3 ms·

Calling 911 by that logic is self defeating because it's easily recognizable and can easily be preventable, but it's not, because these things aren't about bein

Calling 911 by that logic is self defeating because it's easily recognizable and can easily be preventable, but it's not, because these things aren't about being fool-proof, but giving people a means to communicate if the opportunity arises to do so. A silent hand gesture is perfect, can be easily made when someone turns their back, or is distracted and if recognized, can potentially save your life. But yes, it depends on IF the opportunity arises to do so, even if the attacker knows the hand signal. And a silent hand signal is incredibly easy to pull off in a situation like what occurred to this poor girl.

scoopertrooper 5y ago
Yes, the first thing a kidnapper will do is remove your phone from you because they're aware it can be used to call 911. So 911 is self-defeating in certain situations because attackers are aware of it and will target people in such a way as to avoid 911 being called. However, it still has utility because there are a range of situations where attackers take some time to subdue their victims (such as a home invasion) or in cases where there is a witness unseen by the attacker. These hand signals only make sense in cases where the attacker already has physical (though not mental) control over the victim and the crime is not immediately obvious to witnesses. I think this case would actually be one of the easiest for the attacker to prevent with prior knowledge of the hand signal. Most people hardly ever look at the occupants of passing cars and only subset of them would have the knowledge and presence of mind to interpret the signal and not dismiss it anyway. So, a victim would have to have their fist pressed up against the glass for an extended period of time. The attacker, sitting right next to the victim, would catch that in their peripheral vision pretty quickly.
- stolen_biscuit 5y ago
  Yes, nobody is saying it's completely impervious to being prevented. It's a discrete way of alerting people to you being in danger, I don't know why you think it's a bad thing when it has literally been proven to be effective and potentially saved a young womans life. I do not understand the hostility to the idea.
  - scoopertrooper 5y ago
    I don't think it's a bad thing persay, I just think we should not overplay the effectiveness of it. I also take offence to OP's suggestion that reasoned arguments critiquing the practice be 'automatically' moved to the bottom of the thread. As though such arguments can never be made in good faith. Yes, there are clearly some situations where it has worked in the past, which is a good thing. But, we shouldn't start a massive public awareness campaign and create courses on it in schools because its aggregate effect would likely be small relative to other possible interventions. Now, you may argue that you never suggested such a thing and that'd be a fair retort. However, then what is the potential aggregate impact such a programme? I'd argue very small for the reasons I've outlined previously. So, it be better to raise awareness and lobby for interventions to kidnapping and human trafficking with proven efficacy.

scoopertrooper 5y ago

Yes, the first thing a kidnapper will do is remove your phone from you because they're aware it can be used to call 911. So 911 is self-defeating in certain situations because attackers are aware of it and will target people in such a way as to avoid 911 being called. However, it still has utility because there are a range of situations where attackers take some time to subdue their victims (such as a home invasion) or in cases where there is a witness unseen by the attacker. These hand signals only make sense in cases where the attacker already has physical (though not mental) control over the victim and the crime is not immediately obvious to witnesses. I think this case would actually be one of the easiest for the attacker to prevent with prior knowledge of the hand signal. Most people hardly ever look at the occupants of passing cars and only subset of them would have the knowledge and presence of mind to interpret the signal and not dismiss it anyway. So, a victim would have to have their fist pressed up against the glass for an extended period of time. The attacker, sitting right next to the victim, would catch that in their peripheral vision pretty quickly.

stolen_biscuit 5y ago
Yes, nobody is saying it's completely impervious to being prevented. It's a discrete way of alerting people to you being in danger, I don't know why you think it's a bad thing when it has literally been proven to be effective and potentially saved a young womans life. I do not understand the hostility to the idea.
- scoopertrooper 5y ago
  I don't think it's a bad thing persay, I just think we should not overplay the effectiveness of it. I also take offence to OP's suggestion that reasoned arguments critiquing the practice be 'automatically' moved to the bottom of the thread. As though such arguments can never be made in good faith. Yes, there are clearly some situations where it has worked in the past, which is a good thing. But, we shouldn't start a massive public awareness campaign and create courses on it in schools because its aggregate effect would likely be small relative to other possible interventions. Now, you may argue that you never suggested such a thing and that'd be a fair retort. However, then what is the potential aggregate impact such a programme? I'd argue very small for the reasons I've outlined previously. So, it be better to raise awareness and lobby for interventions to kidnapping and human trafficking with proven efficacy.