Why Are Police Officers More Dangerous Than Airplanes?(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Why Are Police Officers More Dangerous Than Airplanes?
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/11/opinion/sunday/traffic-stop-police-accident.html
103 comments
Aviation has managed, through a great deal of hard work, to ingrain an overarching culture of safety first on all levels of the chain. Those involved on all levels are thoroughly trained, procedures are formulated and followed, and when something does go wrong a thorough, safety-focused investigation is conducted. Air safety investigations are quite different from the process we follow almost everywhere else, in that their one and only goal is improving safety, not assigning blame. That means you're not trying to find who fucked up (it is, almost invariably, the pilot), but rather to understand what went wrong, why, and what can be changed to make sure the same doesn't happen again; Punishing someone responsible isn't even on the radar for this. (And in some cases, the results and testimonies in an air safety investigation are actually precluded from being used for any kind of punitive action.) In aviation this attitude is to a large degree enabled and enforced by stringent government oversight.
This is a very effective system, but it requires real buy-in from everyone involved, for things that are very much counter-intuitive to us as people. It also has a great deal of overhead and extra cost that must be accepted globally, and cutting corners cannot be tolerated even for the occasional cases where you may be convinved something is reasonable and safe.
This is a very effective system, but it requires real buy-in from everyone involved, for things that are very much counter-intuitive to us as people. It also has a great deal of overhead and extra cost that must be accepted globally, and cutting corners cannot be tolerated even for the occasional cases where you may be convinved something is reasonable and safe.
Once you go full cynic you start thinking govts are created to protect the wealthy and wars are instigated to generate more wealth.
Then they call you a conspiracy nut so society ostracizes you and ignores your observations
Then they call you a conspiracy nut so society ostracizes you and ignores your observations
"In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place. If these observations be just, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority." -- James Madison
> Once you go full cynic
I am not this - I am very optimistic about the human condition. However...
> govts are created to protect the wealthy and wars are instigated to generate more wealth
I think this is obvious at this point.
And I also think that our species is entering an age in which we'll be able to do without these lifeboats.
I am not this - I am very optimistic about the human condition. However...
> govts are created to protect the wealthy and wars are instigated to generate more wealth
I think this is obvious at this point.
And I also think that our species is entering an age in which we'll be able to do without these lifeboats.
Airlines are accountable to the market. Cops are accountable to their ego.
Soon as you figure out someone's motivation their actions become obvious.
Edit: if precincts got paid based on customer satisfaction we'd see an overnight change making the police force unrecognizable. Crazy how money do that.
Soon as you figure out someone's motivation their actions become obvious.
Edit: if precincts got paid based on customer satisfaction we'd see an overnight change making the police force unrecognizable. Crazy how money do that.
Regarding the money aspect: for someone living in western Europe, the police budget and income system in the USA seems crazy. How could they possibly do that they are supposed to do (uphold the law) with a system that forces them to select their actions based on the money it will generate for them.
"Upholding the law" is such a subjective idea. An officer can uphold the law by running a speed traps and earning the department more money. They could alternatively do difficult investigatory work looking into violent crimes that would deliver more value to the community. If a community is the employer of officers it seems strange that officers would be held accountable to anything besides the needs of the community.
Developers live in a world of scrum, points, and delivering value. I think whoever pays for the officers salary should be the "product owner" of the police department.
Developers live in a world of scrum, points, and delivering value. I think whoever pays for the officers salary should be the "product owner" of the police department.
"I think whoever pays for the officers salary should be the "product owner" of the police department"
Like what, the local governor/censor/consul/manor lord?
Like what, the local governor/censor/consul/manor lord?
Look particularly at the system that Ferguson used to generate most of their revenues from traffic tickets and resulting fines from African-Americans: http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/06/us/ferguson-missouri-racism-ti...
As an American, it is shocking and appalling to see that we have recreated a version of debtors prison.
As an American, it is shocking and appalling to see that we have recreated a version of debtors prison.
> Then they call you a conspiracy nut so society ostracizes you and ignores your observations
And then the party in power tries to eliminate the thing that lets middle-aged startup founders/small business owners get health insurance so they can cut taxes on the top 0.5% of income earners.
And then the party in power tries to eliminate the thing that lets middle-aged startup founders/small business owners get health insurance so they can cut taxes on the top 0.5% of income earners.
I pay $2300/month as a small business owner for health insurance for a single employee + family. I was well into my 20's before my entire salary was that much. The cost was ~$1000/month in 2009 or so, which I considered bad at the time.
I fault both parties for the ridiculous situation we're in regarding health care. The ACA was doomed no matter who won the last election. Not because of how it was structured, but because it didn't address the core cost problems.
Not defending Trump's actions. But, at best, he's damaging an already dying system.
I fault both parties for the ridiculous situation we're in regarding health care. The ACA was doomed no matter who won the last election. Not because of how it was structured, but because it didn't address the core cost problems.
Not defending Trump's actions. But, at best, he's damaging an already dying system.
Broken in many ways? Absolutely. Fixable on a technical basis? Probably. Fixable in the real world? Not as long as it's a Democrat (regardless of race) getting credit for the Heritage Foundation's plan.
As for costs, I don't know your state or situation but that does seem high. In Illinois for an individual plan with BCBS (PPO, larger of their provider lists) I'm paying under 500 non subsidized though if the exchanges still exist next year I expect it to rise $50-100.
Edit: clarity
As for costs, I don't know your state or situation but that does seem high. In Illinois for an individual plan with BCBS (PPO, larger of their provider lists) I'm paying under 500 non subsidized though if the exchanges still exist next year I expect it to rise $50-100.
Edit: clarity
Picketty ignored the effects of WWI and WWII because they were so destructive of capital they made his case look weaker.
We have the same root cause analysis for train incidents, and rich people certainly don't take the train..
It's just our totally useless perception of risk along with some other unfortunate qualities of humans. Trains are very safe but when something happens it's usually lots of casualties, destruction and press coverage (same for planes). Many many more people die from car crashes but you'll never see root cause analysis there, instead you have police falling over each other trying to blame whichever party is dead.
It's just our totally useless perception of risk along with some other unfortunate qualities of humans. Trains are very safe but when something happens it's usually lots of casualties, destruction and press coverage (same for planes). Many many more people die from car crashes but you'll never see root cause analysis there, instead you have police falling over each other trying to blame whichever party is dead.
Is more root cause analysis likely to be useful at preventing future car accidents? I think that accurate awareness of risk factors with cars probably already exists in a reasonably sophisticated form -- what is lacking compared to planes and trains is a way to turn that knowledge into effective preventive action.
(Not entirely lacking as I think safety regulations do take into account statistical models of accident risk in terms of regulatory requirements on things like frame impact absorption)
(Not entirely lacking as I think safety regulations do take into account statistical models of accident risk in terms of regulatory requirements on things like frame impact absorption)
> incidents involving the police, isn't taken because somehow the people most affected are seen as somehow not really worth the time and effort
American police are significantly more dangerous than most European police forces because of this. The lives of those killed by police are deemed not to matter.
It's not something intrinsic to the nature of police, it's a set of local - often hyperlocal - policy choices.
American police are significantly more dangerous than most European police forces because of this. The lives of those killed by police are deemed not to matter.
It's not something intrinsic to the nature of police, it's a set of local - often hyperlocal - policy choices.
> American police
> European police
> It's not something intrinsic to the nature of police
Perhaps it's something intrinsic to the nature of police inside a hegemonic or imperial regime where the stakes of meaningful political upheaval are much higher (and the price of a frightened populous lower).
edit: Curious about the downvotes: is it a controversial assertion that police act differently in the context of empire?
> European police
> It's not something intrinsic to the nature of police
Perhaps it's something intrinsic to the nature of police inside a hegemonic or imperial regime where the stakes of meaningful political upheaval are much higher (and the price of a frightened populous lower).
edit: Curious about the downvotes: is it a controversial assertion that police act differently in the context of empire?
If a plane has a serious issue 10 000 feet off, every one in it will die. Fact of life: Humans don't fly.
Most issues have a reproducible reason, so it's likely that the same problem will happen on many many planes and kill a whole lot of people.
For the comparison, cars are risk free. What happens when your car is broken? You just can't go anywhere. It's not like people are falling off the sky in pack of a few hundreds at a time.
-- Ex aerospace engineer.
Most issues have a reproducible reason, so it's likely that the same problem will happen on many many planes and kill a whole lot of people.
For the comparison, cars are risk free. What happens when your car is broken? You just can't go anywhere. It's not like people are falling off the sky in pack of a few hundreds at a time.
-- Ex aerospace engineer.
Let's not be absurd. Brakes failure in a car isn't going to stop you starting it and getting on the freeway. Wasn't it Toyota found that to be more than an inconvenience?
As a matter of fact, yes a brake failure will stop you from going on the freeway.
You will realize the problem the first time you try to brake, likely on the first turn or the first light.
For the comparison, imagine a brake failure on a plane.
A plane can already take a mile to stop with working brakes. How many buildings and trees do you think it will take to substitute to the brakes?
You will realize the problem the first time you try to brake, likely on the first turn or the first light.
For the comparison, imagine a brake failure on a plane.
A plane can already take a mile to stop with working brakes. How many buildings and trees do you think it will take to substitute to the brakes?
I'm not sure if you're being serious, but brakes can fail while driving, and have definitely failed on people who are driving on a freeway when they go.
Planes have multiple systems available (within the plane and without) that can stop the plane (relatively) safely even in the event of a brake failure.
Reverse thrust on your engines is one of them, spoilers are another (not only do they increase the effectiveness of the brakes by putting more of the aircraft weight on them, but they also increase drag), and even if the aircraft gets to the end of the runway, at most international airports they have an overrun area called a runway safety area which is essentially like driving your car into a sand bank.
EDIT: Picture: http://theinfrastructureshow.com/images/70.jpg
Reverse thrust on your engines is one of them, spoilers are another (not only do they increase the effectiveness of the brakes by putting more of the aircraft weight on them, but they also increase drag), and even if the aircraft gets to the end of the runway, at most international airports they have an overrun area called a runway safety area which is essentially like driving your car into a sand bank.
EDIT: Picture: http://theinfrastructureshow.com/images/70.jpg
For someone who claims to be an aerospace engineer, you have a shocking lack of understanding of redundant systems.
>If a plane has a serious issue 10 000 feet off, every one in it will die
Complete nonsense, unless you tautologically define "serious" to mean "fatal".
Complete nonsense, unless you tautologically define "serious" to mean "fatal".
I can only assume you are trolling given the factual inaccuracy of your first sentence (which you presumably know if your ex-job title is true) and the patent ridiculousness of saying "cars are risk free".
That assumes that cars break while not in use. Tires can pop while being driven, for example. There are plenty of devastating and life-taking accidents that come from car failures.
And plenty of in-use car failures do not take lives. Tires popping during a drive don't often result in death of the occupants of the troubled car nor those around it. If your car engine stops running, you're not going to fall to your death for lack of speed. If your jet engines all stop, the chance that death will result is quite a bit higher.
"If your car engine stops running, you're not going to fall to your death for lack of speed."
You know, to even get your private pilot's license, you have to pass a simulated engine-out. Fixed-wing craft are perfectly capable of gliding without power.
You know, to even get your private pilot's license, you have to pass a simulated engine-out. Fixed-wing craft are perfectly capable of gliding without power.
Indeed. They're not required to crash with engines out. But on a passenger jet, the odds of crashing and causing deaths from several miles up when the engines fail is tremendously higher than death being caused by an engine failure at speed on the highway.
Actually, if engines fail at altitude there's much lower risk than you'd think. Even in the case where the damn engines fall off the plane (yes, this really did happen), there's surprisingly few if any fatalities.
Complete engine failure is mostly risky in two situations, over water and low altitude. Ask Sully about having both happen at once and still no deaths!
(Edit to add sources)
Commercial flights with engine failures in the past 30 years w/o fatalities: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Airways_Flight_9 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Transat_Flight_236 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Air_Lines_Flight_855 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimli_Glider https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hapag-Lloyd_Flight_3378 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scandinavian_Airlines_Flight... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Airways_Flight_1549
Commercial flights with engine failures and fatalities (one fatality, a flight attendant): https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garuda_Indonesia_Flight_421
Complete engine failure is mostly risky in two situations, over water and low altitude. Ask Sully about having both happen at once and still no deaths!
(Edit to add sources)
Commercial flights with engine failures in the past 30 years w/o fatalities: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Airways_Flight_9 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Transat_Flight_236 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Air_Lines_Flight_855 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimli_Glider https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hapag-Lloyd_Flight_3378 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scandinavian_Airlines_Flight... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Airways_Flight_1549
Commercial flights with engine failures and fatalities (one fatality, a flight attendant): https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garuda_Indonesia_Flight_421
> If your car engine stops running, you're not going to fall to your death for lack of speed
If your airplane engine stops working you're not going to be able to get off the ground in the first place.
If your airplane engine stops working you're not going to be able to get off the ground in the first place.
Currently reading "The Checklist Manifesto: How to Get Things Right". Similar stories when it comes to medicine.
I think it's just because airplane incidents catch people's attention, make the news, etc. Combined with the idea that they know they would be powerless, as passengers, to do anything if it happened to them.
You can rationalize different ways you could help ensure your own survival in maritime or police incidents. Despite that you often can't.
So people are supportive of extraordinary measures, regulation, because of all that.
You can rationalize different ways you could help ensure your own survival in maritime or police incidents. Despite that you often can't.
So people are supportive of extraordinary measures, regulation, because of all that.
I think aviation has less a blame somebody culture. In notice especially in the US there is always the question whose fault something was instead of asking what went wrong and how to avoid it in the future.
Medicine could also benefit from an attitude that doesn't blame the individual but looks for ways to avoid problems later.
Medicine could also benefit from an attitude that doesn't blame the individual but looks for ways to avoid problems later.
Few police departments are into internal self-improvement. When they get better, it's usually due to heavy pressure from the outside. Sometimes getting a new police chief from the outside helps. But there's no institutional oversight system to make them better.
Some top cops, such as Bratton, have written autobiographies. Improving a police department is mostly hard work, management controls that measure results, better training, firing a few underperformers, and common sense.
Traffic stops are a big problem.[1] About 5000 US cops a year are injured during traffic stops, usually by other traffic. About 7 cops per year are shot during traffic stops. The big risk to cops is being run over, not being shot. Some training materials don't get this.[2]
[1] http://www.forcescience.org/trafficstop.html [2] http://resources.learningforlife.org/exploring/lawenforcemen...
Some top cops, such as Bratton, have written autobiographies. Improving a police department is mostly hard work, management controls that measure results, better training, firing a few underperformers, and common sense.
Traffic stops are a big problem.[1] About 5000 US cops a year are injured during traffic stops, usually by other traffic. About 7 cops per year are shot during traffic stops. The big risk to cops is being run over, not being shot. Some training materials don't get this.[2]
[1] http://www.forcescience.org/trafficstop.html [2] http://resources.learningforlife.org/exploring/lawenforcemen...
Because airplanes are very, very safe.
That said, police could definitely do a better job. Body cameras may have to be always-on (but queried only for relevant portions, or if the officer is dead) at some point. Currently they seem to be off at crucial times in an encounter.
That said, police could definitely do a better job. Body cameras may have to be always-on (but queried only for relevant portions, or if the officer is dead) at some point. Currently they seem to be off at crucial times in an encounter.
Americans are eight times more likely to be killed by a cop than a terrorist.
http://www.mintpressnews.com/us-police-killed-nearly-9000-ci...
http://www.businessinsider.com/death-risk-statistics-terrori...
http://www.mintpressnews.com/us-police-killed-nearly-9000-ci...
http://www.businessinsider.com/death-risk-statistics-terrori...
If you exclude 9/11, it's got to be a lot higher. Killings by police are constant, whereas terror attacks are spiky. Like, in the past 10 years, what percentage of days included at least one killing by the police, vs. killing by terrorists.
The "eight times" statement is just referring to causalities over a time period, which I think end up over-representing the true danger from terrorists. The businessinsider link does a pretty good job to addressing that point.
The "eight times" statement is just referring to causalities over a time period, which I think end up over-representing the true danger from terrorists. The businessinsider link does a pretty good job to addressing that point.
The next you want to think that a police officer may have been too on edge, consider this
https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=cb7_1502405948
It's less dangerous to be a police officer than it is to be a garbage man:
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/cop-top-10-dangerous-jobs-c...
If a garbage man shoots someone, he gets a criminal trial, same as everyone else. If it's a defensible shooting, he'll be exonerated.
What is the point of society paying for a police program, if not to be better trained and better equipped personnel to handle these kinds of dangers?
Equip police with recording equipment to maximize their ability to justify and defend their actions, and then remove all special provisions that allows them to kill someone and not stand a full criminal trial.
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/cop-top-10-dangerous-jobs-c...
If a garbage man shoots someone, he gets a criminal trial, same as everyone else. If it's a defensible shooting, he'll be exonerated.
What is the point of society paying for a police program, if not to be better trained and better equipped personnel to handle these kinds of dangers?
Equip police with recording equipment to maximize their ability to justify and defend their actions, and then remove all special provisions that allows them to kill someone and not stand a full criminal trial.
From the article:
> The way it works now, civilians often feel like the ones responsible for keeping violence at bay. In May, an African-American journalist named Tonya Jameson was changing the license plates on the used S.U.V. she had recently bought when an off-duty officer accused her of stealing the car — and pointed his gun at her. Ms. Jameson had proof of ownership in a bag that sat on the ground nearby, but she dared not move a muscle.
> Ms. Jameson told me that the words “black people can die like this,” kept running through her head. “That was my mantra. I knew I had to be careful not to freak him out. If he killed me, no one would know what really happened.”
> She spoke in a soothing voice, explaining to the police officer that if he looked in the bag, he would find the bill of sale. Instead he kept his gun trained on her and called in reinforcements.
When someone is "on the edge" like that, in a situation like that, I'll consider therapy in prison for them, but that's about it.
> The way it works now, civilians often feel like the ones responsible for keeping violence at bay. In May, an African-American journalist named Tonya Jameson was changing the license plates on the used S.U.V. she had recently bought when an off-duty officer accused her of stealing the car — and pointed his gun at her. Ms. Jameson had proof of ownership in a bag that sat on the ground nearby, but she dared not move a muscle.
> Ms. Jameson told me that the words “black people can die like this,” kept running through her head. “That was my mantra. I knew I had to be careful not to freak him out. If he killed me, no one would know what really happened.”
> She spoke in a soothing voice, explaining to the police officer that if he looked in the bag, he would find the bill of sale. Instead he kept his gun trained on her and called in reinforcements.
When someone is "on the edge" like that, in a situation like that, I'll consider therapy in prison for them, but that's about it.
A liveleak video depicting a single graphic anecdote is about as far from useful data as a piece of multimedia can be.
This is an example, that you should consider as a possibility.
It's possible the officer's approach to the situation/suspect contributed to causing the result. Perhaps use a whole different approach (less aggressive and more conversational), or tase the guy sooner, or back off until you have backup before continuing the encounter. The outcome might've been the same regardless, and the cop did not deserve to get shot, but cops need to realize that just issuing commands aggressively may not be the best approach and the job may require more nuance especially given the target demographic.
That's not the point. An example of someone being hit by a meteorite in her living room doesn't mean that we need to armor living rooms against extra-planetary objects.
I think most police officers (those from sane departments) realize that they are unlikely to be victims of situations like the one depicted here. And police officers who are on edge are that way because of poor training, not because of any actual risk from their career choice.
I think most police officers (those from sane departments) realize that they are unlikely to be victims of situations like the one depicted here. And police officers who are on edge are that way because of poor training, not because of any actual risk from their career choice.
Data? Is that how you think the average human mind works?
It's fine for policy, but that's not how we think of risk.
It's fine for policy, but that's not how we think of risk.
Because planes don't walk around carrying guns and a head full of bias and fear? Because police officers are not multi-million-dollar engineering marvels?
What editor fell asleep and allowed this to be posted?
What editor fell asleep and allowed this to be posted?
Broken tail light, speeding and other infractions should just be automatic tickets from a dash cam on the squad car or a speed camera. Same with illegal lane change or carpool violations. They can be mailed to the registered owner.
Perhaps, but I think that this misses an important aspect of those first few examples: safety.
The reason that people are pulled over for speeding, broken tail lights and illegal lane changes are so that they can be convinced to remedy the situation and make things safer. The punishment is not meant to be the only outcome of the incident.
You may well be correct (after all, static speed cameras exist, and apparently have an effect), but personally I'd want to see a fairly detailed analysis to convince me that you are correct.
The reason that people are pulled over for speeding, broken tail lights and illegal lane changes are so that they can be convinced to remedy the situation and make things safer. The punishment is not meant to be the only outcome of the incident.
You may well be correct (after all, static speed cameras exist, and apparently have an effect), but personally I'd want to see a fairly detailed analysis to convince me that you are correct.
People speed, drive with broken tail lights and illegal overtake or change lanes all of the time. Only a small fraction of those offenses are captured by law enforcement. In making a stop, we are trading the safety of the public in general against the safety of the driver and officer from the interaction.
Wait ... this context is bs. There is an entire human element driving this data. The police interacting with other people. If the driver of every car was a predictable machine then then this is just as preventable as flying. Pilots interact with machines not people. And there are a good number of those 1000 that die that deserved to die and thankfully we have brave people to go after those crazys. This is police hate and criminal pandering with such vague statememts. Is this hacker news or an antifa forum?
> Mr. Bell hired his own investigators. They contend that it all began with faulty equipment: Officer Erich Strausbaugh’s holster caught on a cable dangling from one of the cars’ side-view mirrors, so that when he tackled Michael, he felt a powerful tug on his belt. Assuming that the young man had grabbed for his weapon, he called out to his partners, “He’s got my gun.”
And then they lied about it. What is brave about that, in this case? Yes, there are uncountable cops doing untold amounts of great "work" (I put it in quotes not to belittle it, but because I think it's more noble than that). I even think the "blue shield" does serve a valid purpose a lot of times, but it's when it's abused that is the problem. And that is a problem.
Here's an idea how actual guts might look like:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK2652/
> This chapter examines reporting of health care errors (e.g., verbal, written, or other form of communication and/or recording of near miss and patient safety events that generally involves some form of reporting system) and these events’ disclosure (e.g., communication of errors to patients and their families), including the ethical aspects of error-reporting mechanisms. The potential benefits of intrainstitutional and Web-based databases might assist nurses and other providers to prevent similar hazards and improve patient safety. Clinicians’ fears of lawsuits and their self-perceptions of incompetence could be dispelled by organizational cultures emphasizing safety rather than blame. This chapter focuses on the assertion that reporting errors that result in patient harm as well as seemingly trivial errors and near misses has the potential to strengthen processes of care and improve the quality of care afforded patients.
Looking a relative in the eye and telling them their loved one is dead because you made a honest or even careless mistake -- now THAT is bravery. I don't know if anyone is actually doing that just because it's in the guidelines who wouldn't also do it if it wasn't -- but do similar guidelines at least exist for police? Because if you swap out some words, all of that could be said about police work, too.
It doesn't get much more hateful than lying about someone you killed. After that comes defending such incidents, then there is a big gap, and then comes "all cops are pigs" on the hate scale. That doesn't justify the latter, but I don't know what moral high ground you think you're posting from.
> And there are a good number of those 1000 that die that deserved to die and thankfully we have brave people to go after those crazys
A "good number" would be 1000. What "good number" do you have in mind? If it's even just 999 or less, would you swap with one of the innocent people who got killed? And why do the others "deserve to die"? Because it has to be that way, in your mind, or because you looked at the individual incidents? Wouldn't they deserve even more to get disarmed and do their sentence or whatever?
And then they lied about it. What is brave about that, in this case? Yes, there are uncountable cops doing untold amounts of great "work" (I put it in quotes not to belittle it, but because I think it's more noble than that). I even think the "blue shield" does serve a valid purpose a lot of times, but it's when it's abused that is the problem. And that is a problem.
Here's an idea how actual guts might look like:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK2652/
> This chapter examines reporting of health care errors (e.g., verbal, written, or other form of communication and/or recording of near miss and patient safety events that generally involves some form of reporting system) and these events’ disclosure (e.g., communication of errors to patients and their families), including the ethical aspects of error-reporting mechanisms. The potential benefits of intrainstitutional and Web-based databases might assist nurses and other providers to prevent similar hazards and improve patient safety. Clinicians’ fears of lawsuits and their self-perceptions of incompetence could be dispelled by organizational cultures emphasizing safety rather than blame. This chapter focuses on the assertion that reporting errors that result in patient harm as well as seemingly trivial errors and near misses has the potential to strengthen processes of care and improve the quality of care afforded patients.
Looking a relative in the eye and telling them their loved one is dead because you made a honest or even careless mistake -- now THAT is bravery. I don't know if anyone is actually doing that just because it's in the guidelines who wouldn't also do it if it wasn't -- but do similar guidelines at least exist for police? Because if you swap out some words, all of that could be said about police work, too.
It doesn't get much more hateful than lying about someone you killed. After that comes defending such incidents, then there is a big gap, and then comes "all cops are pigs" on the hate scale. That doesn't justify the latter, but I don't know what moral high ground you think you're posting from.
> And there are a good number of those 1000 that die that deserved to die and thankfully we have brave people to go after those crazys
A "good number" would be 1000. What "good number" do you have in mind? If it's even just 999 or less, would you swap with one of the innocent people who got killed? And why do the others "deserve to die"? Because it has to be that way, in your mind, or because you looked at the individual incidents? Wouldn't they deserve even more to get disarmed and do their sentence or whatever?
I am a bit perplexed by the "new technology":
>The students created a smartphone app, called Virtual Traffic Stop, that allows him to do just that. After the officer pulls a driver to the side of the road, he would use the app to start a video chat with the driver as a first point of contact, allowing him to observe whether the driver seemed mentally ill or dangerous, notice clues in the interior of the vehicle and review identification documents.
Just to name one, I don't have usually a smartphone, or a switched on smartphone, when driving, and the police officer should have a way to find and call my phone number, which not necessarily is linked to the car license plate.
And this data would be interesting:
>In some cities, when you roll through a stoplight, a camera catches you in the act, and a few weeks later you receive a ticket in the mail. Data suggests that this automatic system is far cheaper than “human” ticketing and reduces pedestrian deaths. And a camera can’t kill people.
Undoubtedly it is cheaper, the point is how much it contributes to safety.
I confess that I received one of those tickets (the fact that a large number of people received one since seemingly the municipality put the camera and shortened to the bare legal minimum - possibly even less than that - the yellow light time is another thing).
Frankly after 2 1/2 months I didn't even remember to have gone through that particular traffic light/intersection, I paid the fine and that was it.
By contrast a couple of times that police stopped me, even if they at the end resolved to not fine me, they "stopped my driving" right there, so if I was doing something - if not illegal - "border line" with dangerous they actually prevented me from continuing doing it, by forcefully inserting a "pause".
>The students created a smartphone app, called Virtual Traffic Stop, that allows him to do just that. After the officer pulls a driver to the side of the road, he would use the app to start a video chat with the driver as a first point of contact, allowing him to observe whether the driver seemed mentally ill or dangerous, notice clues in the interior of the vehicle and review identification documents.
Just to name one, I don't have usually a smartphone, or a switched on smartphone, when driving, and the police officer should have a way to find and call my phone number, which not necessarily is linked to the car license plate.
And this data would be interesting:
>In some cities, when you roll through a stoplight, a camera catches you in the act, and a few weeks later you receive a ticket in the mail. Data suggests that this automatic system is far cheaper than “human” ticketing and reduces pedestrian deaths. And a camera can’t kill people.
Undoubtedly it is cheaper, the point is how much it contributes to safety.
I confess that I received one of those tickets (the fact that a large number of people received one since seemingly the municipality put the camera and shortened to the bare legal minimum - possibly even less than that - the yellow light time is another thing).
Frankly after 2 1/2 months I didn't even remember to have gone through that particular traffic light/intersection, I paid the fine and that was it.
By contrast a couple of times that police stopped me, even if they at the end resolved to not fine me, they "stopped my driving" right there, so if I was doing something - if not illegal - "border line" with dangerous they actually prevented me from continuing doing it, by forcefully inserting a "pause".
>Just to name one, I don't have usually a smartphone, or a switched on smartphone, when driving, and the police officer should have a way to find and call my phone number, which not necessarily is linked to the car license plate.
Sure it's a flawed idea, but may result in better ideas. For example, what about integrating that technology into the car itself? Yeah there are problems to be overcome (doesn't help with cars already out on the road, needs to account for spoofing and 4th Amendment considerations), but it is an interesting direction.
Sure it's a flawed idea, but may result in better ideas. For example, what about integrating that technology into the car itself? Yeah there are problems to be overcome (doesn't help with cars already out on the road, needs to account for spoofing and 4th Amendment considerations), but it is an interesting direction.
I don't think that those aspects you mention, i.e. retrofitting existing cars, spoofing/hacking of the devices and 4th amendment (or similar privacy Laws where applicable) issues are so trifling.
The idea in itself may be good but the technology hypothized seems "way off".
I would find more doable that police corps were issued a remotely contolled camera (think of a small robot or drone) capable of crawling (or flying) in front of the windshield of the stopped car and show to the officer the inside.
The idea in itself may be good but the technology hypothized seems "way off".
I would find more doable that police corps were issued a remotely contolled camera (think of a small robot or drone) capable of crawling (or flying) in front of the windshield of the stopped car and show to the officer the inside.
Yeah, this seems like a good idea and pretty doable. Every police car could have a drone that would be useful in a variety of situations. In a traffic stop, it could take off from the roof of the police car and land on the windscreen of the stopped car. A small screen can relay instructions to the driver while he is filmed.
With the prices of quite powerful drones coming down so dramatically, this might even be a cost effective way to save lives, while at the same time giving police an extra tool for lots of situations, not just traffic stops.
I wonder if there's business potential in making roof mounted drones that can land on windshields. Ideally, it could also record sound by latching onto the windshield and detecting vibrations with some sort of contact or laser microphone but I'm not sure how realistic that would be (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00542-015-2795-x looks like a start).
With the prices of quite powerful drones coming down so dramatically, this might even be a cost effective way to save lives, while at the same time giving police an extra tool for lots of situations, not just traffic stops.
I wonder if there's business potential in making roof mounted drones that can land on windshields. Ideally, it could also record sound by latching onto the windshield and detecting vibrations with some sort of contact or laser microphone but I'm not sure how realistic that would be (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00542-015-2795-x looks like a start).
I was thinking more along the lines of something like this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Hornet_Nano
Or of the micro-bugs/robot spiders in Minority Report, I mean the idea is that the police officer can see inside the (already stopped) car, to give orders he/she can shout or use the microphone and loudspeaker, that all patrol cars have, I believe, in the US.
There is always an issue with language, maybe, but the idea of the small screen with text assumes that the stopped driver can see it properly (imagine an older chap that reaches for his spectacles ...).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Hornet_Nano
Or of the micro-bugs/robot spiders in Minority Report, I mean the idea is that the police officer can see inside the (already stopped) car, to give orders he/she can shout or use the microphone and loudspeaker, that all patrol cars have, I believe, in the US.
There is always an issue with language, maybe, but the idea of the small screen with text assumes that the stopped driver can see it properly (imagine an older chap that reaches for his spectacles ...).
That is a very cool drone. I doubt that it needs to be so small though. I was thinking of something like a customized mavic pro. Automatic position keeping, person tracking (potentially both officers and suspects) and automatic navigation to particular locations, plus the ability to operate reasonably well in high winds and perhaps cost too argue for something a bit larger and heavier.
In most countries, ability to read street signs is part of the requirement for a drivers license. Reaching for spectacles isn't as threatening if the police are back sitting in the patrol car anyway, and there are always edge cases - how do police interact with deaf drivers now? (edit: just checked, seems like they get shot disproportionately often...)
But yeah, maybe the screen (which could include glyphs as well as text, or multiple languages) wouldn't work. I'd need to experiment to see what sort of size you could get away with and how reliably you could make sure it was visible. Of course having a screen doesn't preclude the use of loudspeaker either.
In most countries, ability to read street signs is part of the requirement for a drivers license. Reaching for spectacles isn't as threatening if the police are back sitting in the patrol car anyway, and there are always edge cases - how do police interact with deaf drivers now? (edit: just checked, seems like they get shot disproportionately often...)
But yeah, maybe the screen (which could include glyphs as well as text, or multiple languages) wouldn't work. I'd need to experiment to see what sort of size you could get away with and how reliably you could make sure it was visible. Of course having a screen doesn't preclude the use of loudspeaker either.
>In most countries, ability to read street signs is part of the requirement for a drivers license.
Older people tend to develop presbyopia, they can see and read signs alright, i.e. they drive normally without correction lenses but they need them to read at "windscreen distance".
At least at the time my father managed to collect a fair number of speed tickets, claiming that he couldn't see properly the speedometer.
As a side note, "in most countries" traffic stops ending up in a shooting or more generally people shot by police are much more rare than in the US.
The (unofficial) numbers reported on this Wikipedia page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_firearm_use_by_country#...
are impressive.
Older people tend to develop presbyopia, they can see and read signs alright, i.e. they drive normally without correction lenses but they need them to read at "windscreen distance".
At least at the time my father managed to collect a fair number of speed tickets, claiming that he couldn't see properly the speedometer.
As a side note, "in most countries" traffic stops ending up in a shooting or more generally people shot by police are much more rare than in the US.
The (unofficial) numbers reported on this Wikipedia page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_firearm_use_by_country#...
are impressive.
If you can make a connection with the right type of corruption, there definitely would be government funds available to increase the ability of the government (federal, state, and local police) to project power.
Drone + facetime + blinking red light + emergency grenade (tear-gas, of course). $1k parts, sell it for $10k/ea in bundles of 10 along with "police drone training certification level 8999" at $5k per student (minimum 5 students).
Drone + facetime + blinking red light + emergency grenade (tear-gas, of course). $1k parts, sell it for $10k/ea in bundles of 10 along with "police drone training certification level 8999" at $5k per student (minimum 5 students).
The only justice at this point that can equalize the situation is an eye for an eye. Cops that kill innocent people are guilty of murder and should be executed. The death penalty should apply to all public officials, cops and prosecutors especially, when they murder someone like in this story. They should be held to a higher standard than everyone else in society, not lower. Without an independent investigation and extremely harsh punishments, this situation will never even begin to be fixed. I'm tired of all this apologizing for police murders. We need to fix the incentive system, which now incentivizes police to not care and shoot first. These days, when I read about police being killed, I feel no empathy. At least the score is somewhat evened out. After all, I'm certain police feel no empathy for the innocent people they murder. I can't feel empathy for people in a profession whose stated goal is only their safety at the expense of anything and everyone else, people that society entrusts with great power for the greater good. If they can't be public servants and shoulder such responsibility, they should find other jobs before they murder innocent people. I fear police more than I fear anything else. It's a rational, justified fear in the US. This is definitely not justice. This is definitely not serving. This is definitely not protecting.
Do you know anyone who is a cop?
Let me tell you about my buddy's first week on the job as a police officer in what most would consider a small town with low crime. Keep in mind that prior to this he was a school teacher.
On his second day, a single-car car accident. Three young girls in the car, one had her brains hanging out of her head, one was halfway through the window mangled, bloody and dead, and the third was thrown from the vehicle and was "fucked up pretty bad". He said he could see her ribs where the skin had been torn away. Drunk driver, speeding, no seat belts. Guess who gets to deals with that shit?
A few nights later, a woman calls the police on her husband. He's a vet with PTSD and she tells the cops he took his guns and wanted to kill a cop.
An APB is put out on his car but before the police found it there was a call about a guy walking around in a park with a riffle. So the police surrounded the park and went hunting for the guy. Now my buddy, who a year ago was teaching kids in a prep school is walking through the woods where a trained soldier is looking to kill him. At the same time, 15 police officers are all converging from different vectors and trying not to shoot each other in the confusion.
After searching the woods they find his parked car and surround it. They can see him sitting in the front seat and tell him to put his hands up. He never complies. He never complies because he's already blown his brains out.
My buddy got to see that too. Can you imagine what dealing with this stuff does to your mind?
It gets better. When they get to his wife's house to tell her that her husband is dead she says "Good, how?" Perplexed my buddy said "He shot himself in the head in his car." Her response: "The car? That fucking bastard".
Can you imagine?
I live in a nice place. I had no idea this kind of crap goes on. This didn't even get a mention in the paper.
My point is, you don't know what the police do on a daily basis. And you don't even know how much you don't know.
There are no superheroes out there, but most cops are the closest things we have to them.
You should totally join. It sounds like you'd make it all look easy.
Let me tell you about my buddy's first week on the job as a police officer in what most would consider a small town with low crime. Keep in mind that prior to this he was a school teacher.
On his second day, a single-car car accident. Three young girls in the car, one had her brains hanging out of her head, one was halfway through the window mangled, bloody and dead, and the third was thrown from the vehicle and was "fucked up pretty bad". He said he could see her ribs where the skin had been torn away. Drunk driver, speeding, no seat belts. Guess who gets to deals with that shit?
A few nights later, a woman calls the police on her husband. He's a vet with PTSD and she tells the cops he took his guns and wanted to kill a cop.
An APB is put out on his car but before the police found it there was a call about a guy walking around in a park with a riffle. So the police surrounded the park and went hunting for the guy. Now my buddy, who a year ago was teaching kids in a prep school is walking through the woods where a trained soldier is looking to kill him. At the same time, 15 police officers are all converging from different vectors and trying not to shoot each other in the confusion.
After searching the woods they find his parked car and surround it. They can see him sitting in the front seat and tell him to put his hands up. He never complies. He never complies because he's already blown his brains out.
My buddy got to see that too. Can you imagine what dealing with this stuff does to your mind?
It gets better. When they get to his wife's house to tell her that her husband is dead she says "Good, how?" Perplexed my buddy said "He shot himself in the head in his car." Her response: "The car? That fucking bastard".
Can you imagine?
I live in a nice place. I had no idea this kind of crap goes on. This didn't even get a mention in the paper.
My point is, you don't know what the police do on a daily basis. And you don't even know how much you don't know.
There are no superheroes out there, but most cops are the closest things we have to them.
You should totally join. It sounds like you'd make it all look easy.
How does any of this justify murder and covering up a murder? I never said the job was easy. I said cops should be held to higher standards than everyone else in society because they are public servants who have the power to kill. Your argument boils down to cops have a hard job therefore they should be held to a lower standard and allowed to get away with murder. That's just injustice. Other societies are able to control their police. Why can't ours?
Very few of police shootings are straight up murder. The ones that were unjustified are usually criminally negligent homicide.
Cops really aren't held to a lower standard. They are held to the same standard, except they aren't required to retreat from a dangerous situation. Instead, they are forced by their job to confront it.
Other professions that deal in high risk don't really face much criminal legal prosecution either. Doctors who kill their patients accidentally rarely face jail.
The country does a terrible job training and preparing them for it. Another big issue is that cops have a pretty reasonable fear that suspects will be armed, which police in other countries don't really face.
Cops really aren't held to a lower standard. They are held to the same standard, except they aren't required to retreat from a dangerous situation. Instead, they are forced by their job to confront it.
Other professions that deal in high risk don't really face much criminal legal prosecution either. Doctors who kill their patients accidentally rarely face jail.
The country does a terrible job training and preparing them for it. Another big issue is that cops have a pretty reasonable fear that suspects will be armed, which police in other countries don't really face.
When I wondered out loud once why such an approach isn't taken for other services and industries, a friend of mine - born forty with cynicism to spare - said "Rich people fly."
Perhaps the same approach to incidents in the maritime environment, and incidents involving the police, isn't taken because somehow the people most affected are seen as somehow not really worth the time and effort. It's not the rich people, the people in power, who are affected.
I really hope that's not true, because if it is, nothing will change.