Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Investigation: Police Shootings

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 221 posts

Re: Investigation: Police Shootings

#161

Post by sliverstorm »

gozur88 wrote: post #142
gherkin0 wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When a man being chased by police stops his car, gets out, takes cover behind the door and starts pointing something that looks remarkably like a gun at police, he should be shot. I disagree, especially in your outlined scenario, for a couple of reasons: 1) First and foremost: the police are professionals whose job should be to protect the public, even if that means they put themselves in harm's way. The person wit…

I don't think it's reasonable to expect cops to allow criminals to take the first shot in case the gun might be a toy. Even if you're "positioned defensively" you can still be killed by someone who's lucky or skilled.

There seems to be a cohort of people who believe that policemen's lives are essentially forfeit, and thus any level of mortal risk to them is reasonable.

Re: Investigation: Police Shootings

#162

Post by shkkmo »

jdmichal wrote: post #144
shkkmo wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to be missing the point. The graph was posted to show evidence for a 'war on car fatalities' not a 'war on the dangers of driving'. This is akin to announcing a 'war on cancer fatalities' but only caring about improving cancer treatments, not removing carcinogens on the environment.

Here's a gedankenexperiment for you: I instantaneously and permanently disable every car and car manufactory, thereby reducing all traffic fatalities to zero. Did I make driving safer? I'm not missing your point, and cbr's reply makes it obvious that he isn't either. The prevalence of driving is a separate variable from how dangerous it is. Driving is far less dangerous and far more prevalent.

Obviously you have completely missed the point.

> Here's a gedankenexperiment for you: I instantaneously and permanently disable every car and car manufactory, thereby reducing all traffic fatalities to zero. Did I make driving safer?

You certainly would have done an effective job of executing a 'war on car fatalities' which is what the harryh was claiming was demonstrated by the chart he posted.

While I agree that driving is safer than it used to be, the chart harryh posted doesn't actually show that. it just shows that driving is safer per mile.

Analogous to the point that cbr made: Without changing any of the risks of driving, I could make driving safer per mile by hiring a million drivers to drive 10MPH on a closed track year round.

While the above point is rather tongue-in-cheek, I do suspect that a significant part of the drop indicated in harryh's chart is due to changing driving patterns, particularly the increase in freeway driving.

I don't think eliminating all driving would be a good way to reduce traffic deaths (because it all of the other consequences that would have). However, if we had spent more effort in trying to reduce unnecessary and high-risk driving we would see a larger reduction in traffic deaths. This includes solutions like walkable cities, adequate public transit, and higher penalties for drivers engaged in risky behavior that cause fatalities. Focusing purely on deaths per mile excludes those types of interventions. Thus you can't use that measure to claim a 'war on car fatalities'.

Re: Investigation: Police Shootings

#163

Post by talmand »

gherkin0 wrote: post #129
notatoad wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've seen police shoot and kill a man "armed with a toy" and it's very, very hard for me to fault them for it. It sounds bad when you say it, but armed with a toy and armed should be treated as the same thing. When a man being chased by police stops his car, gets out, takes cover behind the door and starts pointing something that looks remarkably like a gun at police, he should be shot.

> When a man being chased by police stops his car, gets out, takes cover behind the door and starts pointing something that looks remarkably like a gun at police, he should be shot. I disagree, especially in your outlined scenario, for a couple of reasons: 1) First and foremost: the police are professionals whose job should be to protect the public, even if that means they put themselves in harm's way. The person wit…

So, we should just hope that innocent bystanders are not hit by that first shot at police as the they hide behind their defensive positions and superior equipment?

Re: Investigation: Police Shootings

#164

Post by jeffmould »

cauthon wrote: post #158
jeffmould wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First off, I am not a doctor and I didn't sleep in a Holiday Inn Express last night. But as someone that was an EMT and who worked around law enforcement for numerous years in other capacities, I have seen this all too often. "like how dangerous tasers are." Taser stats can be a bit deceiving. In the vast majority of cases where a taser is deployed the individual is in a drug-induced state with increased heart activi…

> To generalize and say that tasers are dangerous does not take into account the entire picture of events or situation at hand. It's not the taser itself that is dangerous it is the situation the individual has placed themselves in that causes the danger. That's misleading. If a taser is dangerous in the "vast majority of cases" in which it is used, then its use is dangerous. Doesn't matter if it's safe in situations…

I only said that the "vast majority of cases" where the result is deadly has outside factors (i.e. drugs). I did NOT say that the "vast majority of cases" where tasers are deployed. Enormous difference. Tasers are used hundreds of thousands of times annually with no issue. Unfortunately the ones where there is a death, or significant injury, typically involve the use of drugs or other have other outside factors not related to the use of the taser.

EDIT: I did say in the vast majority of cases where tasers are deployed. That was an error on my part I did mean that to add that in a vast majority of cases where tasers are deployed and there is a death or significant injury.

Re: Investigation: Police Shootings

#165

Post by harryh »

shkkmo wrote: post #58
harryh wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Where is our war on cars? We do have a war on car fatalities. It's been remarkably successful: http://www.donerdesigns.org/_/rsrc/1376697199749/other-cause...

That graphic is rather misleading. Our success in reducing traffic fatalities is rather mixed and not nearly so dramatic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._traffic_deaths_as_fr...

The 60% drop since 1972 looks pretty good to me.

Re: Investigation: Police Shootings

#166

Post by talmand »

daveguy wrote: post #152
enraged_camel wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>Second: In almost the entire US, being armed is not against the law. Way to miss the point. Of course being armed isn't against the law. But most states don't allow open-carry, and if someone is reporting you to the cops and saying you're armed, that means you just broke the law by failing to conceal your weapon. Furthermore, if the person reporting you says you're acting suspiciously or in a threatening manner, th…

On the contrary, in the US most states do allow open-carry. Only 9/50 states prohibit or restrict licensing to effectively prohibit open carry. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_carry_in_the_United_State...

Hard to believe but Texas just now joined that list. Keep waiting on the massive shoot-outs I've been told to expect. Still haven't seen someone open carry.

Re: Investigation: Police Shootings

#167

Post by shkkmo »

tptacek wrote: post #130
shkkmo wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You engage me in a semantics debate in a condescending tone and then are wrong. Manslaughter does not require 'intent to commit harm'. Yes, there are prosecutions of reckless/negligent drivers. However, the fact remains: 1) Most traffic fatalities are the result of human error. 2) Most traffic fatalities do not result in prosecution. I can't find numbers to back up #2 but this semi-anecdotal evidence is telling: http…

I think it's actually you who have decided on the semantic debate, since the reason we don't charge lots of people with felonies for killing people with cars is pretty apparent from the comment I just wrote. I also don't think you read my comment carefully. As a reset: here's what the state must prove in a manslaughter case: First, the defendant unlawfully killed someone; Second, while in a sudden quarrel or heat of…

I didn't intend to engage in a semantics debate and I did read your comment carefully. You might carefully re-read your comment to see how I got that impression.

> we don't prosecute people for errors. We prosecute them for doing things intentionally, or, as I said, for causing grave harm recklessly.

We usually don't prosecute for intentional errors. That is precisely the problem: we are far to lax with incompetent/reckless drivers. Do you think that if the costs associated with causing injury/death due to your own 'errors' were higher, we wouldn't see more careful drivers?

Re: Investigation: Police Shootings

#168

Post by [deleted] »

jeffmould wrote: post #147
tptacek wrote: post #2

Some notes: * The Guardian has a very similar feature, "The Counted": http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2015/jun/0... The Guardian's feature is better in some ways; for instance, it attempts to account for all police engagement fatalities, not just shootings. Some of the worst police abuses in the US haven't involved guns, and if you read the data carefully you learn some surprising things, like how d…

First off, I am not a doctor and I didn't sleep in a Holiday Inn Express last night. But as someone that was an EMT and who worked around law enforcement for numerous years in other capacities, I have seen this all too often. "like how dangerous tasers are." Taser stats can be a bit deceiving. In the vast majority of cases where a taser is deployed the individual is in a drug-induced state with increased heart activi…

[deleted]

Re: Investigation: Police Shootings

#169

Post by jdmichal »

shkkmo wrote: post #162
jdmichal wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's a gedankenexperiment for you: I instantaneously and permanently disable every car and car manufactory, thereby reducing all traffic fatalities to zero. Did I make driving safer? I'm not missing your point, and cbr's reply makes it obvious that he isn't either. The prevalence of driving is a separate variable from how dangerous it is. Driving is far less dangerous and far more prevalent.

Obviously you have completely missed the point. > Here's a gedankenexperiment for you: I instantaneously and permanently disable every car and car manufactory, thereby reducing all traffic fatalities to zero. Did I make driving safer? You certainly would have done an effective job of executing a 'war on car fatalities' which is what the harryh was claiming was demonstrated by the chart he posted. While I agree that d…

So your entire argument is centered around the semantics of "war on car fatalities"? In that case, there's not really anything for me to add, other than that I think you are taking a very uncharitable [0] view of the original post.

[0] http://philosophy.lander.edu/oriental/charity.html

Re: Investigation: Police Shootings

#170

Post by tptacek »

kbenson wrote: post #111
tptacek wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's the data set as a spreadsheet, which I think is more helpful (I will feel dumb if they made it available as a spreadsheet themselves): https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/100kWwv7vLl0ZAbtMn7lY... Oklahoma is pretty bad. California is in the top 15 for both fatal shootings weighted by population and for fatal shootings of people not attacking with a deadly weapon. Illinois, where I live, is all the way down…

It would be interesting to see how well the numbers correlate to percentage of population in the state that lives in urban and rural areas, or even what percentage of the population is in heavily/dense urbanized areas.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ow1ktm5nwy6um5f/Screenshot%202016-...

Excuse the formatting. That's the top 10 by fatalities weighted by population.

Short answer: it's all over the map.

Post reply on HN