Hacker News Reader

Comment by timdierks | Hacker News Reader

Doesn't really change anything. If you make it so the police won't stop you for a broken tail light, will you keep it so they can stop you for driving with an expired inspection sticker? If so, you have to accept that the consequence may be death for a person who refuses to pull over because their inspection was expired because they had a broken tail light.

View on HN

The operative words here are "refuses to pull over." If people are allowed to run from law enforcement, there is no law enforcement at all.

If... there is no law enforcement at all.

This is the problem in USA, in a nutshell. We have some amorphous mental picture of how law enforcement works, instilled by an unholy mashup of local TV news and cop movies, and we cannot abide any public innovation or experimentation in that.

Of course, in so doing, we tolerate all manner of unpublicized "innovation" on the part of LEOs: asset forfeiture, stingray surveillance, parallel construction, profiling, qualified immunity, "special-needs" exceptions, etc. So we have a ratchet in this nation, in which occasional gains in freedom on the part of particular groups are more than offset by regular losses from everyone else.

If a nonviolent suspect "runs" from law enforcement, then send her a notice of fine, in the mail. It works for the credit card companies...

Right. So if I've kidnapped someone, and have them stashed in my trunk, and I run from the cops, they're going to send me a notice of a fine in the mail. Sure, that'll work. Right...

Even with edge cases the overall body count would go down a lot. Once the cops have eyes on a plate number figuring out who was in the vehicle at that time and tracking them down is straightforward and much lower risk.

Do you really consider kidnapping "nonviolent"?

No. But if the officers don't know for certain that I've done it, then they can't classify me as violent, even when I run from them when they want to look in my trunk...

Why do they want to look in your trunk? If they have a good reason, then you're violent, and they chase you. That is a vanishingly rare occurrence relative to the number of times when cops are just profiling, and so they stop 500 black dudes to catch one with some pot in his trunk, while studiously failing to stop a corresponding 500 white women. It ain't a perfect world, and cops have no duty to help the public. One would simply like to see them adopt the physicians' philosophy of doing no harm.

No, I'm only possibly violent. "Suspect is a white male driving a blue Ford Escort." "Hey, there's a white male driving a blue Ford Escort." "Is he the kidnapper?" "Don't know, but let's stop him and search his car."

But I've got pot in my trunk, or something I lifted from the local Walmart, or I'm paranoid, or I'm in a hurry, or whatever. Now what? Do they make me stop, or do they not?

Look, I'm not trying to justify profiling. But the world is not as black and white as you think it is...

If we're talking about a local, recent, actual (i.e. not a custody dispute) kidnapping then sure stop all the white dudes driving a blue Escort. It's clearly against the Constitution and common sense, but concerned citizens have feelings, so fuck that shit. For the sake of argument, we've stipulated that driving a blue Escort in particular very rare circumstances constitutes violence.

Now back in actual everyday reality, can we also agree that 99.8% of the cases in which dudes are stopped and their trunks searched do not constitute violence? I mean, other than on the part of the State...

Tell me some more about what I think!

> It's clearly against the Constitution and common sense...

It's against the Constitution to stop people who fit the description of someone who just committed a major crime? I'd like to see you cite a paragraph of the Constitution that supports your position.

It's against common sense? I'd like to see you support that assertion as well.

> Tell me some more about what I think!

In your posts, you gave evidence that you seemed to think that using force to stop suspects was not warranted. I gave reasons why I thought sometimes it was, and therefore that your view was too simplistic - too black and white. You grudgingly acknowledged my counterexample, but got offended that I claimed your view was too black and white. You seem to think I'm ascribing to you views that you don't actually hold. But I'm not trying to read your mind. I'm just reading your words. If I'm misreading them, clarifying might be a more useful approach...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com