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.
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
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...
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.
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
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.
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++
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.