3 ms·

I agree that we want to avoid false positives as much as possible, even to the point where we miss true positives. But the law we're talking about is for after

I agree that we want to avoid false positives as much as possible, even to the point where we miss true positives. But the law we're talking about is for after police have already stopped a suspect for a different reason, a reason that is not allowed to have anything to do with skin color. I think it could still be an issue, however, because officers have been known to stop people for silly reasons, such as "rolling through a stop sign," when they really want to stop them because their skin color looks suspicious. I think this is a problem, it's really hard to fight against. So this is an argument against that law.

Natsu 16y ago
There's also a perception problem. If both parties expect to have problems, they probably will have problems. If you get stopped by cops frequently, especially if they're under pressure to justify why they stopped you, well, they can probably find something. And if you get stopped for small stuff (like the walking a dog without a leash) thing enough times, it'll get on your nerves. Doubly so, because there's nothing you can do to avoid it. So it's hard for people to be calm, which doesn't help anyone. Please don't misunderstand, though. I came here from a small town and, due to unfortunate circumstances, we ended up getting frequent friendly visits from the police. The word "friendly" is not a euphemism. I mean that Darwin and the other guys on the force cared about us and wanted to make sure that everything was okay and that we weren't having any problems. They were great guys. They do a hard job, so when they have a bad day, things can really go to hell fast. So there are a lot of problems and the cops do have to take a lot of crap, both directly and from people second-guessing them. I do understand and respect that, but that's why I care to see that more attention is paid to avoiding perverse incentives in the law itself.
- AndyKelley 16y ago
  I think you've nipped it in the bud. There are always going to be good guys and bad guys. The best thing we can do (which is actually pretty effective) is set up the system such that the people are rewarded for the good and not for the bad.

Natsu 16y ago

There's also a perception problem. If both parties expect to have problems, they probably will have problems. If you get stopped by cops frequently, especially if they're under pressure to justify why they stopped you, well, they can probably find something. And if you get stopped for small stuff (like the walking a dog without a leash) thing enough times, it'll get on your nerves. Doubly so, because there's nothing you can do to avoid it. So it's hard for people to be calm, which doesn't help anyone. Please don't misunderstand, though. I came here from a small town and, due to unfortunate circumstances, we ended up getting frequent friendly visits from the police. The word "friendly" is not a euphemism. I mean that Darwin and the other guys on the force cared about us and wanted to make sure that everything was okay and that we weren't having any problems. They were great guys. They do a hard job, so when they have a bad day, things can really go to hell fast. So there are a lot of problems and the cops do have to take a lot of crap, both directly and from people second-guessing them. I do understand and respect that, but that's why I care to see that more attention is paid to avoiding perverse incentives in the law itself.

AndyKelley 16y ago
I think you've nipped it in the bud. There are always going to be good guys and bad guys. The best thing we can do (which is actually pretty effective) is set up the system such that the people are rewarded for the good and not for the bad.