4 ms·

> the best way to avoid misunderstandings and snap reactions is to move slowly and deliberately in any confrontation. Excellent idea. Let's train/condition 30

> the best way to avoid misunderstandings and snap reactions is to move slowly and deliberately in any confrontation. Excellent idea. Let's train/condition 300 million people exactly how they should behave in stressful and life-threatening situations, and put at least part of the blame on them for any deviation from "acceptable" behaviour when put in an unknown situations with guns pointing at them. It would take far too much time and effort to modify police training and expectations. Perhaps we should cut funding for some more arts and phys-ed programs in public schools, and start funding "police/violence readiness prep" classes in K-12.

Dove 9y ago
I really do think teaching people how to be non-threatening would be one of the most effective methods of avoiding tragedy. I know you make light of educating large numbers of people, but there are a lot of things we all know about society in order to be safe. It seems to me that "sudden movements in tense situations provoke violent reaponses" isn't that hard of a thing to learn. Don't we teach people not to run from bears, for example? I am not saying the guy's death is his fault. I am saying expecting policemen not to react to certain movements just because they can be innocent is not a realistic expectation to place on them. It is safer for everyone if we all just stay calm, de-escalate, act deliberately, sort things out. Flapping around is a good way to look dangerous, and I just think things would be safer if people understood this.
- rojoca 9y ago
  What about mentally ill people? People on medication that make them groggy? People who are drunk in their own home? People who are exhausted from a huge week at work? Children? Elderly? People cannot reasonably be expected to “stay calm” at a moments notice. That is completely unreasonable.
  - Dove 9y ago
    Special cases make bad rules. Seat belts make you safer... but not if your car gets crushed between two semis. That doesn't mean seat belts are pointless, just that they don't work in that case. Moving deliberately and keeping your hands visible around police, particularly if they seem to think you're dangerous, is a good way to stay as safe as you can, and will put them less on edge in the encounter. You want that. In a dangerous situation, you want everyone as calm as possible. Will it always work? Of course not. Maybe you're drunk or high. Maybe you're insane. Maybe you panicked in spite of yourself. Whatever. Hopefully in that situation one of the other protections will work for you. Wear ya damn seatbelt. Not because it always works, but because sometimes it's the only thing that saves your life. Safety is about tradeoffs and incremental improvements, not perfect solutions. If there really is a murderer in the house, we want police to be aggressive. If it's a hoax, we want them to be cautious. But expecting them to magically know which situation it is isn't a practical solution. Making it really obvious that you aren't a tactical threat is a practical way to make the situation safer. ER! Obviously the whole situation is super dangerous and the blame rests almost entirely with the hoaxer. But with that said, I think it is practical and reasonable to talk about the best way to surrender safely and avoid a misunderstanding in a situation like that. It won't work in every case, but it should generally work and could improve the situation.
    - joe5150 9y ago
      why do civilians have to make those tradeoffs and not police?
  - mgkimsal 9y ago
    and it's not necessarily just about "stay calm". if surrounded, any movement at all could be interpreted by someone (who can only see one side of things) as potentially threatening.
lotharbot 9y ago
> "Let's train/condition 300 million people" the vast majority of people in the US know not to run from bears. They also can identify pikachu on sight. Knowing how to respond to the unexpected appearance of police who think you're a bad guy seems to me at least as useful of a skill. And it's not a difficult concept that requires a great deal of training -- just understand that hands kill (nobody ever draws a gun with their feet, except maybe James Bond), and if you're in a stressful situation, slowly move your hands into totally visible open space (unless you're a cartoon character, you definitely can't draw a gun from midair.) No, this won't prevent 100% of police shootings, but it can prevent an awful lot of them. It's also useful for defusing a lot of other potentially violent situations. > "and put at least part of the blame on them" There are two types of blame. There's the "you shouldn't have done that" that you say to the guy who stabbed his neighbor over a fence dispute, and there's the "you shouldn't have done that" that you say when you're watching a zombie movie and someone wanders off alone. One is about moral culpability, about someone's intent being wrong. And we should NEVER impose that kind of blame on victims. The other is about risk management, about someone's actions increasing negative outcomes. It's why we have things like debriefings and post-mortems in contexts ranging from military to software development -- learn what factors can lead to negative outcomes, and develop tactics to mitigate them. And we should stop being so afraid of "victim-blaming" that we instinctively balk at this.

Dove 9y ago

I really do think teaching people how to be non-threatening would be one of the most effective methods of avoiding tragedy. I know you make light of educating large numbers of people, but there are a lot of things we all know about society in order to be safe. It seems to me that "sudden movements in tense situations provoke violent reaponses" isn't that hard of a thing to learn. Don't we teach people not to run from bears, for example? I am not saying the guy's death is his fault. I am saying expecting policemen not to react to certain movements just because they can be innocent is not a realistic expectation to place on them. It is safer for everyone if we all just stay calm, de-escalate, act deliberately, sort things out. Flapping around is a good way to look dangerous, and I just think things would be safer if people understood this.

rojoca 9y ago
What about mentally ill people? People on medication that make them groggy? People who are drunk in their own home? People who are exhausted from a huge week at work? Children? Elderly? People cannot reasonably be expected to “stay calm” at a moments notice. That is completely unreasonable.
- Dove 9y ago
  Special cases make bad rules. Seat belts make you safer... but not if your car gets crushed between two semis. That doesn't mean seat belts are pointless, just that they don't work in that case. Moving deliberately and keeping your hands visible around police, particularly if they seem to think you're dangerous, is a good way to stay as safe as you can, and will put them less on edge in the encounter. You want that. In a dangerous situation, you want everyone as calm as possible. Will it always work? Of course not. Maybe you're drunk or high. Maybe you're insane. Maybe you panicked in spite of yourself. Whatever. Hopefully in that situation one of the other protections will work for you. Wear ya damn seatbelt. Not because it always works, but because sometimes it's the only thing that saves your life. Safety is about tradeoffs and incremental improvements, not perfect solutions. If there really is a murderer in the house, we want police to be aggressive. If it's a hoax, we want them to be cautious. But expecting them to magically know which situation it is isn't a practical solution. Making it really obvious that you aren't a tactical threat is a practical way to make the situation safer. ER! Obviously the whole situation is super dangerous and the blame rests almost entirely with the hoaxer. But with that said, I think it is practical and reasonable to talk about the best way to surrender safely and avoid a misunderstanding in a situation like that. It won't work in every case, but it should generally work and could improve the situation.
  - joe5150 9y ago
    why do civilians have to make those tradeoffs and not police?
- mgkimsal 9y ago
  and it's not necessarily just about "stay calm". if surrounded, any movement at all could be interpreted by someone (who can only see one side of things) as potentially threatening.

lotharbot 9y ago

> "Let's train/condition 300 million people" the vast majority of people in the US know not to run from bears. They also can identify pikachu on sight. Knowing how to respond to the unexpected appearance of police who think you're a bad guy seems to me at least as useful of a skill. And it's not a difficult concept that requires a great deal of training -- just understand that hands kill (nobody ever draws a gun with their feet, except maybe James Bond), and if you're in a stressful situation, slowly move your hands into totally visible open space (unless you're a cartoon character, you definitely can't draw a gun from midair.) No, this won't prevent 100% of police shootings, but it can prevent an awful lot of them. It's also useful for defusing a lot of other potentially violent situations. > "and put at least part of the blame on them" There are two types of blame. There's the "you shouldn't have done that" that you say to the guy who stabbed his neighbor over a fence dispute, and there's the "you shouldn't have done that" that you say when you're watching a zombie movie and someone wanders off alone. One is about moral culpability, about someone's intent being wrong. And we should NEVER impose that kind of blame on victims. The other is about risk management, about someone's actions increasing negative outcomes. It's why we have things like debriefings and post-mortems in contexts ranging from military to software development -- learn what factors can lead to negative outcomes, and develop tactics to mitigate them. And we should stop being so afraid of "victim-blaming" that we instinctively balk at this.