Just because he was quick to classify with a false negative doesn't mean he would have been quick to classify with a false positive. Just because he's a police officer doesn't mean he doesn't deserve to be seen as an individual that makes his own decisions, and has his own opinions, views and predispositions.

That you would make such a comment in a discussion about classism and racism is very ironic.

While the outright assertion that a black suspect would have been shot is unjustified, it seems counterintuitive to simultaneously make reference to one erroneous snap judgment (the cop assuming the white woman was not the shooter) without acknowledging the other side of that coin. Why is the cop an allowable surrogate of societal stereotypes when he assumes the white woman is not the shooter, but an "individual that makes his own decisions, and has his own opinions, views and predispositions" when an alternative hypothetical is presented?

> it seems counterintuitive to simultaneously make reference to one erroneous snap judgment (the cop assuming the white woman was not the shooter) without acknowledging the other side of that coin.

No supporting evidence has been presented that a person will necessarily attribute the same level of certainty when positively or negatively associating a person to a category, either globally or under specific circumstances that match these. Identifying someone as a threat and discounting someone as not a threat may engage different levels of reasoning and heuristics in different circumstances, and assuming they are equivalent without justification is a mistake, in my opinion.

> Why is the cop an allowable surrogate of societal stereotypes when he assumes the white woman is not the shooter, but an "individual that makes his own decisions, and has his own opinions, views and predispositions" when an alternative hypothetical is presented?

His behavior with regard to race was classified based purely on his profession. I'm not sure how that's justifiable.

Edit: To more directly address what I think your point is, we were presented a situation, not necessarily the police officer's reasoning and perspective. We don't know if the reason he thought she was not the shooter was her color, gender, clothing, bearing or some combination of those and other factors. There is little information to go on, so we shouldn't assume we know much.

In the long-form radio story, the cop very clearly presents that it was the shooters apparent gender that confused him and nearly cost him his life and the life of the perpetrator. They also noted in the story that officers are briefed on active shooter situations to assume a white male suspect. This was in Nevada, a state that has become (thanks largely to this and other similar stories) a paragon of officer education on the nature of cognitive biases and how to understand and use them to greatest affect.

If this information was available at the start, portions of my comments would have been different. As it is, I don't think it's appropriate to assume the facts you've now presented, as it doesn't make for a good discussion, and it isn't fair to the people involved. As it is, I stand by my earlier comments which referenced what information we know or don't know, since anyone coming with information only from your original comment couldn't know that, and what's more, according to you, the skin color actually wasn't the deciding factor.

I present this not as an argumentative reply to you, but just to clarify my point in my immediately preceding comment in this thread, as it seems to have been polarizing (it fluctuated from -2 to +3 multiple times, and now sits at 0).

I don't think that's true if it had been a black woman. I'd argue that it was the sex of the person more than the color that got him in trouble. Men commit a lot more violent crime than women do.

That's doubtful--- it's young white men who tend to execute mass-shootings, and the officer in question knew he was responding to a mass shooting.

While you are right that gender is a very strong predictor, you are wrong about race, according to CNN[1].

> white people ... committed some 64% of the shootings ... Black people committed close to 16% ... Asians were responsible for around 9% ... Latinos are almost nowhere to be seen

> whites and blacks are pretty proportionate to their population

[1] http://edition.cnn.com/2015/06/27/us/mass-shootings/index.ht...

No, the cop on the show explained his reasoning that he expected a young white male. Cops are taught that active shooters are predominantly young white males. You can argue statistics, but the officer in the piece specifically said he was looking for a man, not a woman.

Yup, this. I tried to find the episode but I can't remember what show it was on. :-/