Humanities desk
< July 12	<< Jun | July | Aug >>	July 14 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

July 13

Paranoids with safe lives who got murdered.

People so fearless/stupid/action-hungry they had almost no chance of death from old age but lived anyway. (Not people with death wishes. Unwitting*/impulsive/bad at math okay).

Hypochondriacs who actually had a serious medical problem eventually.

Smokers who lived to 100. (Is that even possible?)

Health nuts who died in their 20s because of an undiagnosed medical condition which made exercise bad for them.

Gambling addicts who won a many millions jackpot before they'd suffered much and somehow didn't blow it.

Gambling teetotalers who would've won millions if they'd joined the office lottery pool or something.

Hardworking people that aren't rewarded with money because of things they can't control (i.e. raiders keep pillaging his farm).

Lazy people that had money fall on their laps (i.e. he got high one night and painted blobs with his nose, someone in the abstract art world passed by and now every time he needs another pile of cash he makes another horrible Nasalist painting. Even though he doesn't even like art has no skill, and thinks anyone who'd buy this is stupid).

Men that literally bit dog(s)..

(*I'm reminded of my dad who was drafted and was fooling around with his rifle, finally flipping it around and jerking it into the over the shoulder position and the bayonet almost cut his neck without him realizing) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:41, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Um ... this question really needs work. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:43, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Apples not falling far from the tree, &c? I nominate Damien Hirst as a candidate for the art question. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:46, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have you know that my mother's one of the least likeliest people to be told "that bayonet almost killed you!" and I managed to dodge his tendency to bayoneted rifle tricks gene. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:26, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So do you mean that your mother was not drafted ? --Askedonty (talk) 20:45, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even if she was born in that kind of country I can assure you mom would not be fooling around imitating that swift, sharp movement-style with a pike-sharp gun. It could be worse. Dad saw a military plane flying a flight instructor like a flag cause FI closed his door on his scarf or something. Instructor died. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:00, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is unlikely an artist would be successful if they "got high". Bus stop (talk) 00:52, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't that be for only some drugs or too much of others? And who knows, if there's a way to make good money while being high all the time modern art is probably one of the likeliest. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:16, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am not a moralist. And it is easy to see that some drugs, such as a cup of coffee in the morning, could not be considered a vice. But I think in the final analysis the quality of the artwork is tied to the quality of the life lived (by the artist). Only we can write our own autobiographies but it is safe to say that we have misgivings about some aspects of our lives as well as aspects we are happy with. The future of art represents a break with the past. Past art history tolerated, even celebrated negative character traits. But I think future good quality art will be predicated on lives of self-improvement (of artists). That does sound like moralizing. But the artist is the final arbiter of what counts as a life well-lived. It could be argued that a heroin needle hanging out of an arm is an attainment worth crowing about. I just don't see it that way. And only I can write my autobiography. I'm an artist so I've given a lot of thought to this. Bus stop (talk) 02:52, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a heroin needle hanging out of an arm as positive for anyone either. And I did not know that the future of art is a break from the past. When I was growing up I heard about this controversial exhibition in my city and it was all things like a real cow cut in half and encased by its drained blood (maybe Damien Hirst?), a crucifix in urine called Piss Christ and literal poop on a painting of the Virgin Mary or Jesus (or maybe the "paint" was 100% feces). Pinky and the Brain had an episode where the paint was sneezed from the nose. There's a performance art where the artist picks a random man from the audience and goes on a first date with him for I dunno, 2 hours? I think someone was allowed to plastic wrap all the trees in a section of Central Park once. He only wraps things in plastic wrap, he never gets tired of it. Things like that gave me the idea that modern art's like that. My city likes new things, lol. Some of them sound like the artist was smoking pot. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 05:06, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You say "And I did not know that the future of art is a break from the past." That is a valid point. Perhaps I should have said that it is my hunch that "The future of art represents a break with the past." Bus stop (talk) 05:36, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re Y'all: People with traits that get the opposite consequence to what you'd expect. The more unlikely and ironic the better. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:16, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's a great example for "Smokers who lived to 100. (Is that even possible?)" - Jeanne Calment - who had "the longest confirmed human lifespan on record". Smoked from 21 to her 110s.John Z (talk) 03:36, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wawa-wewa. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 05:06, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The man who is claimed to have invented jogging, Jim Fixx, died of a heart attack in his 50s. (Which may be old to some people but believe me, it's not to me!) --TammyMoet (talk) 16:54, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He was working on a sequel to his famous book, to be titled Run Yourself to Death. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:14, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On a serious note, it almost certainly wasn't running that caused Fixx's demise; he lived 9 years longer than his father, whose shaky cardiovascular system he inherited, and his previous lifestyle of smoking, obesity and stressful jobs can't have helped. Alansplodge (talk) 19:26, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Evel Knievel always seemed to have a death wish. That he survived to age 69 is almost miraculous. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:19, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If it's possible to win millions from an office pool, that office is likely in violation of gambling laws, and you're better off not participating. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:20, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking about those pools where they buy Powerball or Mega Millions tickets. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:54, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if you've heard the classic / apocryphal epitaph of a hypochondriac: "I told you I was sick." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:23, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I doubt "hypochondriacs who actually had a serious medical problem eventually" are very rare. Howard Hughes "eventually" died of kidney failure. Andy Warhol is perhaps a special case, as his hypochondriasis went hand in hand with a fear of hospitals too (we have a stub on nosocomephobia), delaying the correct diagnosis and treatment of an ailment shortly before his death (though the delay didn't necessarily cause his death, see Andy Warhol#Death). In A Condition of Doubt: The Meanings of Hypochondria, Catherine Belling writes that "(...) in referring to what cannot be proven while signifying what is so absolute that it need not be proven, hypochondria is always ironic" (we all "eventually" die). ---Sluzzelin talk 21:00, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Extra points for getting your fatal disease early. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:24, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is certainly not apocryphal when it comes to Spike Milligan. That is his actual gravestone epitaph (albeit in Irish Gaelic). -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:02, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:24, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The story about the soldier with the bayonet sounds like your classic schlemiel. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:25, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In Britain, gambling activity within a company which is limited to members of that company and which is not advertised to the public does not require to be licensed (e.g. the office sweepstake for the Grand National, for which an entry form is printed in the popular press around Easter). The football pools promoter and the bookmaker have to be personally licensed, like the publican. Our high streets are now awash with betting shops, because the replacement of a more innocuous business is not classed as a planning "change of use" and whereas betting office licences were formerly granted by magistrates who required evidence of "demand", nowadays applications are dealt with by the local planning department. 86.168.123.201 (talk) 11:55, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question In this article https://www.cbo.gov/publication/50250 (cahce , pdf) is said that "Because of the large deficits, federal debt held by the public soared, nearly doubling during the period.". I have tested it here and yes, Debt Held by the Public was doubled. But Debt Held by the Public is Treasury debt -- what Treasury must pay back. But in article is said about federal debt -- what federal government must pay back.

In another article http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3886857/ : "The increase in Medicare spending, which currently accounts for 14 percent of federal outlays, is a major factor in projected growth of the national debt.".

Federal government debt we can see here in table D.3.

Can anybody explain me, how does federal government or Treasury create their debts. E.g. for welfare (Emergency Assistance (EA), General Assistance (GA), Supplemental Security Income, Aid to Families with Dependent Children, Medicaid) federal government takes money in Treasury. So federal government must pay these money back to Treasury. Correct? But why does then Debt Held by the Public increase? Debt Held by the Public should increase when public buys Treasury bonds.

Also there is Intragovernmental Holdings -- money that Treasury must pay back to federal government.

So how this system of debts actually works? And why there is no netting of debts. E.g. if Treasury owes 5 tn. to government and government owes 5 tn. to Treasury, it's equivalent to total zero debt.

Remark Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2016_April_18#US_.28external.2C_foreign.2C_public.2C_intragovernmental.2C_total_etc..29_debt

Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2016_May_1#US_debt_2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Username160611000000 (talk • contribs)

We have a decent article on Executive Order 6102, which deals with the Roosevelt administration's forced acquisition of gold, and the amount of value lost to the gold owners who were forced to surrender their gold. The gold was paid out at $20.67 an ounce, with the dollar subsequently reduced in value to $35 an ounce. I'm no expert at maths, but I think this equates to gold owners being stripped of just under 43% of the value of their gold.

Our article on Executive Order 6814, on the other hand, is unfortunately nothing more than a stub. It says nothing about how the owners of the compulsorily forfeited silver were paid out, and at what rate. Given that American coins at the time contained silver, how much (coin) silver would the person surrendering his (non-coin) silver under the order get if he hypothetically took his payout in coins rather than notes? In other words, what percentage of their silver (or the value of their silver) were those forced to surrender it under the Executive Order stripped of? Eliyohub (talk) 07:17, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I quite understand what it is you're asking, but some quick googling yields some relevant facts that maybe you can use to figure out what it is you want to know.

1. According to Section 4 of the Order, people were to be paid "$1.2929 a fine troy ounce, less a deduction of 61 8/25 percent thereof" for the silver they surrendered. Doing the math, that is $.50 per ounce.
2. The value of silver in Oct 1934 was $8.43 in today's dollars, which would have been $.47 in 1934 dollars
3. 1934 dollar coins contained 0.77344 troy oz of silver, which means a one dollar coin would have contained a fraction more than $.36 ($.3635168) worth of silver
4. Using these numbers if somebody turned in 2 ounces of silver (then worth $.94), they'd receive $1.00, which, if in coin, would contain .77344 oz of silver. So, taking payout in coin would have resulted in a loss of 61% of their silver.

I hope that is what you were looking for.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 08:22, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) [1] seems to have some details. Nil Einne (talk) 08:27, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nil Einne, thanks for the link, it does answer my question. It appears that silver owners, unlike gold owners, got a more or less fair price for their silver. They lost a lot in volume, but not a lot in value. (Maybe someone can use the info in that link to expand our stub of an article? I seldom edit). Of course, if the US Government had been forced to buy it on the open market rather than compulsorily acquiring it, the mere purchase of such a huge volume would presumably have sent prices soaring, and the Government would have had to pay a lot more as supplies on the open market would be progressively exhausted. Eliyohub (talk) 17:17, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is a quote, during the time of the British Empire, something to the effect of "The death of 100 Germans, or 50 Frenchmen, of 20 Belgians, or one Englishman, is notable/newsworthy/tragic". Note this is most definitely _not_ the quote from Stalin about the death of millions being a statistic. I do not know the real quote nor who to attribute it to, Kipling, Lloyd-George, Rhodes... but someone like that. Help?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 16:50, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A version using decidedly non-PC language is a common search result - this article cites it to "A British editor", this one to "1970s journalists working at the BBC", and TV Tropes to "some British newspapers". I've not been able to find a named author so far, I'm afraid. Tevildo (talk) 18:40, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for trying!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:59, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was a general thing. I remember from the 60s when the TV news reported some foreign disaster it was quite common for it to end with "No Britons were involved.". It was parodied by Monty Python in the "News for parrots / News for gibbons / News for wombats" sketch [2] -- Arwel Parry (talk) 23:46, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Kintetsubuffalo:, You'll find the earliest version of the quote, and a ref for it, which has to do with newsworthiness, near the top of my talk page, before the comments from others actually begin. Use ctrl-f on "Chile" to find it quickly. μηδείς (talk) 20:10, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 23:19, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of United States treaties#Pre-Revolutionary War treaties lists a number of treaties that were negotiated by the United Kingdom or one or more of the separate colonies. Is there a reception statute or other mechanism that incorporates these treaties into federal law and makes them binding on the United States under the 1789 constitution? Looking for a source I can cite to update those articles plus Law of the United States. Thanks! -- Beland (talk) 17:33, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating question. I was able to find this, from Victoria Sutton, American Indian Law—Elucidating Constitutional Law, 37 TULSA L. REV. 539, 545-47 (2001):

Another interesting question that arises, is whether the United States still recognizes treaties between the tribes and the colonies prior to 1776. Pre-Constitutional treaties are recognized with successor-in-interest logic; the United States is the successor to the colonies. But a different relationship arises in the consideration of the treaties made between Indian nations and the Republic of Texas. A treaty made between the Republic of Texas and the Texas Cherokees was not assumed by the United States when Texas joined the United States. Since Texas was considered a different country, the United States did not succeed to interest in Texas's treaties. The Indian Claims Commission heard this case in the 1950s.

Sutton cites to authority—1976-1977 Op. Va. Atty. Gen. 107, 108 and Baker v. Harvey, 181 U.S. 481 (1901)—apparently indicating that the Commonwealth of Virginia "stands as the successor to the Crown" with respect to the Treaty of 1677 (also known as the Treaty of Middle Plantation) between the Mattaponi Indian and Pamunkey tribes and the English Crown.

This idea is developed further in Part 4.A.1 (pages 71-73 ) of Allison M. Dussias, 36 Protecting Pocahontas's World: The Mattaponi Tribe's Struggle Against Virginia's King William Reservoir Project 1 AM. INDIAN L. REV. 1 (2012) (available online). Dussias notes that the federal courts did not address the succession of states question in the Mattaponi litigation, but makes a few arguments on why for why the 1677 treaty should remains binding on the government today:

1. Both parties benefited from following the treaty provisions historically: "from the perspective of both sides, it was unnecessary to negotiate a new treaty in the years following American independence." In particular, the U.S. "certainly had no interest in trying to repudiate the land cessions and other rights gained by Great Britain via treaty-making with the Powhatan tribes."
2. "The lack of a new treaty between the Powhatan tribes and the newly independent nation is also understandable in light of contemporary legal theory on succession to treaties when sovereignty passed from one nation to another."
3. In Worcester v. Georgia, the Supreme Court, in an opinion by Chief Justice Marshall, wrote that Congress assumed the power and responsibility for relations with the tribes post-Revolution, and so the U.S. "succeeded to all the claims of Great Britain, both territorial and political." Dussias argues that "If the United States succeeded to Great Britain's claims, then, logically, it would also succeed to its obligations, including obligations under treaties entered into with tribal nations."
4. "Ultimately, it is simply an historical accident that the 1677 Treaty was entered into early enough that it was signed with Great Britain rather than the United States. For the Mattaponi Tribe to be regarded as not having a treaty with the United States seems to be particularly unjust in view of the fact that the Tribe’s peaceful relations with Americans obviated the need for a new treaty to be signed. It seems absurd for the federal government to treat the Mattaponi Tribe as having fewer rights as against the United States and its citizens than tribes whose belligerence necessitated a post-independence treaty with the United States."
5. "Finally, failure by the United States to honor the 1677 Treaty is inconsistent with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which provides that indigenous peoples have the right to have their treaties recognized, observed, and enforced."

Neutrality^talk 01:07, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking at these stats for people killed by the US police, and scaling them according to the population stats here (and assuming the same sex ratio for all races, as I couldn't see separate figures for each). There is a clear race and sex bias (the paler you are, the less likely to be killed, and males are more likely to be killed than females).

Category	Total killed	Population	Per million
Black m	132	19,168,243	6.9
Native m	9	1,443,797	6.2
Hispanic m	87	24,854,450	3.5
Native f	4	1,488,451	2.7
White m	263	110,074,450	2.4
Whole population	574	323,341,000	1.8
Asian/Pacific m	12	7,491,288	1.6
Black f	8	19,761,076	0.4
White f	18	113,478,815	0.2
Hispanic f	1	25,623,144	0.0
Asian/Pacific f	0	7,722,977	0.0

However, there were a couple of anomalies: 1) Native American females are much more likely to be killed that females of other races (the only ones to be more likely to be killed than white males). 2) Hispanic males are more likely to be killed than white males, but Hispanic femles are less likey to be killed than white females. Does anyone know the reason why these anomalies might be? Iapetus (talk) 17:50, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, some of the numbers are so small that they have no statistic significance. If you compare e.g. 2015, there were 0 Native American women in the database, but 3 Hispanic women and 35 white women. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:37, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You should see today's NY Times which had an article about stats and came to the counter intuitive conclusion that blacks are not more likely to be shot by police. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:40, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, you need to look at the numbers of stopped and killed vs. just stopped. Looking at the numbers the way the Guardian pointed out doesn't do anything. More blacks are killed because more blacks are criminals. You need to look at police interactions, not just the raw numbers. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:43, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's a strong statement, and one I don't think should be taken at face value. This is a vicious circle in more than one way. I very much wouldn't bet that the percentages of crimes solved (not to mention rates of wrong convictions) are the same for white and black perpetrators. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:52, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I read the article, the numbers were such that once there's an interaction with the police, blacks and whites were equally likely to be shot. Blacks had higher incidents of arrests, touching, gun drawn, but once it got down to actual shooting, the numbers were the same. As to my more crime numbers, that is the fact, blacks are a larger percentage of the criminal class in the US so looking at the raw numbers may give a skewed result. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:27, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You miss my point. Why do you think that blacks are a larger percentage of the criminal class in the US? Indeed, is that even what you wanted to say? The NAACP here says that less than half of the prison population is black. It's also well-known (i.e. I'm to lazy to look up a source, but there is enough on that NAACP page to make it plausible) that for the same crime, blacks are more likely to receive a prison sentence, and receive on average harsher sentences (again, probably for a variety of reasons, from simple prejudice to economic differences that means they have a worse prognosis and worse lawyers). I suspect that what you want to say is that the percentage of criminals (or at least people so classified by the system) is higher among the black population. But back to the original points. As long as people are busted for Walking While Black, blacks will have more police interactions then whites, and hence be involved in more cases of police overreaction. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:04, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The same behavior by blacks and whites may be classified differently. For example, a white guy carrying a gun may be "exercising his Constitutional right", while a black man doing so may be "brandishing a firearm", a crime. And even if we did accept that a higher percentage of blacks commit crimes, there's still the question as to why. There's the racist argument that somehow they are more criminal by nature, but more likely it's due to being poor, which is a result of slavery, discrimination, etc. It wouldn't make much economic sense for a rich man to mug somebody, but for a poor man, it can. It's all about relative risk versus reward. StuRat (talk) 13:12, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How to fix police racism ?

I can think of several ways. Have any of these been suggested, and, if so, by whom ?

1) Limit police stops. Since a certain percentage of these seem to lead to police shootings, despite no actual threat to police, limiting the total number of stops would reduce this number, too. Traffic stops for failing to use the turn signal when changing lanes, having a taillight out, etc., could just be handled like a traffic camera, where the license plate is photographed and the ticket mailed to the person. Of course, somebody else might be driving, but we must have a system in place for that with traffic cameras, anyway. And for serious threats to the public, like drunk driving, stops would still be needed.

2) Eliminate the inherent conflict of interest in allowing the city to keep ticket revenue. That leads police to pull people over for trivial things just to steal money from them, leading to motorist outrage, resulting in police shooting the motorist. The money could be given to a charity of the motorists' choosing, instead.

3) Use elected civilian police oversight boards with subpoena power to review all allegations of police misconduct. Those allegations should not even go to the police first, who might then get a chance to kill or intimidate the witnesses before the board can question them. If the oversight board recommends charges be brought, those should be Federal charges, as local prosecutors often have bias towards the police officers they regularly work with.

4) Require all police to wear body cameras, and fire any who refuse, or who turn them off during work (I assume they can turn them off when going to the bathroom). This needs to be a law, not just left up to the judgement of their supervisor.

5) Perhaps some type of downgrading of police testimony needs to take place, similar to how under Sharia law women's testimony can be considered less reliable. This is because, time and again, they have shown they will lie to protect fellow officers.

6) Psychological testing of police could be done, such as having people of various races insult them while monitoring their vitals. If they show an extreme reaction (rise in adrenaline, blood pressure, perspiration, etc.) in a test environment, then they shouldn't be a cop.

7) Since subjecting police to all these restrictions might make fewer people willing to become police officers, more pay might be required. StuRat (talk) 13:34, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of your 7 suggestions, few address racism. The UK has had a lot of problems with police racism in the past: see Murder of Stephen Lawrence. NB it would seem to this Brit that the bigger problem than racism is the police shooting people, whatever their colour. It doesn't happen very often here and when it does, it causes an enormous fuss, no matter their race, see Death of Jean Charles de Menezes. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:18, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, note the miniscule size of Category:People shot dead by law enforcement officers in the United Kingdom. I suspect the real answer here is not about racism but gun control. Racist police offers in Britain don't shoot black suspects because, 99% of the time, neither of them is armed. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:02, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And a significant part of that category is pre-WW2 and/or connected to The Troubles, a nice bit of British understatement. But if the police has no guns, how will it prevent violent crimes? Thanks to the gun-wielding citizen militias in the US, the rate of intentional homicide is only a low 3.9/100000 people, while in the disarmed UK, helpless citizens become victims at a staggering 1.0/100000 people. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:29, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that in the US, a vastly disproportionate number of those intentional homicides are black-on-black (i.e. both the victim and the perpetrator are black). Amongst Caucasians, gun suicides outnumber gun homicides, I believe. Eliyohub (talk) 17:39, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In Britain the "sus" law under the Vagrancy Act, allowing police to stop a person "on suspicion", was abolished, as was the 1713 Riot Act under which police could control a disturbance by reading a proclamation ("reading the riot act"). This caused problems in dealing with the 2011 London riots. Whenever they stop someone police must now fill out a form and give the person a copy explaining their reasons. Does any other country use this system? 194.66.226.95 (talk) 15:21, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure of the US, and it may vary by state, but it seems to me that police are not supposed to stop motorists without reason, but can stop pedestrians and insist on being shown ID. If no ID is presented, the person can be arrested on vagrancy charges, giving the police a chance to check fingerprints, etc. I think there is a current Supreme Court case asking whether they are allowed to detain a person for no reason other than to wait for the computer to search for warrants for that person. StuRat (talk) 15:55, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the state, some states have a "stop and identify" statues and others don't. Where I live, if a police officer asks for my ID I can just keep walking and tell him I have no interest in speaking with him. In NY, that is not the case, if a police officer asks for ID, you must give it. Terry stop should be an article about what and how a police can stop and ask for ID and check out Stop_and_identify_statutes.Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:01, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That says they can stop and identify somebody they "reasonably suspect of a crime". I'm surprised that's not allowed everywhere. What is more concerning is where they can stop you for no reason and demand your ID, or arrest you if you don't have any. StuRat (talk) 01:47, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to note that many police themselves would not necessarily object to wearing a body camera. First, it provides a degree of "insurance" against being sued or falsely complained about. And secondly, when police are dealing with an aggressive or abusive individual or individuals, telling the person that they're on camera ("how would you like the judge to see you behaving this way?") can sometimes have a magical calming effect.

However, I note that here in Victoria, Australia, one of the BIG issues we've had with introducing body cameras for cops is outdated IT systems, which would be overwhelmed by the vast amount of footage which would need to be sorted and stored. Changing over the IT system used by the entire police force needs to be done pretty desperately anyways, but would cost hundreds of millions. Other states here have introduced body cams, and in the US too, many squad cars have CCTV. Taser, too, has introduced models which begin recording both video and audio the moment the taser is removed from the holster, in order to reduce abuse of the devices. I see no reason similar technology could not in theory be developed for traditional handguns. Eliyohub (talk) 17:31, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What does this have to do with the parent question? The victims of police shootings in that table were disproportionately black (3:1 black:white), but they were overwhelmingly male (>17:1 male:female). Why are you not asking how to solve police sexism? What about the obvious bias of police against people in their twenties?

The fact that young males commit a lot of violent crimes is a real problem. We even know some ways to address that problem, like giving them better social structures to replace gangs, ending the drug war and ending the cycle of poverty. If we did that, it would actually help. Shootings of men would go down, shootings of blacks would go down, shootings of everyone by police and non-police would go down. It's incredibly frustrating that there are all these protests, all this will to make a change, and it's all focused on the wrong problem. -- BenRG (talk) 17:25, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Males really are more dangerous, though, due to the effects of testosterone/androgen, leading to stronger, more aggressive people. Perhaps antiandrogens should be prescribed for those with anger management issues, police included. Also, this discussion in no way means that the racial problem doesn't need to be addressed. StuRat (talk) 20:57, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given the particulars it may be that some police may not have the necessary temperament. It takes restraint, intelligence, and courage to face some of the people encountered in the course of doing police work. It could be that fear causes some police to resort to discharging a gun before exhausting other possibilities. I am not sure that racism is the right word in the instance that the confrontation between a black man and a white man stirs inordinate fear in the white man. Yes, there is a racial underpinning to the emotions that arise and run high. But the variable that perhaps can be addressed may lie in the training and the selection of white police offices with the temperament to defuse situations rather than escalate them. I am suggesting that police training and selection of officers should evaluate for the cultivation of and emphasis on relating to people of another race. Perhaps this should not simply be left to the vagaries of the abilities that police officers bring to the job. Perhaps there could be on-the-job staged "confrontations" between black police officers and white police officers. This could be verbal and physical too. Such familiarity could help to temper white police officers for interacting with black people. This I think addresses the "healing" that so many feel needs to take place. Familiarity counteracts the fear that leads to the rash and irrevocable use of a gun before the deployment of the words of courage that can allow a situation to resolve peaceably. I am using the word courage as the opposite of fear. Bus stop (talk) 17:57, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The basic problem is the American citizen's insistence that he has a constitutional right to carry a gun. American procedure seems to lack the safeguards we enjoy here in Britain. In London it is an offence not to provide name and address when asked to do so by a police officer. "Stop and identify statutes" says

Some states require police to inform the person of the intent to make the arrest and the cause of the arrest. But it is not always obvious when a detention becomes an arrest.

Miranda warning says

Custody means formal arrest or the deprivation of freedom to an extent associated with formal arrest.

And again

Absent a formal arrest, the issue is whether a reasonable person in the suspect's position would have believed that he was under "full custodial" arrest.

In Britain there is no doctrine of "constructive custody". A suspect is free to go until arrested, at which point the arresting officer will give a "Miranda warning". The process is fully documented at all times. The case record, which goes to the accused's lawyer, the Crown Prosecution Service and the court, includes the following details, among others:

• details of the alleged offence.
• details of the suspect and witnesses and what everyone (including the police) said and did. That includes a verbatim report of the arresting officer's words and any reply by the accused.
• copies of all statements. Each page is signed and contains a notice at the top that the statement has been given voluntarily.
• what happened at the police station after the arrest. -- 194.66.226.95 (talk · contribs) 18:37, 14 July 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]

You say "The basic problem is the American citizen's insistence that he has a constitutional right to carry a gun."[3] But, people get shot for carrying knives too—and even for carrying no weapon at all. Bus stop (talk) 20:49, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Other than a few highly trained specialist firearms officers, our police don't have guns either, which is why so few people get killed by our police. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 22:10, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"The basic problem is the American citizen's insistence that he has a constitutional right to carry a gun." No, the basic "problem" is the second amendment to the Constitution - which confers upon the people the right to keep and bear arms. They don't have to "insist" on it - they already have the right. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:38, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, until the early 2000s, lawyers generally agreed that Americans didn't have a general constitutional right to a weapon, and that the second amendment referred specifically to the right of militia to keep arms. See District of Columbia v. Heller, the case that created the very modern precedent of all-encompassing gun rights. In law, nothing is true until people insist on it (in this case, mainly the Cato Institute). Smurrayinchester 11:38, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. StuRat (talk) 21:01, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The editor who said we "insist" on gun rights is out of date. We insisted on it at some point in the past. Now there's no insisting on it because the courts have settled the issue. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:06, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Courts only settle things temporarily, based on current public opinion. For example, the separate but equal ruling reflected the public opinion of the time. It has since been overturned and no longer reflects public opinion. StuRat (talk) 21:14, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying school segregation is now allowed? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:44, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm saying that the Supreme Court "settled the matter" in Plessy v. Ferguson which made school segregation officially legal, but that was later overturned by Brown v. Board of Education. In the same way, any court decisions interpreting the 2nd Amendment to ban gun control may well be overturned in the future. StuRat (talk) 01:43, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible to drastically reduce these incidents via training. It's just like pilots who have to be regularly exposed to difficult situations in a flight simulator to make sure they react appropriately if a real problem were to occur. Without such training, even if the pilot knew what to do, the lack of practice combined with stress could cause the pilot to make an error and then that would lead to more errors causing a minor problem to spiral out of control and causing a crash. Count Iblis (talk) 21:41, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Taking guns away from officers won't work. America has a different social climate than Europe (more red in tooth and claw-ish.) Also, Americans have a higher appreciation for that antiquated pre-NWO, pre-Globalism concept called justice. I love that about them. A burglary epidemic as in Britain where the perps get community hours, if they're caught at all, wouldn't work in America politically, if you catch my drift. Asmrulz (talk) 06:47, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Off topic, perhaps, but does this American "concept of justice" to which you refer, and the resulting world's highest imprisonment rate (on par with the Soviet Union, I believe), actually make its' citizens any safer overall? Dubious. That said, nobody would rationally suggest that American police go unarmed, given that all the bad guys have guns there. Even in the UK, the Northern Irish police were armed as a result of the troubles.

As to training, I remember reading about an interesting system, where police train in a simulator which actually shoots rubber bullets at the officers, to teach them the value of taking cover, and make it less like a computer game, and more real. Being "shot" in training hurts! Not sure if any studies have been done on how well the system worked in producing smarter cops. Eliyohub (talk) 10:17, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the US is much safer than other countries. There are places in the UK where nobody would walk around alone at night, there are places that cops won't even enter. Crime, and all sorts of crime, has gone down tremendously in the past two decades. While there is a small spike the US is still a very safe place. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:00, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I beg your pardon? Do you have any data to back this up? At least for homicide it's not true in comparison to the UK (or really any Western European country). For rape, the US rate is nearly 3 times the EU rate (and the EU includes Sweden, with an extremely broad definition of rape). For robbery, the US rate is twice the Eurozone rate (all according to Nationmaster, [4]). Sure, there are some "other countries", but in a comparison with other developed countries, the US is not particularly safe. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:36, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what "nationmaster" is. The UK, for example, is much more crime ridden, much more likely to get assaulted, etc. If you want to be "let's bash US so we can avoid the problem of our women being raped, assaulted and groped" that's fine by me. If you really think the average US city is more dangerous than the average European city, then you need to visit the US and see for yourself. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:43, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've lived in Edinburgh, Linz, Verona, Trento, Miami, Munich, Karlsruhe and Stuttgart. I've visited San Francisco, Seattle, London, Hamburg, Pittsburgh, Prague, New York, Boston, Manchester, Birmingham, Phnom Penh, Vienna, Almati, Kopenhagen, Paris, Rome, Athens, Cape Town, Havana, Beijing, Hong Kong, Kingston, Montevideo, Singapore, Jakarta, Sydney, and countless smaller cities and towns in both the US and elsewhere. I think I have a reasonable basis for personal anecdotes, but the plural of anecdotes is not data. How is pointing out the the US is even less satisfactory than other countries in many crime statistics "US bashing"? Do you suggest "at least we're not as bad as the US" is a reason to be content? As an example, I've only ever experienced gated communities in Jamaica and the US (though I've been told they are also not infrequent in South Africa). If you don't know what Nationmaster is, I suggest you follow the link. They usually provide info on their primary sources. Where do you get your data from? If anywhere? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:04, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I read it in translation. It's about praying mantises from outer space invading Paris - written in the mid 20th century I think, as a reaction to the nazi occupation. Can anyone help? Thanks Adambrowne666 (talk) 23:41, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Les premiers jours de mai (The First Days of May), by Claude Veillot? See "Alien Invasion Revisited". An English translation appeared in A Century of Science Fiction, first published in 1962 and edited by Damon Knight. (By the way I copied my answer from Sluzzelin in May 2015 :-) ---Sluzzelin talk 05:16, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah shivers - sorry, Sluzzelin - but thanks as ever for an excellent answer Adambrowne666 (talk) 07:28, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]