Cont: The behaviour of US police officers - part 2

[Checkmite]

It was wrong to put yourself in front of the vehicle. That's just stupid and against training.

Plot twist: He did it on purpose so that if the car moved at all he would have an excuse shoot her, because he had already decided to do that very early on in the encounter.

 

[Checkmite]

But seat belts were not required even after they had long been in existence, and proven effective. Same with airbags. Same with remote keyfobs, central locking and alarms. There are plenty of vehicles with optional safety setups, such as lane change detection, proximity brakes, and so forth, but manufacturers are not required to retrofit them to every car they made that lacks them.

I think there's another difference here though, in the sense that - according to the article - "retrofitting" these models with the immobilizer apparently just involves a software upload that activates the existing, but locked, functionality. Meaning the vehicles have the physical equipment necessary for the immobilizer to work already installed, it's just that the ability for the driver to make use of it is paywalled at purchase time.

In previous decades, vehicles of lower trims were actually missing the premium features exclusive to more expensive trims. If you bought the Sport trim, you didn't JUST not get the physical Cruise Control buttons on your steering wheel; the wiring harness and the throttle controller and cable were physically missing, never installed at the factory during vehicle assembly. You didn't just not get fog lights, you got a model-specific front fascia that you couldn't install fog lights into after the fact even if you wanted. Obviously, this was practical - as a manufacturer you saved money by not having to install the equipment, and you made it impossible for someone to buy a cheap model and then just easily plug-and-play the premium features by sourcing them from the junkyard. But in the present day particularly when it comes to features that are automatic and computer-controlled, manufacturers are finding it both cheaper and more efficient to install all of the physical equipment on all vehicles on the line and simply software-lock them by model. And I think we may see more of these kinds of legal challenges going forward, in regards to existing, installed, fully-functional, but software-locked features - especially safety features.

 

[bruto]

It may be that the capability is already in the car, but the special key is not. If you've ever had to replace the transducer key on an immobilizer-equipped vehicle (common if you buy used cars, because it's rare to find a second key, or second key fob) you will have noticed it can cost a couple of hundred bucks just for the key, and more if the dealership has to do a software reset. Many of these setups are keyed to the serial number of the car, so you can't just plug and play.

In any case, as I understand it, for many of the cars in question, the full functionality is not just hidden, but must be added, and even then not for all. I don't think, for example, that my 2013 Accent can be upgraded without added bits.

I do think that there will be some issues forthcoming with features that are simply software-locked, but I'm not convinced this is one.

 

[The Common Potato]

Started reading Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America's Police Forces by Radley Balko a couple of days' ago.

 

[Wolrab]

Started reading Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America's Police Forces by Radley Balko a couple of days' ago.

I can't wait for the companion piece, "Rise of the Warrior Criminal: The Militarization of America's Criminals".

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I can't wait for the companion piece, "Rise of the Warrior Criminal: The Militarization of America's Criminals".

It already exists, it's called "Bringing the war home" by Belew

https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674286078

 

[Cain]

In a country with a functioning police force like Ireland, yes. In a country like the USA, I would consider it brainless to be on the side of the police as an ordinary citizen.

I was commenting on this specific case. Most Americans support police reform.

It's well known that the best representative sample groups come from local news comment sections. Statisticians and the legal system use data gleaned from them on a consistent basis, all the way up to the Supreme Court.

Poorly argued, as usual. As far as I know, there are no national polls on Young's death -- although there are national articles. What other ways to suggest gauging opinion on this incident? The better argument is to point out that public opinion is often wrong. A recent poll making the rounds reports that 58% of Americans say the economy has worsened in the past two years, and almost three-quarters of respondents say inflation has moved in the wrong direction for the past year. Given polling that contradicts their views, conservative types are prone to saying, "I've never been asked to participate in one of these polls! Fake news."

This is as well formed an idea that of innocent people rationally having no fear of being shot by the police. No innocent person would be made to crawl along the floor crying and begging for his life before being shot dead and his murderer being given no meaningful punishment because of his status as a cop.

Going from general police contacts -- of which there are umpteen million -- to the Daniel Shaver case is a rather impressive extrapolation. Is there anything Ms. Young could have done to peacefully resolve the situation? She could have talked to the police rather than driving away. Invoking the Shaver case is particularly inept because at one point Young says, "What are you gonna do, shoot me?" She was not begging for her life. They were not barking contradictory commands.

If we're interested in reform, then instead of denying Young's agency, a better argument is to just acknowledge the multiple ways she ****** up. This would give you a measure of credibility when talking about how the police ****** up. If the point is not reform but self-righteous culture war, then, um keep doing what you're doing.

Plot twist: He did it on purpose so that if the car moved at all he would have an excuse shoot her, because he had already decided to do that very early on in the encounter.

A kind of cherry-on-top stupidity. So this cop shoots not because he was behaving thoughtlessly, but maybe because he had gamed it all out in seconds and devised a way to kill someone?

 

[Checkmite]

It may be that the capability is already in the car, but the special key is not. If you've ever had to replace the transducer key on an immobilizer-equipped vehicle (common if you buy used cars, because it's rare to find a second key, or second key fob) you will have noticed it can cost a couple of hundred bucks just for the key, and more if the dealership has to do a software reset. Many of these setups are keyed to the serial number of the car, so you can't just plug and play.

That's the manufacturer's problem. And it's worth noting that they have to do this kind of thing all the time - they issue a recall and then swap defective or problematic parts with redesigned versions on their own dime; the system for doing all of this is already in place.

In any case, as I understand it, for many of the cars in question, the full functionality is not just hidden, but must be added

It's one thing if actual equipment must be installed or new keys must be struck or something like that; but if all that's needed to "add" the feature is just a software upload, then to me that's a distinction without a difference. The car obviously physically possesses the necessary functionality already and the software is just changing the behavior of those already-existing components as appropriate. I don't see a problem with compelling a manufacturer to retroactively "add" features via a software upload in this way.

 

[bruto]

That's the manufacturer's problem. And it's worth noting that they have to do this kind of thing all the time - they issue a recall and then swap defective or problematic parts with redesigned versions on their own dime; the system for doing all of this is already in place.



It's one thing if actual equipment must be installed or new keys must be struck or something like that; but if all that's needed to "add" the feature is just a software upload, then to me that's a distinction without a difference. The car obviously physically possesses the necessary functionality already and the software is just changing the behavior of those already-existing components as appropriate. I don't see a problem with compelling a manufacturer to retroactively "add" features via a software upload in this way.

Sure, if you actually have transducer keys already and they simply don't immobilize without software, then yes, compel the manufacturer to turn it on. But I don't think that's the case here. I know for sure than my Hyundai's keys are plain and cheap.

Mind you, I do agree that many manufacturers bleed buyers with this stuff. When a few years ago my wife had to get a second key for her Volvo, it cost hundreds of dollars, including something like $125 for running the ****** software! (e.t.a. in case not clear, according to them they had to reprogram both the original key and the new one, and the car's computer. But still hard to avoid yelling "ripoff.")

 

[tyr_13]

Poorly argued, as usual. As far as I know, there are no national polls on Young's death -- although there are national articles. What other ways to suggest gauging opinion on this incident? The better argument is to point out that public opinion is often wrong. A recent poll making the rounds reports that 58% of Americans say the economy has worsened in the past two years, and almost three-quarters of respondents say inflation has moved in the wrong direction for the past year. Given polling that contradicts their views, conservative types are prone to saying, "I've never been asked to participate in one of these polls! Fake news."

The lack of good evidence for your argument is not a flaw in mine. There is no law of reasoning that makes **** evidence good just because good evidence isn't available.

Going from general police contacts -- of which there are umpteen million -- to the Daniel Shaver case is a rather impressive extrapolation. Is there anything Ms. Young could have done to peacefully resolve the situation? She could have talked to the police rather than driving away. Invoking the Shaver case is particularly inept because at one point Young says, "What are you gonna do, shoot me?" She was not begging for her life. They were not barking contradictory commands.

If we're interested in reform, then instead of denying Young's agency, a better argument is to just acknowledge the multiple ways she ****** up. This would give you a measure of credibility when talking about how the police ****** up. If the point is not reform but self-righteous culture war, then, um keep doing what you're doing.

Your deflection from innocent people having reason to fear the police was to pretend it was only or mainly criminals like this woman (who again, didn't actually steal anything that day) who have reason to fear. The existence of other cases that show innocent people do indeed have reason to fear is a good rebuttal to your assertion.

It doesn't matter at all how you want to paint my motivations; your argument was still not only lacking, it was resting on your estimation of comment sections. Handwave all you like.

If you want credibility on the topic, you'd do well to acknowledge how ridiculous the support you presented was.

A kind of cherry-on-top stupidity. So this cop shoots not because he was behaving thoughtlessly, but maybe because he had gamed it all out in seconds and devised a way to kill someone?

Quick, someone go write this in the local news comment section so Cain believes it's a view that needs catered to no matter how it is contradicted by reality!

 

[tyr_13]

Sure, if you actually have transducer keys already and they simply don't immobilize without software, then yes, compel the manufacturer to turn it on. But I don't think that's the case here. I know for sure than my Hyundai's keys are plain and cheap.

Mind you, I do agree that many manufacturers bleed buyers with this stuff. When a few years ago my wife had to get a second key for her Volvo, it cost hundreds of dollars, including something like $125 for running the ****** software! (e.t.a. in case not clear, according to them they had to reprogram both the original key and the new one, and the car's computer. But still hard to avoid yelling "ripoff.")

The people I bought my Silverado from had to pay $400 to get one key remade. It was a fleet truck, used for gas and oil well work. They tend to leave the key in the ignition but that will eventually decouple the key code from the software.

And this is the 'WT' (Work Truck) trim level. There is a radio but no audio port, no USB, and manual everything else including the windows and door locks.

 

[Checkmite]

Sure, if you actually have transducer keys already and they simply don't immobilize without software, then yes, compel the manufacturer to turn it on. But I don't think that's the case here.

According to the article, all but a few of the models can be fixed with a software upgrade:

Both companies sent steering wheel locks to police departments last year to hand out to Kia and Hyundai drivers. In February, the companies started rolling out a software fix that needs to be installed at a dealership. Some models aren’t yet eligible for the update and certain models can’t have the software installed at all.

Last month, attorneys general of nearly two dozen states wrote a letter to both auto makers, urging them to offer a faster fix and to make more steering wheel locks available to those who can’t get the software soon.

"It is well past time that you acknowledge your companies’ role and take swift and comprehensive action to remedy it," the letter said.

Nancy Laird’s silver 2018 Hyundai Sonata was stolen three weeks before her appointment to get the software update. The 75-year-old social worker said her car was taken from an auto-repair shop, where she had parked it overnight last month for another issue. Ms. Laird said an auto-repair shop worker told her all that was left behind was broken glass.

"Not yet eligible" indicates a policy decision, not a physical incompatibility. It sounds like most of the vehicles can be fixed with a software update, and there IS a simple option available even for vehicles that can't, but that the company is dragging its feet implementing both measures despite being aware of the problem.

Reading the article again, it seems like the problem isn't merely that the vehicles didn't have immobilizers (hardware or software) installed, but that something about these vehicles' design makes them unusually, egregiously easy to steal.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

The police department, of my resident city, is taking action to stop the high rate of vehicle thefts. What action might that be? More officers patrolling, or bait cars? Lol, **** no. They are considering suing Kia and Hyundai.

https://www.krqe.com/news/apd-considers-suing-kia-hyundai-over-car-theft-problems/

This is like straight out of "not the onion".

I would assume that such a glaring product deficiency is ripe for regulatory action either by federal or state level officials the way other mass produced defective products have been litigated in the past, but I'm also struggling to see how local PD's are the right people to be spearheading such an effort. Seems to be well outside their wheelhouse.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Reading the article again, it seems like the problem isn't merely that the vehicles didn't have immobilizers (hardware or software) installed, but that something about these vehicles' design makes them unusually, egregiously easy to steal.

Here's how egregious it is. You know in old movies where someone would steal a car just by ripping a chunk of steering column away and shoving a screwdriver into it?

That's pretty much what you can do with certain recent Kia and Hyundai models.

It's basically like selling a car without a key at all.

I'm sure there's some specific legal term for it but basically the argument is "You failed to do something so simple, so effective, and so universally that's it is hard to argue that you wouldn't have seen the consequences coming."

It's like selling a car where the trunk opens itself up a 3 in the morning to let the contents breathe a little and getting shocked when a mass outbreak of people stealing stuff out of the trunk happens.

 

[bruto]

According to the article, all but a few of the models can be fixed with a software upgrade:



"Not yet eligible" indicates a policy decision, not a physical incompatibility. It sounds like most of the vehicles can be fixed with a software update, and there IS a simple option available even for vehicles that can't, but that the company is dragging its feet implementing both measures despite being aware of the problem.

Reading the article again, it seems like the problem isn't merely that the vehicles didn't have immobilizers (hardware or software) installed, but that something about these vehicles' design makes them unusually, egregiously easy to steal.

It's my understanding that what makes those models so egregiously easy to steal is mainly the publicity that they have no immobilizers. They weren't all that much easier to steal until that idea went viral, and the stealing of many such cars is not for any reason except to steal, joyride, and abandon them. The actual thieves of parts and valuable stuff are not the ones making off with the base models of the cheapest cars on the market.

I haven't looked into it, but if there is not a portable transducer (e.g. the key or fob) you don't have an immobilizer. If Hyundai is supplying new locks, I'm betting they have new keys too.

 

[Darat]

Folk - back to the topic of this thread. If you want to discuss car security and car recalls take it to its own thread.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat

 

[novaphile]

I get a certain satisfaction from US video's of Sovereign Citizens being dragged out of their vehicles and arrested.

I'm so glad it's not just me.

Sometimes, watching those fools on TV I find myself saying:

"So you're saying that you're not covered by the laws that regulate this country? You do understand that means I can just shoot you here on the spot don't you?"

They remind me of how the biggest tax evaders seem to be the loudest complainers about lack of social infrastructure.

 

[Cain]

The lack of good evidence for your argument is not a flaw in mine. There is no law of reasoning that makes **** evidence good just because good evidence isn't available.

The usual artless dodge. One goes with the evidence at hand, and proportions their belief to that evidence. If Person A says, "I believe most Americans, if presented with this event, would conclude the police officer committed murder one against a law-abiding citizen." Person B says, "I believe if most Americans were presented with this event, they would conclude the outcome was tragic, but Ms. Young unfortunately forced the police officer's hand." Person C says, "If Americans were presented with this event, most would conclude things went down as they did because of Obama's mind rays."

Are all of these views equally likely due to "lack of good evidence"? You're consistently, remarkably terrible when it comes to exercising cognitive empathy. If nothing else, you can serve as a cautionary example.

It doesn't matter at all how you want to paint my motivations; your argument was still not only lacking, it was resting on your estimation of comment sections. Handwave all you like.

The accusations are confessions. You're handwaving. It's as if tens of thousands of comments, and hundreds of thousands of votes do not say anything about anything. As for it being my estimate of comment sections -- well, of course it is. Would you prefer if I supplied someone else's estimate? What a fatuous remark. Straight out of the Joan Walsh guide, How to Not Argue Good. Is anyone saying my estimate is unreasonable? That I'm inferring an opinion based on something like Fox News??

Your deflection from innocent people having reason to fear the police was to pretend it was only or mainly criminals like this woman (who again, didn't actually steal anything that day) who have reason to fear. The existence of other cases that show innocent people do indeed have reason to fear is a good rebuttal to your assertion.

Sometimes I have to ask: Do you actually believe what you just wrote? All things being equal, law-breakers have more to fear from the police than law-abiding citizens. All things being equal, people who eat a healthy diet and regularly exercise will live longer than people who constantly booze and shoot heroin. It should go without saying that there are outlier exceptions. Statistical deviants. Just because some people die on treadmills in their mid-40s does not mean all will be well if we party like Keith Richards. Being completely innocent is no guarantee against anything, but one should look at the world statistically rather than anecdotally. Agency matters. If citizen behavior had no effect on the outcome of a police encounter, then Black parents would be wholly squandering their time with "The Talk."

You keep emphasizing that she did not steal alcohol that day, but this increasingly looks like not just ignorance of what happened, but hamhanded misdirection. If Young had an outstanding warrant. If she had stolen alcohol from the store in the past. If she was illegally parked in a handicapped space. If she knew the vehicle she was driving did not have a license plate. If one, some, or all of these things were true, then we should be able to see reasons why she might be tempted to get outta there. We can also see why that might be a really bad idea -- one that would only compound the trouble she's in. Oftentimes, a third act problem is a first act problem.

Most importantly, despite all of Young's poor behavior, she should not have been shot at, let alone killed. It would not make a difference if she had shoplifted that day. Criminals behave stupidly and impulsively, but we should hold police officers to much higher standards. Morally principled people are not threatened by facts or public opinion, which probably allows them to see the world more clearly. Someone who opposes the death penalty on principle might readily concede the dead man walking did it -- and argue that this fact is entirely irrelevant. Or that their view does not represent the majority, or even the "silent majority."

 

[tyr_13]

Make yourself so dangerous and murderous that ordinary people panic in the belief that they're going to be murdered, then use their panic as an excuse for doing exactly what they feared.

Ordinary criminals maybe. All of the evidence suggests that Young had intended to steal alcohol. Some articles say she set the booze down in the store because she had been caught. Reportedly, employees recognized her because she had stolen from there before. The car she was driving had no license plate, and had been backed into what looks like a handicap stall. So, parked close and ready for a quick getaway. As I recall, the weapon was not drawn until after she started up the car. Prior to that, she had been told to exit the vehicle multiple times to sort out what's what.

All of that said, even if she had shoplifted, the cop shouln't've positioned himself in front of the vehicle. That was dumb and possibly went against his training. If it did not violate his training, then he should have had better training. The cops also bark orders, which seem to needlessly escalate things (but it's also understandable when suddenly interrupted and unexpectedly chasing someone down).

If article comments are any indication, most ordinary law-abiding citizens are on the side of the police. They can imagine themselves acting like the police officers. It's going to be more difficult to imagine themselves acting like someone who planned to steal and then ignored lawful orders.

Free abortion though.

The usual artless dodge. One goes with the evidence at hand, and proportions their belief to that evidence. If Person A says, "I believe most Americans, if presented with this event, would conclude the police officer committed murder one against a law-abiding citizen." Person B says, "I believe if most Americans were presented with this event, they would conclude the outcome was tragic, but Ms. Young unfortunately forced the police officer's hand." Person C says, "If Americans were presented with this event, most would conclude things went down as they did because of Obama's mind rays."

Are all of these views equally likely due to "lack of good evidence"? You're consistently, remarkably terrible when it comes to exercising cognitive empathy. If nothing else, you can serve as a cautionary example.

Let's see how those hypotheticals line up to the argument you were attempting to discredit, posted above. Wait, scrolling might be too hard, here is the key part again.

Make yourself so dangerous and murderous that ordinary people panic in the belief that they're going to be murdered, then use their panic as an excuse for doing exactly what they feared.

Oh right, it was single sentence to being with.

What makes one no longer an 'ordinary person'? The way you argued, it was committing petty theft or having the popular perception that you are. (In the US are there immutable person characteristics that make many dismiss one as a criminal? Is there a reason that not actually having committed a crime might be relevant?)

But wait, not only do you set up 'ordinary person' as excluding people like the deceased you also exclude those who don't trust the police to only use deadly force against the actually or even 'reasonably perceived' (using what personal characteristics again?) criminals. You later set this as what 'most Americans' believe about police. Ordinary people can't have different views on one another about police and remain ordinary people? Are they 'ordinary criminals' because of it?

And there is another blinkered element of your argument; that being 'on the police side' means seeing yourself acting in a way that even police training says is wrong. You aren't, consciously, buying into the whole 'back the blue with us or against us', but you've gone beyond just describing that attitude. You have police, 'ordinary people' who are 'on the side of' police, and criminals. No, again I'm not saying that's intentional, but it is the construction if you're standing by that 'ordinary people' can't include those that are afraid of police murdering them.

The accusations are confessions. You're handwaving. It's as if tens of thousands of comments, and hundreds of thousands of votes do not say anything about anything. As for it being my estimate of comment sections -- well, of course it is. Would you prefer if I supplied someone else's estimate? What a fatuous remark. Straight out of the Joan Walsh guide, How to Not Argue Good. Is anyone saying my estimate is unreasonable? That I'm inferring an opinion based on something like Fox News??

If you were actually using these metrics you would not have dismissed the observation that ordinary people can be so afraid of the police. You're describing what you did. Are you saying ordinary people can't see themselves in the place of the dead woman, regardless of if they stole anything or not? (Which again, she didn't and 'someone thought I stole something' is certainly a position a lot of people can see themselves in especially if they share certain personal characteristics with the killed woman.)

Using your subjective observation of what is already a bad source of information isn't more weighty than anyone else's observations. Yes, I'm saying your estimate is not more reasonable than anyone else's here and that you got it from the comments section doesn't bolster it. In fact that's my main criticism of your argument.

Basically several people said, 'X', and you argued, 'Oh yeah, NOT X but Y and I'm right because of the comment sections!' where your 'Y' doesn't even preclude 'X'.

So, no, the accusation is an accusation.

Sometimes I have to ask: Do you actually believe what you just wrote?

Would you prefer if I supplied someone else's estimate?

All things being equal, law-breakers have more to fear from the police than law-abiding citizens. All things being equal, people who eat a healthy diet and regularly exercise will live longer than people who constantly booze and shoot heroin. It should go without saying that there are outlier exceptions. Statistical deviants. Just because some people die on treadmills in their mid-40s does not mean all will be well if we party like Keith Richards. Being completely innocent is no guarantee against anything, but one should look at the world statistically rather than anecdotally. Agency matters. If citizen behavior had no effect on the outcome of a police encounter, then Black parents would be wholly squandering their time with "The Talk."

Who said that people have 'no effect on the outcome of a police encounter'? I mean, that is sometimes the case, but not always or even often.

However, one would be wrong and rationalizing to think that if they eat well and work out that they don't have to worry about things like knowing the signs of a heart attack or working to clean up carcinogens from industrial processes, or the behavior of their EMT. Yes, it is a perfectly human, and common, way to assuage fear by telling one's self that they aren't one of 'those people' who have these things happen to them, whatever 'these things' happen to be. That can be, and is, deadly, when the 'fit person who eats right' ignores the pain shooting down their arm because they aren't one of 'those people' who have heart attacks.

And more to the disagreement here, being concerned about heart attacks enough to make sure your EMT are up to standards doesn't exclude someone from being an 'ordinary fit person'.

It isn't only 'ordinary criminals' concerned about the police conduct under discussion. You know this because your conclusions actually incorporate this understanding that you must abandoned to defend your use of a bad argument and data source elsewhere.

You keep emphasizing that she did not steal alcohol that day, but this increasingly looks like not just ignorance of what happened, but hamhanded misdirection. If Young had an outstanding warrant. If she had stolen alcohol from the store in the past. If she was illegally parked in a handicapped space. If she knew the vehicle she was driving did not have a license plate. If one, some, or all of these things were true, then we should be able to see reasons why she might be tempted to get outta there. We can also see why that might be a really bad idea -- one that would only compound the trouble she's in. Oftentimes, a third act problem is a first act problem.

Yeah, I keep emphasizing it because you seem to think it's a lack of empathy to see how people could relate to being put in a deadly situation when they were only accused of a very minor crime.

Most importantly, despite all of Young's poor behavior, she should not have been shot at, let alone killed. It would not make a difference if she had shoplifted that day. Criminals behave stupidly and impulsively, but we should hold police officers to much higher standards. Morally principled people are not threatened by facts or public opinion, which probably allows them to see the world more clearly. Someone who opposes the death penalty on principle might readily concede the dead man walking did it -- and argue that this fact is entirely irrelevant. Or that their view does not represent the majority, or even the "silent majority."

I think we were all aware that everyone who has spoken here are in agreement on those points. The point of contention remains if it is 'only criminals' who are worried about police like that. You're the one hung up on if you can use comment sections to tell who the 'majority' is. (You can't.)

 

[ponderingturtle]

The usual artless dodge. One goes with the evidence at hand, and proportions their belief to that evidence. If Person A says, "I believe most Americans, if presented with this event, would conclude the police officer committed murder one against a law-abiding citizen." Person B says, "I believe if most Americans were presented with this event, they would conclude the outcome was tragic, but Ms. Young unfortunately forced the police officer's hand." Person C says, "If Americans were presented with this event, most would conclude things went down as they did because of Obama's mind rays."

Yes she deserved to be summarily executed for the crimes she didn't commit but thought about. This opens up whole new avenues of guilt for people.