Hackers Remotely Attack a Jeep on the Highway

Re:Hackers Remotely Attack a Jeep on the Highway by marssaxman on Tuesday July 21, 2015 @05:51PM (#9926096)

Dude, have you not been paying any attention to the War on Drugs, or the Ferguson thing or really any of the Black Lives Matter stuff? The cops will fuck with you if they want to fuck with you, and they will write up whatever paperwork they need to write up to justify it afterward. The courts will believe their testimony by default. The only way to get around this is to release video afterward showing that the cop lied on the stand, and even then the best you can hope for is an overturned conviction; the officer is extremely unlikely to face any consequences. This is the system we have.

It does not matter that we theoretically have democratic oversight. In practice, what we have is a system where cops can do whatever they think fit and expect to get away with it. They are armed and dangerous; it is not safe to interact with them. It is not a good idea to call them, or to talk with them if someone else calls them, because they - the cops - have a clear disregard for public safety when it is counter to their own interests.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Hackers Remotely Attack a Jeep on the Highway by kbenson on Tuesday July 21, 2015 @06:21PM (#9926281)

You see, the thing is some of us still believe the the police are staff by people, not some faceless conglomeration of drones that all follow the same horrible behavior, and that while there are some, probably many bad police officers, and many systemic problems, they still serve a purpose, and that life without any form of law enforcement would be a big step back in many, many ways. The amount the media reports on something often has no bearing on how common it is.

If I was robbed, I would call the police. If I saw someone waving a gun around in public, I would call the police. If I saw someone using a car as a weapon, I would call the police. If I see a situation where people are endangering the public and someone might get hurt, I would call the police. Not doing so when I clearly knew I should would make me feel somewhat responsible for any negative outcomes otherwise.

I'm not really interesting in continuing a discussion where the other side's position seems to be "the police are racist scumbags and they will ruin your life with the slightest contact, so don't call them on criminals." You might find that characterization unfair, but then again, you're the one over-generalizing using large media events as evidence instead statistics.

Edit: Removed reference to ad-hominem, which wasn't factually correct.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Hackers Remotely Attack a Jeep on the Highway by dragonwriter on Tuesday July 21, 2015 @06:32PM (#9926341)

> you're the one pulling an ad-hominem on the police

While I agree with much of the rest of what you right in that comment, this is not accurate: overgeneralizing a negative stereotype of someone other than the other party in a debate isn't "pulling an ad hominem".

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Hackers Remotely Attack a Jeep on the Highway by Natsu on Tuesday July 21, 2015 @10:06PM (#9927307)

That kind of argument is generally considered to be 'poisoning the well' -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Hackers Remotely Attack a Jeep on the Highway by kbenson on Tuesday July 21, 2015 @07:07PM (#9926525)

You're right, so I'll update it to reflect your wording, which I think is clearer, and actually correct.

[ Parent | on HN ]