
Lifesaving advice from a black woman held at gunpoint by police - nafizh
https://theundefeated.com/features/lifesaving-advice-from-a-black-woman-held-at-gunpoint-by-police/
======
dTal
The most alarming thing about this story, apart from the suspected racism, is
the sheer amount of confirmation bias on display from someone who is quite
prepared to shoot you.

She offered corroborating evidence from the get go, and even the 911
dispatcher confirms her story, yet the officer is too busy waving his piece
around to get off his power trip.

I'd be mad too. Some element of this volatile combo of deadly weapons and
unprofessional police behavior has to change. Preferably both.

~~~
bsder
We need to have a set of cops who are clearly marked, wired with a body
camera, and who _don 't carry weaponry_. Put them in blaze orange or something
so criminals can see them coming and run away. You should have to go through
this period for some number of years until you get to carry a gun.

Most cops go their whole lives without firing their gun--adding an extra gun
rarely makes a situation better. While TV and movies like to portray heroic
feats of gunplay, in reality, 90+% of the bullets go errant in situations
where a gun was actually useful and required.

~~~
LyndsySimon
I don't think the gun is the issue here - _I_ carry a gun, regularly, and I've
never felt the need to draw it and point it at someone who might be stealing
something.

Police in the US are generally seen as adversarial, while police in the UK are
generally seen as mostly helpful. In my estimation, the problem in the US is
one of culture. Police here are looking for a reason to charge you with a
crime, not trying to keep you out of trouble. It's "us versus them" on both
sides.

~~~
akytt
The issue that the police in UK fire their guns a few orders of magnitude less
might have something to do with it. It makes no sense to dive into statistics
as to encounters and guilt and race and what not. Police in US is seen as
adversial because they tend to shoot people and that's the core problem.
[https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/uk-police-
sho...](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/uk-police-shooting-
statistics-discharge-firearms-figures-freddie-gray-baton-killings-
homicide-a7160391.html)

~~~
nojvek
Police in the US also get shot at magnitudes higher than the UK. Something
something about everyone having guns.

------
cperciva
This was flagged away, but I vouched it back; I think it's interesting to hear
a story which _almost_ ended in tragedy, just like it's useful to hear about
software bugs which _almost_ resulted in data loss or security
vulnerabilities.

~~~
narak
In fact the almost case is more valuable because the survivor in this case was
doing absolutely nothing wrong and lived to tell the tale.

~~~
SilasX
"Absolutely nothing wrong" is a little bit overstating it.

She wasn't doing anything _illegal_ , sure, but it was a bit reckless to
arrange the transfer so that the buyer was expected to go alone, onto
someone's driveway, to replace the license plates and drive off with the car
without talking to the resident or owner.

Imagine if you sold your Magic cards to someone and told them, "oh, they're in
my bedroom at 123 Elm Street -- just jimmy open the window and fish 'em out.
If anyone asks, just give them this handwritten note."

Or, "Cool, just pick up the keys from under my office desk. Walk past
security, just ignore them if they stop you, and fish them out of the cabinet.
Pick the lock if you have to."

No. Bad idea. You look like a thief doing that.

Could they have handled the situation better? Definitely. But it's a bit much
to act outraged that anyone would misinterpret her actions.

~~~
zzalpha
_She wasn 't doing anything illegal, sure, but it was a bit reckless_

Only in a world where random folks from the neighbourhood might come out and
point a gun at you instead of simply asking a few logical questions and
looking at proffered supporting documentation.

 _But it 's a bit much to act outraged that anyone would misinterpret her
actions._

Who's outraged at her actions being misinterpreted?

The outrage is at the fact that a panicky cop saw something they thought was
suspicious and reacted by immediately pointing their gun at someone (something
any good gun owner knows you never do unless you plan to shoot), creating a
potentially life threatening situation, and the person on the other end of it
was forced to defuse it.

~~~
SilasX
>Who's outraged at her actions being misinterpreted?

Anyone characterizing her behavior as doing "absolutely nothing wrong".

You can both believe that the son-in-law and officer overreacted without
believing the buyer somehow did everything exactly right. It's not either/or.

>The outrage is at the fact that a panicky cop saw something they thought was
suspicious ...

Yes, people are outraged at that too, but they also blur that with the more
dubious claim that "she did nothing wrong". I think that's pushing it. Again,
not "either/or".

~~~
zzalpha
_Yes, people are outraged at that too, but they also blur that with the more
dubious claim that "she did nothing wrong"._

Let's just admit it: if she were white, it wouldn't have turned out this way

She arranged the sale.

She had the seller's info.

She had the keys.

She had the paperwork.

Only problem is, she 1) is black, and 2) looked like a guy.

Could this situation have been handled differently? Sure. But I struggle to
lay more than a small piece of the blame on her. I'd just as soon blame the
mother-in-law for not telling her cowboy son that she'd sold the car.

------
weberc2
This article makes a lot of claims about innocent black people being gunned
down by police, but is there any actual evidence of this happening
disproportionately to white people? Last year I trawled the 2015 Washington
Post police shooting dataset and couldn't find any evidence, and a couple
months later a black Harvard economist released a paper saying he couldn't
find any evidence in the data he looked at. Between that and all of the bad
reporting around the Michael Brown shooting, I'm beginning to believe that the
only disparity is in media coverage... This story and its interest don't
depend on this (in)accuracy, but it's such a common talking point and it
doesn't seem to be substantiated.

In particular, I was expecting a lot more drama from a story of a black woman
"surviving" an encounter with police. Here's a similar story about a white man
in San Fran: [https://medium.com/indian-thoughts/good-samaritan-
backfire-9...](https://medium.com/indian-thoughts/good-samaritan-
backfire-9f53ef6a1c10). This sort of stuff makes me think that race is perhaps
a red herring, and that the quality of police (or police training) simply vary
a lot in our country.

~~~
apeace
You didn't research very hard.

From the Washington Post[0]:

> White people make up roughly 62 percent of the U.S. population but only
> about 49 percent of those who are killed by police officers. African
> Americans, however, account for 24 percent of those fatally shot and killed
> by the police despite being just 13 percent of the U.S. population. As The
> Post noted in a new analysis published last week, that means black Americans
> are 2.5 times as likely as white Americans to be shot and killed by police
> officers.

If you look at fatal police shootings so far this year[1], the numbers are the
same.

You should provide a link to the Harvard study you mentioned.

Here[2] is one from Yale which someone once touted to me, which supports your
claims. But they only used data from a limited number of police departments in
Houston, TX. I'm not sure why anyone would look at that and not the national
numbers. In the paper, of their own methods they say, "In essence, this is
equivalent to analyzing labor market discrimination on a set of firms willing
to supply a researcher with their Human Resources data!".

There are many places to find this information online. It is a fact: black
people are shot and killed more often by police than white people.

[0] [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-
nation/wp/2016/07/1...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-
nation/wp/2016/07/11/arent-more-white-people-than-black-people-killed-by-
police-yes-but-no/)

[1] [https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/police-
shoo...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/police-
shootings-2017/)

[2]
[https://law.yale.edu/system/files/area/workshop/leo/leo16_fr...](https://law.yale.edu/system/files/area/workshop/leo/leo16_fryer.pdf)

~~~
asdfpoiuqwer
I believe The Guardian also ran a project to count people murdered by law
enforcement because there are no strict requirements to record this across the
country:

[https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-
interactive/2015/jun/...](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-
interactive/2015/jun/01/the-counted-police-killings-us-database)

~~~
weberc2
I think that was the same impetus as the WashPo dataset. I do wish the United
States made it mandatory for agencies to submit their data to the FBI. I also
wish Eric Holder's Justice Dept didn't withhold offender race data from the
NCVS. Interestingly, the FBI's Unified Crime Report seems to cover about 50%
of police-involved shootings, making it a pretty good sample (and the UCR is
generally consistent with the NCVS which is a survey of victims). Leaving data
collection up to the media is sketchy, notably because the media are more
likely to report officer race if the suspect is black and even more so if the
officer is white.

------
johngalt
Here's the test. Reverse the situation. Off-duty cop is buying a car and
random good neighbor black person sees all the same "suspicious behaviors" and
begins an armed confrontation with the person they believe to be stealing a
car. Suddenly pointing a gun at a "suspicious person" is no longer "lawful and
proper" behavior. At a minimum, the civilian goes to jail for being reckless.

~~~
loco5niner
Sorry, but that is not a good comparison. I would assume that off-duty cops
(rightly) have more authority when it comes to these types of situations.

~~~
zzalpha
_I would assume that off-duty cops (rightly) have more authority when it comes
to these types of situations._

And yet, when they make a mistake, they aren't held to a higher standard,
despite we, as citizens, granting that authority to them.

~~~
weberc2
No. Police are necessarily involved in more risky encounters than laypeople.
They have manyfold the opportunities to make a mistake than laypeople.
Training offsets some of that risk, but not all of it.

~~~
zzalpha
_No. Police are necessarily involved in more risky encounters than laypeople.
They have manyfold the opportunities to make a mistake than laypeople._

That's illogical.

There are myriad professions where trust is delegated to the person in that
profession, and consequences to go with it. A doctor doesn't get a free pass
if they kill someone due to incompetence when performing a surgery just
because they do it more often. Heck, engineers are held liable if their work
results in injury or death.

Yet, with law enforcement, the opposite is often true, even when the facts
clearly demonstrate fault on the part of the police. You couple that with the
"thin blue line" culture that results in police circling the wagons whenever
one of their own screws up, and it's no wonder that trust in the police has
eroded. The perception is that there's simply no consequences to police
misconduct. And in many cases, that perception unfortunately matches reality.

~~~
weberc2
No, the error is yours, I think. We trust experts like police and surgeons to
do certain dangerous tasks because their expertise offsets much of the risk;
however, they're still more likely to make a mistake since they have to roll
the dice more frequently. If the probability of a layperson wrongly killing
someone is 20% per police-like-encounter, and the probability of a trained
police officer killing someone is 1%, who has the greater odds of killing
someone? The layperson who rolls the dice one time or the police officer who
roles the dice a couple times a year (or a couple times a week in some
places)?

> A doctor doesn't get a free pass if they kill someone due to incompetence
> when performing a surgery just because they do it more often.

So you have data that police are being acquitted of shootings (when a jury
finds that the shooting occurred due to incompetence) at a higher rate than
surgeons? Or are you using different standards for "incompetence" (for
surgeons, presumably the result of an investigation, but for police it's the
opinion of the first pundit you heard?). Mind you, none of this has any
bearing on comparing police shootings with civilian shootings, which was the
topic of your original point...

~~~
zzalpha
_We trust experts like police and surgeons to do certain dangerous tasks
because their expertise offsets much of the risk; however, they 're still more
likely to make a mistake since they have to roll the dice more frequently._

And therefore the consequences should be significantly lessened for them
relative to an untrained civilian?

The approach you advocate will result in the perverse incentive that a cop is
better off always pulling a gun in any situation, as the lack of consequences
means the incentive is to always minimize personal risk in an encounter in the
short term, as there's no risk as a result of a mistake in the long term.

It's perverse.

In effect you place the power of life in death in the hands of a trusted
individual, and then create a situation where they're incentivized to use it,
especially in situations where even a whiff of short-term personal risk is
perceived (like, say, in an encounter with a person in a minority where racial
biases may come into play).

~~~
weberc2
You're confusing a reasonable standard of proof with complete impunity.

~~~
zzalpha
And you're assuming a reasonable standard of proof is applied. I'm not willing
to make that assumption. This case is yet another example of why.

~~~
weberc2
I'm not assuming a reasonable standard of proof is applied, only that the
standard for proof in police shootings should account for the fact that
they're far more likely than civilians to be involved in escalated situations.

------
op00to
How is property worth pointing a gun at someone over? It's a car. Cars can be
replaced.

~~~
sturgeongeneral
It may be just a car to you, but I have a valuable sports car, and if I caught
someone attempting to steal it I wouldn't hesitate to point a gun. Not for a
moment. Would the intent be to kill? Of course not. It'd be to deter.

Edit for the downvotes: it's not just a car to me, and it's not just about the
monetary value. It has sentimental value and I wouldn't be able to replace it
easily. I don't see what's so controversial about attempting to protect one's
property. That said I did find this story disturbing and I'm not trying to
imply that the woman did anything wrong. I was simply replying to the point
above.

~~~
pmiller2
There's no such thing as pointing a firearm to "deter." One of the basic
tenets of firearm training is that you never point it at anything you don't
intend to shoot. And, when shooting, always go for a center mass shot.
"Winging" someone is neither practical nor probable.

~~~
sturgeongeneral
Of course there is, but yes, I accept the lethal outcome.

~~~
mnm1
If you mean murder, don't say 'deter' and then wonder why you're getting
downvoted.

~~~
sturgeongeneral
Murder is unlawful and premeditated.

------
covercash
Relevant comic: [http://christopherkeelty.com/surviving-a-police-
encounter/](http://christopherkeelty.com/surviving-a-police-encounter/)

------
justifier
This articles bothers me

Both the individual's story and her message here

I am glad it is here to bring further attention to these issues and even how
this specific event happened to this woman

Both the encounter and how the police later handled the 'investigation' are
both disgusting and why serious reform is anything but a top priority for
officers and politicians is completely revolting to me

But I wish the author was more clear on what she meant in saying 'prevent the
next philando castile'

Was she going to prevent it by filing the complaint and removing that officer
from the street or was she insisting she would help prevent more philandos by
educating others in saying:

> My behavior is how everyone should act in those situations: comply, survive
> and complain later.

Because Castile did comply and was still murdered

This clip discusses how the definition of 'comply' changes with each high
profile murder

[https://youtu.be/aufMdURbitU](https://youtu.be/aufMdURbitU)

Trevor Noah and the writers of the daily show have been discussing the issues
in a way that I think has been highlighting some of the problems very clearly,
and with great respect and composure

This clip calls out the silence from a leading voice defending law abiding
citizens' rights to carry firearms, especially in regard to doing so without
fear of being murdered by the police for carrying a firearm

[https://youtu.be/0IJSSBMLz6g?t=250s](https://youtu.be/0IJSSBMLz6g?t=250s)

And this video showcases the newly released dashcam footage of the philando
murder

[https://youtu.be/wqgz7kRGVxg](https://youtu.be/wqgz7kRGVxg)

We need to talk about these issues but insinuating blame on the victim is the
wrong way to do it

I hope the article was actually focused on the prevention method of filing
complaints but I wish that was more clear

So please, until this is solved, comply like Castile did and if you live to
tell your side of the encounter then please report these offenders

------
shawnee_
Thank you, this was an interesting read.

On the tangent of arbitrary and unneeded flagging, there seems to be quite a
great deal of it lately... it's not improving the site.

After I got off work, I tried to find a story that I'd noticed earlier and
wanted to comment on, but it was completely gone from not just the front page
but everywhere. A completely benign, tech-related story. Makes no sense:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14745430](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14745430)

~~~
DrScump
Given that that same submitter submitted _at least six_ copies of essentially
the same press release within _minutes_ of each other, I'm not surprised if
several received many flags for duplication. Click "Past" on that link to see
what I mean.

~~~
shawnee_
Okay... but I imagine dupes happen a lot when companies make an announcement.
Doesn't mean we should bury _all_ instances of a story. The one I noticed had
19 votes at the time I read it, and this was the one I'd planned to comment
on.

Isn't there a "merge" feature or something similar you can do to prevent
squelching of a topic entirely? Let the site readers be the collective
mechanism that votes or ignores something.

------
pacaro
I also had to vouch it back, there appears to be a concerted effort to flag
this.

~~~
gpm
I too just vouched it back (after seeing this comment so we didn't click vouch
simultaneously).

If you're flagging this story, perhaps you could leave a comment here about
why?

Edit: And while posting this comment it got reflagged/revouched again...

~~~
Erwin
This seems like a long-standing country-specific societal problem to me:

> Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're
> evidence of some interesting new phenomenon.

~~~
gpm
That's a fair argument.

I'd argue it's a new phenomenon in that this is the first time (I've seen
anyways) people resigning themselves to simply giving advice on how to de-
escelate the situation as a non-cop. But I can see how that seems like a
stretch.

