarks. I think you hit the nail precisely on the head with this short paragraph:
Horace, where statistics help people to save and improve lives I’m all in favour. God help us if public policy were solely based on knee-jerk reactions to poignant but irregular events. While deaths are always unfortunate that has no bearing on the important question of whether public policy was at fault in ways that are fixable without breaking anything more serious.
You win the thread… couldn’t have said it better myself. Objective statistical analysis can either reveal a problem to be larger than was thought, or smaller… but I don’t think this issue has received anything resembling an even-handed treatment. I trust nobody mistakes Balko’s work for anything remotely objective.
I also have a viewpoint… but I’m neither cop nor tactical operator (anymore). I’m just a former tac-team guy who’s offering the other side of the story, and it’s amazing to me how much flak I’ve received for bringing a simple counterpoint.
I realize people sometimes just want their own pre-existing viewpoint validated, and aren’t really interested in the other side, but I have to say that the rhetoric from some of the posters in these discussions (both here and at Volokh’s place) has been nothing short of ridiculous.
TheNewGuy (114368) — 11/26/2006 @ 5:50 pmThose stories quoted police as saying they had indeed found suspected narcotics inside the home.
Gaius Obvious (08c6b4) — 11/26/2006 @ 5:52 pmThere’s a huge difference between finding “suspected narcotics” and finding “illegal narcotics.” Lots of people have legally prescribed narcotics in their houses and are not breaking any law by doing so. So that one comment by the police is not as damning as you make it out to be.
I trust nobody mistakes Balko’s work for anything remotely objective.
Should we take your remarks as being objective?
Horace (cbe5f9) — 11/26/2006 @ 5:56 pmTake my remarks however you want, Horace.
TheNewGuy (114368) — 11/26/2006 @ 8:07 pmTheNewGuy:
I trust Balko’s work as being reliably more objective than yours; you say you are some kind of “former Tac-team guy”.
RJN (e12f22) — 11/26/2006 @ 8:25 pmRJN,
Trust whoever you want… but Balko is a paid think-tank guy and political advocate. He’s not analyzing SWAT raids as an detached, dispassionate observer on the phenomenon, he’s an anti-drug-war policy wonk who is picking out bad outcomes and using them to agitate for abolition of paramilitary SWAT tactics.
Just because he may reinforce your pre-existing biases does not make him “objective.”
As for me, I’m just another anonymous idiot on a blog… but what I have (and Balko lacks) is experience on both sides of the badge, in precisely the specialized area he considers so problematic. Mr. Balko has no such background. He has an undergraduate degree in Poly-sci and journalism, and his CV lists no law enforcement experience whatsoever.
As I said, weight my opinion however you want.
TheNewGuy (114368) — 11/26/2006 @ 9:12 pmSo let me get this straight, you are pissy because Balko supposedly didn’t update his post fast enough or something, but in the end he was right, as you admit in this post. I’m sorry, but at this point you are just looking petty and vindictive.
Yeah, all those pools and cars that dress up in paramilitary outfits and kick down doors set off incindiary devices and even shoot innocents. Talk about missing the point.
The New Guy,
Statistics is my day job. Why don’t you point to a comprehensive database for SWAT/TAC raids. Please point to where there is a paper describing how the data in the database is representative of the nation as a whole and how we can view inferences from said data as reliable.
Absent any of this you are just spitting in the wind and awarding empty points.
As for objective, that is just a load of nonsense that people throw around when they are in a weak position. So Balko has biases, so do you and so does Patterico. However, Balko is pretty upfront with his biases. Given that we know his biases we can use that information to temper the conclusions we draw from what ever data and work he has done.
Excuse me, but where is your objectivity? You obviously can’t be trusted either given your past employment. This sword cuts both ways, so my advice is simply to drop this “objective analysis” nonsense and be upfront with your biases and demand it of others.
You know, I find this argument so amusing when it comes from conservatives who then turn around and demonize it when it is used by liberals. Tell me New Guy, do you use the same form of “argument” (this is a logical fallacy by the way) when people discount global warming skeptics? Just curious to see if you use this argument consistently or merely when it suits your purposes.
Balko has actually gotten me to change my mind. Prior to reading his work I was much more inclined to go with the “cut the cops some slack, they have a tough and dangerous job.” But after reading how stupidly some of these raids went wrong I can’t but help conclude that no-knock raids are over-used and use against non-violent offenders is probably a bad policy.
This is nothing but a variant of the chickenhawk argument those on the Left use about the War in Iraq. Do you support that argument as well? It strikes me as precisely the same one.
Steve Verdon (7a01d1) — 11/26/2006 @ 11:09 pmSo let me get this straight, you are pissy because Balko supposedly didn’t update his post fast enough or something, but in the end he was right, as you admit in this post. I’m sorry, but at this point you are just looking petty and vindictive.
No, I don’t like the fact that he flat-out misstated what the police said.
Patterico (de0616) — 11/26/2006 @ 11:11 pmSteve,
Your linked websites seem reasonable and interesting and, as a statistician, you have something to bring to the table in this discussion. There’s no point in being hostile – it’s a blog, for goodness sake. Why not calm down and join the discussion?
DRJ (0df497) — 11/26/2006 @ 11:17 pmI agree with DRJ, Steve.
If you tone it down, we can have a nice discussion.
Too much hostility lately.
Patterico (de0616) — 11/26/2006 @ 11:33 pmNow that 2 of the officers are going to jail and the third is going to trial, then jail, what do you have to say to Balko? Will you apologize to him and all others you have implicated as liars? YOU WERE WRONG, BALKO WAS RIGHT! What have you to say for yourself now? Your just another corrupt individual that protects the REAL criminals, the cops.
Sean (95243e) — 8/9/2007 @ 5:29 amDumbass:
Search my site and see if you can find a follow-up about the case and the cops being prosecuted. Hint: I had the story of their pleas before Balko did.
Doesn’t make it right for him to have misrepresented the contents of stories he linked.
Patterico (e7f9b6) — 8/9/2007 @ 5:34 am