Hacker News Reader

Comment by DominikR | Hacker News Reader

The problem is that police officers have good reason to be much more defensive when dealing with blacks than with whites.

Just look at these statistics and then consider how a police officer would feel when dealing with a black person that shows any kind of aggression, considering that most homicides are committed by blacks. (even though they are a minority)

The police officer wants to survive too.

Of course there are cases of excessive and criminal use of force by the police, but their general perception and caution when dealing with blacks will never change as long as this minority continues to commit most crimes.

View on HN

Your comment is facile and, though you probably don't intend it that way, mean-spirited. But there's something to it anyways.

Set aside the reciprocal nature of racism and criminality and acknowledge the raw demographic reality of police encounters in major cities. It seems clear to me that yes, police officers are under far too much cognitive strain to accurately judge threats. Basic human cognitive limitations ensure that police will continue to prejudge risk through race.

To me, that, coupled with the fact that police encounters with strangers are far, far less dangerous than police training and culture mythologizes them to be, suggests a straightforward solution: disarm most police officers.

I wrote more about that here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12057079

(If you feel the need to object, please read that before assuming you know what my recommendation is from its brief summary here).

What you are proposing could help reducing aggression between police and civilians, though I do not know how well this would play out in the US.

It generally works in EU countries, but a lot is different there.

What I reject though is you suggesting my comment is mean spirited. The statements you feel are offensive are just facts as far as we can tell today. You would attack my statements instead of me personally if what I wrote was obviously wrong.

Regarding the linked comment:

> Most (not all) suspects who shoot at cops aren't doing it out of spite, but instead of out self-preservation.

How do you know this? Your comment is based on this being true, because if it were otherwise there would be no way your proposal could work. In that case disarmed police officers would continue to get shot but now without being able to defend themselves.

> Just look at these statistics

Stats are tricky. I can forgive a serving officer not understanding the stats, and falling victim to a cognitive bias.

But you have the benefits of understanding stats, and knowing about bias. You don't have any excuse for making such mistakes.

Can you please explain to me what exactly is wrong about these stats and my conclusions?

By the way, I don't need an excuse for having an opinion.

You seem to presume that are you holding the moral high ground allowing you to attack me (insinuating I am plain stupid) without even needing to deliver any facts that prove me wrong.

He explained that stats are susceptible to bias.

You can see whatever pattern or proof you want if you look at the numbers long enough, to serve any narrative, to rationalize any opinon.

Sorry, but there was no explanation. I cite statistics from the US government and he calls me stupid and biased because he doesn't like that I refer to these statistics. It just clashes with his reality or the dogmas he believes in.

> You can see whatever pattern or proof you want if you look at the numbers long enough, to serve any narrative, to rationalize any opinon.

In most Western countries the governments release stats about crimes committed by type and by citizenship or in case of the US by race.

I don't have to search for a pattern there that fits a "narrative", the statistics bluntly state which race commits most crimes in different categories.

If you don't like what these government stats show please feel free to share with us why you believe that we shouldn't use these stats. But I'm not interested in trading insults, so please keep the discussion civil and based on facts.

> By the way, I don't need an excuse for having an opinion.

Sorry, when you said ...

> > Just look at these statistics

... I thought you weren't giving an opinion, but basing your argument in facts.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com