Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Investigation: Police Shootings

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 221 posts

Re: Investigation: Police Shootings

#81

Post by newman314 »

kennelliott wrote: post #63
tptacek wrote: post #2

Some notes: * The Guardian has a very similar feature, "The Counted": http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2015/jun/0... The Guardian's feature is better in some ways; for instance, it attempts to account for all police engagement fatalities, not just shootings. Some of the worst police abuses in the US haven't involved guns, and if you read the data carefully you learn some surprising things, like how d…

Thanks for the constructive feedback, Thomas. These comments will be valuable when we build the 2016 database, if we decide to do so.

Please do. We need more people to see this.

Re: Investigation: Police Shootings

#82

Post by cbr »

dccoolgai wrote: post #37
jessaustin wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can we find out if e.g. Laquan McDonald is included in the "64%"? If not, I'd expect he was before the video came out. This is why I hesitate to consider "mitigating circumstances". Public safety officers should be judged by their effect on public safety, not by how well they cover their own asses.

I wonder if you would feel that way if one of your loved ones was serving as an officer of the peace - would you want them dealing with dangerous situations on a daily basis people with no regard for "covering their own ass"? Would you feel that way if there were an armed intruder in your home and one of those officers had to respond to protect you? Would you want them to intervene to protect you or your family or si…

> "covering their own ass"

I think you and jessaustin may be using different interpretations of that term, judging by their reference of the McDonald shooting. People are much more ok with police officers doing what they need to do to keep themselves and others safe at the time (your usage) than they are with officers lying about why they used deadly force after the fact to keep from getting in trouble (their usage).

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

Re: Investigation: Police Shootings

#83

Post by gohrt »

DanBC wrote: post #36
humanrebar wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know. Someone with severe mental illness and a knife (or a car) sounds way more dangerous than a calm person with a gun. It's hard to know whether the shooting was warranted without more details. Maybe better video records of these incidents will be helpful.

A lot of those people have no intention to harm anyone but themselves. They're suicidal. It's weird that emergency medical treatment for suicidal people is "call the police", but that's what their relatives do. The police turn up, see the weapon, hear "mental illness" and wrongly assume mentally ill people are violent, and shoot them.

Who are you going to call in an emergency? 911, or, um, what's the number of the suicide psychiatric emergency response team?

You don't get to decide whether 911 dispatches police.

Re: Investigation: Police Shootings

#84

Post by jdmichal »

tptacek wrote: post #48
shkkmo wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you agree that the general lack of prosecutions for vehicle caused fatalities is a failure of justice? The only difference between murder and suicide is if the person who dies chose to die.

We don't prosecute people for "fatalities". We prosecute them for homicide and manslaughter , which are offenses in which the prosecution must prove intent to commit harm . Meanwhile we do in fact prosecute car fatalities when they are caused by recklessness, and, of course, when they're caused intentionally.

I thought the whole purpose of manslaughter was that it does not require the intent to commit harm? Apparently, it's actually based on culpability. Involantary manslaughter matches my original ideal of there being no intent. But there's also voluntary manslaughter in which case intention is present but there's some other mitigating factor that reduces culpability.

Re: Investigation: Police Shootings

#85

Post by newman314 »

DanBC wrote: post #53
hebdo wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you think that a knife threat should never call for a firearm response then I recommend this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xpcrDzy344

If we're trading youtube clips here's a police force who disarm a man armed with a machete. Armed police are available, (the UK has armed police, especially in London) but those police are not needed because our police force is not fucking incompetent. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cX5CPx4RKWw Here's another video of a man wielding a knife and approaching police. In the US he's much more likely to be killed. https:…

This is what happens in the US.

http://heavy.com/news/2015/12/san-francisco-sfpd-police-shoo...

Re: Investigation: Police Shootings

#86

Post by dudul »

krapp wrote: post #74
dudul wrote: post #68

I remember reading an article by a former military guy who was deployed in the middle east. Back home he had to deal with the police and basically said: "they reminded me of myself when I was deployed and operating in enemy controlled areas". The guy goes on to explain on, according to him, the problem is that there is a narrative that cops should be allowed to do anything to protect their life, as opposed to protect…

>Cops should not be allowed to kill someone on suspicion that maybe there is a possibility that they will start shooting at them. Civilians in the US often have this right, so why shouldn't the police?

For one, civilians don't have the role of "protecting and serving" :)

Cops are trained, and are supposed to learn how to handle a situation without pulling out their gun [].

I don't necessarily disagree with you though. It would be good for people to be able to walk at night with a bag of candies without getting gunned down. I don't think that 2 problems should cancel each other.

[] And I know I'm wrong when I say that. I remember another paper showing how American cops spend a disproportionate amount of time practicing with their gun as opposed to cops in other countries where they mostly learn how to handle situations without their arms.

Re: Investigation: Police Shootings

#87

Post by gohrt »

ghshephard wrote: post #26
rayiner wrote: post #3

Worth reading through these. A lot of people with mental illness shot just for holding guns or knives or "driving toward police." Recently, an au pair we know (from Germany), had a gun pulled on her because she reached into her purse to get her ID when she was pulled over. The fact that Maryland's finest are totally mental and she could get killed for doing that never occurred to her.

On the flip side, if there really is a threat, police officers have standard training which makes it clear that they have less than three seconds to react, before they are killed. Bringing their weapon to a ready state, actually increases the time that they have to react, and lets them make more rational decisions.

Maybe they shouldn't rush to insert themselves into a situation where they only have 3 seconds to react.

Re: Investigation: Police Shootings

#88

Post by bdavisx »

_asdf_asdf wrote: post #52
hackuser wrote: post #13

Number of people killed last year by police in England and Wales: 3. That's the highest since 2008. [1] Why doesn't law enforcement seem to care? The government doesn't even track police shootings (one reason the Washington Post created its database) and, generally, law enforcement's reaction expresses no concern for the victims or for reducing this appalling behavior and widespread failure. [1] http://www.inquest.or…

Wow! And England and Wales are entire countries! Except... They are much, much, much smaller countries, and so... One would actually expect a much, much, much smaller number for them. Even combined. Whether by land area or population, they are considerably smaller.

Yes, but: the population of England and Wales together is about 55 Million; the us 319 Million. So that's a ratio of 1:5.8.

There were 3 shootings vs 984, so that's a ratio of 1:328. So it's still a very valid point.

Re: Investigation: Police Shootings

#89

Post by 13thLetter »

rodgerd wrote: post #73
notatoad wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've seen police shoot and kill a man "armed with a toy" and it's very, very hard for me to fault them for it. It sounds bad when you say it, but armed with a toy and armed should be treated as the same thing. When a man being chased by police stops his car, gets out, takes cover behind the door and starts pointing something that looks remarkably like a gun at police, he should be shot.

There are regularly displays by men armed with AR-15s around cities in the US. Yet the police seem to be disinterested in shooting them. I wonder why?

Simple: because they aren't pointing the AR-15s at anyone or breaking any laws. Hope that answers your question -- anything else you need help with?

Re: Investigation: Police Shootings

#90

Post by b_emery »

serge2k wrote: post #33
b_emery wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Between 1980 and 2008 "Males committed the vast majority of homicides in the United States at that time, representing 90.5% of the total number of offenders" [1]. Men are much more dangerous. A general rule for a lost child is to seek out a friendly looking woman, since she would be much more likely to help and not harm the child [2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_crime [2] http://gavindebecker…

Did you really have to add a second link which has no value except to imply all men are assholes or sexual predators.

As a man, I respectfully disagree. The link has much value if you're concerned with keeping kids safe, and it's relevant as a direct consequence of the fact that most crimes are committed by men. Your statement about men has it backward. Not all men are criminals, but most violent crimes are committed by men.
Post reply on HN