Slashdot Mirror
Uber Investor Suggests Addressing Police Killings With an App (usatoday.com)
An anonymous reader write: To address the problem of motorists killed by police officers, Shervin Pishevar, the Iranian-born VC who backed Uber, is suggesting an app that allows police officers to communicate with motorists during traffic stops without either party leaving their vehicles. USA Today reports that Pishevar "says he has slept very little in the past 48 hours as he seeks input from law enforcement, software engineers and designers, lawmakers and from community members," and he's now working with former New York City police commissioner. Engadget has criticized Pishevar's proposal, writing "Dear Silicon Valley, not everything can be solved with apps."
At midnight on Friday, Uber also shut down their service for one minute "to create a moment of reflection for the Uber Community,", and also added a peace sign to their app, encouraging its users to "take a moment to think about what we can do to help," and changed the countdown for the arrival of a car into the amount of time left "to reflect on gun violence".
At midnight on Friday, Uber also shut down their service for one minute "to create a moment of reflection for the Uber Community,", and also added a peace sign to their app, encouraging its users to "take a moment to think about what we can do to help," and changed the countdown for the arrival of a car into the amount of time left "to reflect on gun violence".
apple will want 30% of ticket / court fees.
Non-kinetic solutions will not solve kinetic problems. How's about we all just take a step back and count to five before we make any sudden motions, literal or metaphorical.
Except for the situation where the officer tells you to give him your ID and then shoots you when you reach for it.
If Mr. Pishevar really wants to help, perhaps he should seek some advice from people and organisations who have a good grasp of the issues before offering solutions.
Maybe because the people in the trenches are least like to think over the horizon. Status quo incumbents tend to resist change, rather than initiate it. Most police departments haven't even adopted bodycams, and many don't even have dashcams, despite big documented advantages at reducing violence.
This capability already exists, but it's not an app. It's a loudspeaker behind the police car's grille. I have no idea how someone could come up with such a ridiculous idea, to use an app to communicate to a car.
-SR
How about a real time audio communications system is added to the cellphones? SOmething that can use the cellphone's microphone, convert it to digital data, and then send it across the network in real time to another cellphone in the police officer's car? Perhaps we could use some kind of numbering system to uniqlely identify each cellphone, with perhaps a three digit or short number for emergency services coordination.
Now for a name... hmm... well, obviously, it's phonic because that means sound, and it is at a distance, which as we know from ancient greek, is "tele". So... something like telephnr. Becauese adding an "r" makes it an awesome app...
Oh wait.
Or perhaps police officers could try and be a bit less twitchy, and not shoot motorists who make a sudden move after being stopped for a broken taillight. They should "protect and serve", meaning that their safety most definitely comes second after that of ordinary citizens. I'm not talking about police confronting armed individuals who are obviously criminal, but about people pulled over in an ordinary traffic stop. In 2015, about 50 police officers in the USA died of gunfire, and only a small part of that concerns people pulling out a gun during a routine check. That number is in stark contrast with the couple of hundred unarmed citizens killed by police officers.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
you could just keep your hands on the wheel and not unexpectedly reach for something in the car.
Everyone needs to know these simple rules when they are approached by the police:
Rule #1 - Don't run.
Rule #2 - Listen to what the police officer says.
Rule #3 - Do what the police officer tells you to do.
Rule #4 - Keep your mouth shut.
If you don't want to follow these rules and you don't understand why we need the police, just chimp out and get shot. We are trying to have a civil society, you don't belong here.
Traffic offences are easily caught on camera. There should be little need to stop a motorist unless they're clearly putting other people at risk. In a country that insists on having firearms all over the fucking place, being policed by machines is probably safer...
People already get shot for holding a cellphone so what makes you think a smartphone app will improve the situation? Also, if you don't have a smartphone then will they just assume you are hostile and/or antisocial?
The problem is how the police are chosen and trained.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Or...maybe pull your head out. How many armed robbers take along 4yo girls in the backseat?
If he "pulled a gun" the cops would be telling he pulled his gun. The cops shot an innocent man for no reason.
Morans.
If you, as a police officer, tell someone to stay in the car and they get out, or you tell them to get out and they stay in, don't you think that's a pretty damn clear answer? You can't fix stupid, not even with an app.
No one who intends on having a shootout with a couple of cops is going to tell them he's armed. And it's not like it would be the first time cops have ordered someone to produce ID, then shoot them for reaching for their ID.
Highly unlikely. Several states have similar or more restrictive controls on so called 'assault weapons'... and as we saw in San Bernardino, it didn't stop a thing.. and they even modified the rifles in a way which was illegal under California law. More so, during the 'ban', much the same rifles were still available, only with minor cosmetic changes to make them legal (ie thumb in hole stock instead of a pistol grip).
And yet the gun deaths are not evenly distributed across the country, instead they are primarily centralized in in a handful of locations... which if you discount their influence, the actual national rate drops like a rock.
Maybe it's not the firearms which are the problem?
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
Kids don't always have a playdate schedule which is compatible with armed robbery, so yes, they sometimes are brought along for the ride: http://wreg.com/2016/04/02/pol...
I don't know if you've noticed, but the cops in MN have been pretty quiet thus far... not even confirming or denying if the deceased did in fact have a concealed carry permit.
Do us all a favor... go look in the mirror real quick.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
If Clinton's assault weapon ban been in force, 50 Pulse patrons and many police would be alive right now.
Maybe. Maybe not. Norway has some of the strictest gun laws in the world, yet Anders Breivik was able to kill 77 people. Seung-Hui Cho killed 32 people with a pair of handguns. Timothy McVeigh killed 168 with a truck full of fertilizer. Assault weapons are responsible for less than 1% of gun deaths in America.
The US needs to join Australia and Venezuela in stricter gun laws if the country is to actually have an actual future.
Perhaps, but that has very little to do with police-on-civilian killings. Trying to change the subject from excessive force by police, to disarming civilians, is misleading and unproductive.
As it stands now, the US is in the world's top five countries when it comes to people being killed by guns.
Wrong. The US is #11.
How about the police just leave people alone unless there's a genuine danger?
Bringing the police into a situation can be dangerous for police and for those around them. So
1. repeal the laws that regulate non-violent, non-recklessly-dangerous behavior,
2. if you do decide to enforce some minor rule, the only means to enforce it is to take a photo and send a ticket in the mail,
3. make keeping everyone safe the #1 priority of police and hold them accountable for failures to keep people safe, even if it means criminals get away a lot more often
4. instruct officers that their role is to provide a service to the people in the community and their attitude needs to match that role unless they want a desk job
I thought it was called a cell phone. gives the police an excuse for portal stingray devices.
Be seeing you...
Maybe you haven't heard. Police are never, ever responsible in these situations.
Tamir Rice was big, how could they have known he was only 12 years old? How could they have known his gun (which was in his pants when he was shot) wasn't real? How could they know Eric Garner would die from (not) choking him out? How could the police know Philippe wasn't reaching for a gun? How could the police know Freddie Gray would die of a broken back?
We've been told over and over, police have zero responsibility to find out what's going on before acting, zero responsibility for the consequences of those actions if the officer could reasonably be said to be afraid, zero responsibility for "accidents" that injure people due to police actions, and zero responsibility for "mistakes" like raiding the wrong house or shooting bystanders during a manhunt.
Everyone else is 100% responsible to make sure officers feel completely safe and respected at all times.
"At midnight on Friday, Uber also shut down their service for one minute "to create a moment of reflection for the Uber Community,"
Wow, a whole minute. They must really have been broken up about all that murder and killing and stuff.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
This ignores the unspoken policy that traffic stops are not always about enforcing traffic law and collecting small fines, but rather the police want that interaction with the driver so they can fish for bigger violations. Traffic stops are "pretext stops", a loophole to get around the 4th amendment.
Running your plate and taking your ID isn't about making sure they assign points to the right person, but also about looking for wants and warrants. Getting you to roll down the window and talk to the officer isn't really about checking whether you smell like booze or pot, or seem nervous. There is no right to remain silent when an automobile is involved., and traffic stops are one of the most productive ways to find and arrest people with outstanding warrants.
I do not deploy Linux. Ever.
The problem is how the police are chosen and trained.
No. There is more than one problem. That is sometimes one of the problems, because it is not like that is uniform either.
If people broke laws less, we would also have less need for police. So having too many laws is also a problem.
So is breaking the laws, and anything that incentivizes people to break the laws.
So is mistreating criminal suspects in ways which may be as you are trained to do, but which will cause their entire community to distrust police officers forever.
So is abuse of alcohol and inhibited judgment.
So is any society where the punishment for a simple misdemeanor includes not being able to rent an apartment.
So is a police culture where reporting a concern about a fellow officer's behavior makes you a pariah.
So is a society where police lives are at risk at every traffic stop.
It's not just one problem.
Real lawyers write in C++
Or perhaps police officers could try and be a bit less twitchy, and not shoot motorists who make a sudden move after being stopped for a broken taillight.
But *do* they shoot every motorist who makes a sudden move?
Really, straight up question. How many drivers are pulled over every day in America? How many of those result in LE shooting someone that might be innocent? Is it one out of every ten traffic stops? One out of a hundred? One out of 10,000 or one out of a million?
Can't help it, I'm a software developer. I always want to know what the numbers are. Anyone know of a source for the data?
Tragedy always sells papers or at least clicks these days, but what are the numbers?
Peace is easy to achieve, just surrender. Liberty is much harder get/keep.
Which is as it should be. You should never speak to the police. Let them run your plates, run your license and check your registration and insurance while you remain completely silent.
Talking to police who have stopped you has never been anything but a waste of time. Just do as they say and be on your way. If they wrong you, you take them to court AFTER you have complied with what they tell you to do.
I've got an elderly white uncle who had police swarm him in his own yard because a passing driver didn't like how he was standing on the corner of his own property... when his wife ran out screaming "What are you doing? He's an army veteran, leave him alone!" they pointed several of their weapons at her... at which point she said "I'll go back inside"
He spent the next 45 minutes face down on the grass, handcuffed as they made sure he wasn't a threat.
Sometimes, it's not about race.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
Most police departments haven't even adopted bodycams, and many don't even have dashcams, despite big documented advantages at reducing violence.
That's because for most police departments(since you're talking US), can't afford to. Most cops make diddly in money(Between $28k-55k), many have to buy everything from shoes/boots/puncture resistant gloves to their own guns and bullet proof vests as well. In some of the poorer police departments they even have to pay for the fuel for their patrol cars.
Jump north into Canada here, there are plenty of police services that are the same way. Especially for the people who are working in the asshole of nowhere, like postings in the far north of Canada -- FYI: The far north of Canada is pretty much anywhere outside of 250km of the US border or a major city like Saskatoon, Edmonton, etc. Your home is also your jail in those cases. If you're married your family lives in the jail with you. If you get lucky, small towns may have a jail. But this is all getting a bit off. Even here though, many people have to buy all of their own gear. Everything except guns or non-lethal weapons. Many police services can't afford dash-cams or body cams, though there is a push much like in the US for both. Some services like the OPP or SQ(both equivalent to state police), have been to points as well where constables have to pay to fuel their own vehicles, or they'd simply have them parked on major highways to create the illusion that they're out there.
So unless the areas are very rich like peel region(here in Ontario), or Vancouver(BC), it's still a waiting game. And of course when the police say "we need money for xyz thing" the first thing people do is start screaming that the police don't need that money. One also can't forget that in many parts of Canada due to changes in police services acts, all police services must have ERT(like SWAT), homicide divisions, underwater rescue, drug dogs, K-9 units and so on. Stuff that they can't afford, but if they don't have it they lose their status as an actual police service which leads to either rental or sharing between services. It's also one of the reasons here in Ontario, local police(and people who know the area) are so rare now. Because the OPP replaced them all because those small local police couldn't compete with the "hey here's our contract rate." Now you deal with people who've never lived in the area and have no idea of what's going on.
Om, nomnomnom...
Or deaf.
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
In a normal traffic stop, the cop is not there for long enough to earn respect. That's precisely why they have a badge and a gun. If you really feel that there is such a high percentage of corrupt police officers that you cannot assume they are worthy of your respect, then you need to move to a better place because you won't have a civil society for very long.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
So even if the cops believed they could be dealing with armed robbers, the occupants of the car were only suspects at this points, and on really thin grounds at that. Absolutely no reason for the police to start shooting at the merest hint of trouble. And at this point all we have to go on is this unconfirmed police radio recording from a single source.
Also, if they suspected the occupants might be armed robbers, would the police just walk up to the driver's window and ask for ID? That just seems monumentally stupid.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
Police being untouchable seems to be a problem in many places. In the UK, a policeman called Simon Harwood covered his face and badge number and then murdered a guy who was walking home, and the whole thing was caught on camera. Even then, the jury wouldn't convict him. There's always some doubt, some way for the people in the jury to think that it was all just an honest mistake and surely these people who are there to protect them can't be violent thugs...
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
If you are attacked you have a right to reasonable defence. If you have a non-lethal option you are obliged to take it. If you can run away or otherwise avoid a deadly fight, you are obliged to. At least that's how it is in most developed countries.
Cops get some special powers because they have to arrest people. But those powers usually don't include executing people because they felt a little bit unsafe. For always has to be justified in terms of either preventing harm or making a lawful arrest.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
As it stands now, the US is in the world's top five countries when it comes to people being killed by guns.
Wrong. The US is #11.
To be fair, it's top of the list of developed, "first world" nations, at 10.54 per 100k people. Next is Finland at 3.25, mostly due to suicides (the gun related murder rate is 1/10th that of the US). In fact all other developed nations have just a fraction of the gun crime per head of population.
What the US needs is a proper mental healthcare system, that helps people before they become violent or suicidal.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Brown didn't just steal a back of smokes. He strong-arm robbed a store, physically assaulting the clerk. Then was shot for punching (at least once) a cop in the face (breaking his orbital plate), then trying take his gun. I would have shot the SOB too, as would any sane person. Martin pinned a gut down a guy, pounding the crap out of his face. Again, good riddance. Doubtful you have ever read the constitution.
Not really, Afghanistan is no less civilized than the US. It's different from the western world, but it's not uncivilized.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Especially since: 1. The drive rmust have a smart phone. 2. There must be cell coverage. 3. The police department must have access to this one single app. It would be easier to have a device that could detect the telephones in a car and ring them. But - gasp! - not everyone has a mobile phone.