Whatever the lawmakers decide it will be. These aren't laws of physics. People just make it up and that's how it is.

what does it do at four-way stop if it was the second car there but the human in the first car is waving it on?

I would hope it would stay stopped and continuous horn them until they bloody move. Since getting out of the car, walking over to them, and* asking how long they are planning to hold up traffic by not going when they are the only car legally allowed to go doesn't seem an option for a self driving car.

* Of course usually those idiots take the hint and realize you aren't going when you get out saving the walk...

Sure, and the very same amazingly small data set tells you they avoided 100% of accidents while going over 10 mph. Which is equally as meaningless given the sample size.

Really? 4 data points tell you that? 2 data points really, since in two of them the human was driving and hence they mean exactly nothing for autonomous vehicles.

You get two significant figures with no error bars to be seen out of two data points? Are you an economist by any chance?

Of course one video doesn't speak for all cops in all situations. Did you forget this whole thread is about " the biggest risk"? And obviously the biggest risk involves your encounter being with a violent thug of a cop who is having a bad day.

The kind of cop who will kick you in the head for not throwing yourself onto the ground in an instant when told to get on the ground. Or shoot you because you made a sudden movement when he told you to show him your license. Or punch and then slam you into concrete because you put your hands out to be handcuffed.

Sure a lot of cops aren't like that at all - but as you said "And I could show you more videos where cops are shot or killed because someone they pulled over suddenly attacked. No wonder they're on edge." Why would you expect a non-cop to not be on edge when having to interact with a cop given all the cases of cops injuring or killing people?

In 2014 1100 (http://www.killedbypolice.net/kbp2014.html) people were killed by police in the US - now a lot of those were the police acting in self defense or the police acting to defend others. In 2014 127 (https://www.odmp.org/search/year?year=2014) police were killed in the US - note the police numbers count "police dogs" as "police officers" yet we aren't counting all the dogs shot by police and it includes single vehicle car crashes, training accidents, and heart attacks.

Since every interactions with the police by definition involves the police and another person (possible multiple police, possibly multiple other people of course), it would appear that the other person is orders of magnitude more likely to be killed than the police officer. So why is it the cop who gets to scared about the interaction?

And yes if you say "yes sir! how high sir?" things will probably work out fine. But the entire damn topic is videoing the police and having them tell you to stop and hand over the camera so they can delete it. "It's OK, just comply with their illegal orders and you won't get shot" isn't a a great solution to that situation.

You said "The ones who died at the hands of the cops are ...". That's clearly an "all" statement - it's specifying the set of people "who died at the hands of the cops". There's no "most" there. There's no "many" there. There's no "some" there.

And yes the unarmed guy is always going for the officers weapon. At least until the video comes out showing that surprise surprise the police lied. Though I guess your "just do what you are told and don't video the police when they tell you not to" solution does solve that video coming out part.

And of course people with lots of history with law enforcement and legal troubles are the ones who mostly get killed - they are the ones who interact with the police the most after all. They're more likely to run into the "bad apple".

Todays video for someone with a long history of crime is https://youtu.be/v2NzFq-81uA?t... - I guess you'll have to change "do what they say" to "do what they say fast" but then again you are also supposed to "not make any sudden movements" - damned if you get on the ground fast, damned if you do so slowly I guess...

Did I see the post I wrote? Are you retarded or something?

I guess your slang is different than mine. "Not unexpected" means unlikely but not surprising to me. It doesn't mean "expected" (why would you use a double negation after all). And no "police kill unarmed man" is not surprising in the US.

But given you didn't argue that in your first post, but instead declared that *all* the people who died at the hands of the police were "those with multiple infractions and long rap sheets who physically resisted arrest. Or waved around what appeared to be a weapon and refused to drop it when ordered to do so." it seems likely you did in fact understand the slang usage but just don't like admitting you lied.

Oh and in the past 16 months police in the US have killed 1500 people - so a bit more than that for 18 months. A tiny percent of arrests, but that's not the point.

Yet another recent example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... - Two police officers can handle a drunk pointing at them for a second, large male cop can't handle being pointed at by a drunk (who doesn't understand the danger involved since he is drunk) and so escalates and when the drunk takes an ineffectual swing kills him.

You'll have to point out the where someone claimed that interacting with a cop is a death sentence. Or did you build a little straw man to try and detract from your obvious lying?

No the police claimed the person was physically resisting. Or reaching for their weapon. Or waving around what appeared to be a weapon.

But we've seen enough cases in which video surfaces that contradicts the police claims to be forced to doubt those claims. Sure sometimes there really is a wolf, but given a documented history of crying wolf the police don't have the benefit of the doubt.

The shooting of Walter Scott was a pretty textbook example. Before the video surfaced of him being shot in the back while slowly running away we had all the usual claims:

"during the struggle the man gained control of the Taser and attempted to use it against the officer" - http://www.postandcourier.com/...

"felt threatened and reached for his department-issued firearm and fired his weapon" - http://www.postandcourier.com/...

And sure there was a struggle involved and if he hasn't been resisting he probably wouldn't be dead - but the point of that one is that we have a police officer saying the standard "I felt threatened", "I feared for my life", "he went for my weapon" lines they use to justify killing people when clearly it wasn't actually the case.

The biggest risk to you is that you die. Less likely than being arrested and having to spend money on a lawyer and so on, but piss off the wrong cop in America and ending up shot, choked to death, beaten to death, etc isn't an unexpected outcome.

Because your person from the bank says "Sorry you'll have to come into a branch with ID, I can't provide that information over the phone" or "Sure, I'll just need to know your social security number and the pass code on your account" rather than "no we can't tell you because privacy".

A simple "We can mail that information to the address recorded on the account" would do. You know, tell the person how to request the information instead of just saying "no you can't have it".

Mars sells M&Ms in bags with a bunch of colors.

If Mars wants to sell a bag with no blue M&Ms at a premium then they can fuck off when I instead buy the normal one and simply don't eat the blue ones.

No it's not. Hidden city is wanting to go from NYC -> Chicago and instead buying a ticket from NYC -> LA that just happens to have Chicago as a stop. Chicago is the "hidden city" that you want. You know exactly what the GP said.

Of course there's the risk of flight cancellations resulting in that flight getting cancelled and the NYC->LA people being rebooked on a different flight that doesn't stop in Chicago.

You're wrong. Which should be obvious given the name "back-to-back" which would obviously involve multiple tickets.

That's simply false. Treasury can mint coins without any interaction with the Federal Reserve and thus increase the money supply.