-3

Recently, the following question of mine was closed:

The reasons for such closure were:

This question does not appear to be about governments, policies and political processes within the scope defined in the help center.

The primary purpose of this question appears to be to promote or discredit a specific political cause, group or politician. It does not appear to be a good-faith effort to learn more about governments, policies and political processes as defined in the help center.

My questions are as follows:

  1. Whether to incorporate combat veterans in police forces — and, if so, to which units to allocate them — is a matter of internal security policy. To use a more European terminology, how exactly are the policies of the Ministry of the Interior, not about "governments, policies and political processes"?

  2. On the accusation that the question was asked in mala fide, how is satisfying one's curiosity an act of bad faith?

  3. If the question were easy to answer, the one answer to it would have been accepted already. However, the answer did not answer my question. Thus, I cannot accept it (yet). Why prevent people who may have access to better data from joining the discussion?

| |
  • 2
    I don't see how your question is specifically about a policy. Care to elaborate? – yannis Sep 14 at 18:10
  • Allowing combat veterans to join police forces is a policy. Is it not? – Rodrigo de Azevedo Sep 14 at 18:12
  • 6
    Let's say it is. How's your question specifically about it? You are asking about statistics that may or may not be relevant to the policy, not the policy itself. To put it another way: Almost everything may be relevant to a policy or two, where do we draw the line? – yannis Sep 14 at 18:14
  • I am questioning whether the policy is sensible or not. How does one determine whether the policy is sensible or not without using statistics? By slaughtering pigeons and looking at their innards? Where do we draw the line? Is there an alternative SE site for this question? I don't think so. If there were, I would have cross-posted. – Rodrigo de Azevedo Sep 14 at 18:20
4

I'm surprised this has generated a meta, the closure seems entirely clear cut to me. The close reason is:

This question does not appear to be about governments, policies and political processes within the scope defined in the help center.

And your question was:

In the United States, amongst police forces, are combat veterans more likely to abuse force than those who lack combat experience?

That's very obviously not a question about government, policies or political processes. I didn't see it before it was closed, but if I had I would have voted to close it for the same reason, and if it's reopened in it's current form I would still do so.

Addressing this point:

Whether to incorporate combat veterans in police forces — and, if so, to which units to allocate them — is a matter of internal security policy. To use a more European terminology, how exactly are the policies of the Ministry of the Interior, not about "governments, policies and political processes"?

You haven't asked a question about the policies of the Ministry of the Interior, you've asked a question about statistics on the police use of force. If you meant to ask the question that you've posted here, you should edit your closed question to reflect that.

And on this point:

On the accusation that the question was asked in mala fide, how is satisfying one's curiosity an act of bad faith?

Note that closure reasons are fairly broad; it isn't necessarily that we think it's both off-topic and in bad faith, just one or the other. I'd say it's certainly the former but not obviously the latter.

| |
1

Although I answered it, I have to say your question was not well motivated (and even this meta-question is somewhat oddly titled).

You could for instance have brought up the fact that military experience is considered an equivalent to police work in hiring decision in some states.

It’s not uncommon for police agencies to give priority to those with military service. For example, the requirements to become a New Hampshire State Trooper include two years’ experience as a full-time, certified police officer, but two years of honorable military service is also accepted as an equivalent.

Furthermore, since you mentioned (combat) PTSD, this is an iffy matter, because US federal law prohibits discrimination in employment solely based on that. So yeah, your post did read like a bit of a rant against (PTSD) vets, at least to some extent, probably triggering some people's "push/bad-faith question" sensitivities.

Now arguably, the US Supreme Court has laid out various standards by which law-imposed discrimination is allowed, and one is--roughly speaking--compelling state interests, which arguably could be justified to some extent with such statistics, so your question is not totally off, in my view, but I can see how many other users/readers here may see the connection as a far-fetched. (A lawyer could argue the counterpoint that such statistics aren't good enough to justify a blanket ban, when less discriminating, i.e. individual evaluations could be used instead.)

| |
  • 1
    Indeed, you did answer it. However, you answered a question that was not the one I asked. Does the military experience of a former USAF mechanic or avionics technician count as combat experience? How is combat experience even defined? By Military Occupational Specialty (MOS)? Do all servicemen with an infantry MOS experience combat? Unfortunately, exposure to combat does not produce antibodies. Does it? – Rodrigo de Azevedo Sep 14 at 19:02

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .