3 ms·

That's plainly hysteria and you're only encouraging unnecessary distrust. The overwhelming majority of interactions with police for any race are benign. You've

That's plainly hysteria and you're only encouraging unnecessary distrust. The overwhelming majority of interactions with police for any race are benign. You've been manipulated by a race baiting media.

Miner49er 6y ago
The overwhelming majority isn't great when you're talking risk of death. Someone survives playing Russian Roulette the overwhelming majority of the time too. 5 out of 6 times, nothing bad happens at all. 1 out of 6 times, you die. Is that also not something you would consider a "life threatening situation?" It's actually an interesting question. At what point does the risk of dying in a situation make it "life threatening"? I believe something like 1 in 291 police interactions end up with someone in the hospital or dead. https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2016-07/b-upk072116.php https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2016-07/b-upk072116....
- twomoretime 6y ago
  1/6 is literally 2 orders of magnitude smaller than 1/291. Nonsensical comparison. More importantly, how many of those hospitalizations/deaths are justified? You realize that police are typically responding to crimes and dealing with criminals who tend to be a little more violent than the average person, right? Don't get me wrong, I'm not a bootlicker by any means, and I acknowledge there are serious policing problems in the US. But seriously questioning whether you're going to survive a traffic stop if you act reasonably is irrational paranoia.
  - praestigiare 6y ago
    I do formal risk assessments as a part of my job, in a context where people are often risking their lives. Both 1:6 and 1:291 as the chance of of severe injury or death are both firmly in the highest risk category under most calculations, meaning that for decision making, you should assume that it will result in death. Yes, they are two orders of magnitude different. But the comparison is not nonsensical.
    - twomoretime 6y ago
      Well then you are no doubt aware that these statistics skew overwhelmingly toward those who are noncompliant, combative, and/or felons, correct? Such that the actual rate for "average" people (including minorities, although their rate may be higher) is probably miniscule.
3ra 6y ago
OP > I consider every interaction and encounter with our law enforcement officers as a potentially life threatening situation Which translates to: at any given interaction with the police, there's a non-zero chance that it come be a life threatening situation You > The overwhelming majority... Which also implies some non-zero chance... So I'm confused as to how to OP's situation is hysteria by the "race baiting media" Please keep this off of HN, thanks
- twomoretime 6y ago
  The implication of OPs post was that this was a frequent enough occurrence to legitimately fear interactions with police. My point is that this is excessive, and partly a result of the eagerness that the media to latch onto and sensationalize stories of blacks being killed by police. It is relevant to the discussion. Edit: all of this particularly when negative interactions are going to very heavily skew towards people who are combative and/or noncompliant. This is total paranoia.
  - FireBeyond 6y ago
    > all of this particularly when negative interactions are going to very heavily skew towards people who are combative and/or noncompliant. This is total paranoia. But also in multiple times a year with people who are non combative and compliant. What is the acceptable loss rate _you_ are willing to accept on others behalf?
    - twomoretime 6y ago
      Multiple times per year in a country with 300MM people and what, tens to hundreds of thousands, if not millions of police interactions yearly? Obviously in the ideal case it would be 0 but that's not realistic and, again, the current rate is far lower than the original poster implied. That's my entire argument. A couple times a year in the news does not justify worrying about being killed during a traffic stop or some other typical, mundane interaction.
  - landryraccoon 6y ago

Miner49er 6y ago

The overwhelming majority isn't great when you're talking risk of death. Someone survives playing Russian Roulette the overwhelming majority of the time too. 5 out of 6 times, nothing bad happens at all. 1 out of 6 times, you die. Is that also not something you would consider a "life threatening situation?" It's actually an interesting question. At what point does the risk of dying in a situation make it "life threatening"? I believe something like 1 in 291 police interactions end up with someone in the hospital or dead. https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2016-07/b-upk072116.php https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2016-07/b-upk072116....

twomoretime 6y ago
1/6 is literally 2 orders of magnitude smaller than 1/291. Nonsensical comparison. More importantly, how many of those hospitalizations/deaths are justified? You realize that police are typically responding to crimes and dealing with criminals who tend to be a little more violent than the average person, right? Don't get me wrong, I'm not a bootlicker by any means, and I acknowledge there are serious policing problems in the US. But seriously questioning whether you're going to survive a traffic stop if you act reasonably is irrational paranoia.
- praestigiare 6y ago
  I do formal risk assessments as a part of my job, in a context where people are often risking their lives. Both 1:6 and 1:291 as the chance of of severe injury or death are both firmly in the highest risk category under most calculations, meaning that for decision making, you should assume that it will result in death. Yes, they are two orders of magnitude different. But the comparison is not nonsensical.
  - twomoretime 6y ago
    Well then you are no doubt aware that these statistics skew overwhelmingly toward those who are noncompliant, combative, and/or felons, correct? Such that the actual rate for "average" people (including minorities, although their rate may be higher) is probably miniscule.

3ra 6y ago

OP > I consider every interaction and encounter with our law enforcement officers as a potentially life threatening situation Which translates to: at any given interaction with the police, there's a non-zero chance that it come be a life threatening situation You > The overwhelming majority... Which also implies some non-zero chance... So I'm confused as to how to OP's situation is hysteria by the "race baiting media" Please keep this off of HN, thanks

twomoretime 6y ago
The implication of OPs post was that this was a frequent enough occurrence to legitimately fear interactions with police. My point is that this is excessive, and partly a result of the eagerness that the media to latch onto and sensationalize stories of blacks being killed by police. It is relevant to the discussion. Edit: all of this particularly when negative interactions are going to very heavily skew towards people who are combative and/or noncompliant. This is total paranoia.
- FireBeyond 6y ago
  > all of this particularly when negative interactions are going to very heavily skew towards people who are combative and/or noncompliant. This is total paranoia. But also in multiple times a year with people who are non combative and compliant. What is the acceptable loss rate _you_ are willing to accept on others behalf?
  - twomoretime 6y ago
    Multiple times per year in a country with 300MM people and what, tens to hundreds of thousands, if not millions of police interactions yearly? Obviously in the ideal case it would be 0 but that's not realistic and, again, the current rate is far lower than the original poster implied. That's my entire argument. A couple times a year in the news does not justify worrying about being killed during a traffic stop or some other typical, mundane interaction.
- landryraccoon 6y ago