Live data from Hacker News

Investigation: Police Shootings

washingtonpost.com

121–130 of 221 posts

Re: Investigation: Police Shootings

#121
post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

93 victims were unarmed, 33 were armed with a toy, and 27 unknown. That is a lot more than Americans killed by terrorists in US.

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.

Why? Likely from a distance the cop won't be shot if it is a real gun. The police should not be so trigger happy. What is more preferable to a society? A cop getting shot? Or a child with a toy gun?

Re: Investigation: Police Shootings

#122
post #108
post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first graph shows that we have made driving far less dangerous over time. The second graph shows that driving has become far more popular over time, popular enough to outweigh this effect until the early 70s. The recent improvement in car accident rates is pretty impressive.

Yet it is misleading to support the claim of a "war on traffic fatalities" with a graph that measures something else. The first graph show we have made driving far less dangerous per mile . The second graph shows the likelihood that any given person will die due to traffic.

I would make the reverse argument. Someone driving 100 miles today is far less likely to die doing it than, say, 30 years ago. The odds look about 3:1, eyeballing the chart. That, to me, seems like driving is far less dangerous than it was. The fact that people drive more miles today than before is an entire separate concern. One could even argue that making driving safer has also made it more popular, though I wouldn't bet on it being a large contributing factor.

Re: Investigation: Police Shootings

#123
post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

93 victims were unarmed, 33 were armed with a toy, and 27 unknown. That is a lot more than Americans killed by terrorists in US.

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.

This seems like a case where they simplified the wording too much to be worthwhile. "Armed with a realistic-looking toy and pointing it at someone" is very different from "Playing with super-soakers and water-hoses on their lawn".

Re: Investigation: Police Shootings

#124
post #117
post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See Table 7: http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf . Blacks are offenders in 57% of gun homicides, 60% of homicides committed in conjunction with another felony, 67% of drug-related homicides, and 42% of gang-related homicides.

I don't understand your comment in relation to the male / female issue. Care to expound?

[deleted]

Re: Investigation: Police Shootings

#125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>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. How often does this happen? A much more common occurrence is when someone sees a suspicious-looking dude walking down the street, calls the cops and says "I think he is armed!" and the cops arrive and shoot him without first verifying if…

First: citation needed. Second: In almost the entire US, being armed is not against the law. Third: If it's as much of a "common occurrence" as you claim, please paste here one example from the list of shootings on the article's main page where an officer shoots a civilian without any provocation.

Admittedly, I don't think it's on the article's main page but if you were paying attention, you'd know about this one.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/16/justice/walmart-shooting-john-...

Re: Investigation: Police Shootings

#126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>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. How often does this happen? A much more common occurrence is when someone sees a suspicious-looking dude walking down the street, calls the cops and says "I think he is armed!" and the cops arrive and shoot him without first verifying if…

First: citation needed. Second: In almost the entire US, being armed is not against the law. Third: If it's as much of a "common occurrence" as you claim, please paste here one example from the list of shootings on the article's main page where an officer shoots a civilian without any provocation.

> In almost the entire US, being armed is not against the law.

So what? Cops don't know the law and aren't expected to know the law. The fact that a cop didn't know the law is a legal defense if you accuse him of messing up.

Re: Investigation: Police Shootings

#127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With no clips to trade, I'm merely spectating at a tennis match, but I remain unconvinced that the UK response is in any way better. In all 3 clips (your two, plus the parent's) what I see is that a person holding a knife is an immediate and real danger to anyone within 15 feet of them. Also, if I'm seeing correctly, both assailants had already been pepper-sprayed, is that right?

I don't know the numbers but it seems to me the relevant question is, in X number of incidents in the UK vs. the US, how many perpetrators die? How many cops die? If the UK police are able to subdue these people without killing the perpetrator or getting killed themselves, on a per capita basis, I'd say the UK response is better.

Leaving aside the apples/oranges comparison of the greater latitude given to the individual's rights in the US vs. the UK (2nd and 4th amendments in particular), I'd more or less agree with this criteria being a good way to distinguish the overall value of the two approaches to dealing with armed civilian confrontations.

That being said, if the numbers you're looking for exist in an unbiased, non-doctored study, I'd be surprised. If they did, and they supported the thesis, you'd see them quoted in every article advocating gun control.

Re: Investigation: Police Shootings

#128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Once got pulled over while driving through a narrow alley. I had seen the police officer turning the corner behind me at an extremely dangerous speed (wheels spinning) so I assumed he was responding to an active shooting or something. I accelerated to cover the last 20 yards or so and then immediately pulled over once I was out of his way. He came up, gun drawn, thinking I had tried to escape. The reason for pulling…

Wait, are license plates required to be lit? I thought that was just a curtesy to other drivers, not a legal requirement.

Many states require them to be lit for identification purposes. And there's a lot of malicious fundraising that occurs around these laws.

Re: Investigation: Police Shootings

#129
post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

93 victims were unarmed, 33 were armed with a toy, and 27 unknown. That is a lot more than Americans killed by terrorists in US.

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.

> 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.

I disagree, especially in your outlined scenario, for a couple of reasons:

1) First and foremost: the police are professionals whose job should be to protect the public, even if that means they put themselves in harm's way. The person with the toy gun (or wallet, cell phone, etc) is still a member of the public.

2) After a car chase, the police have the ability to position themselves defensively until the situation becomes clearer (e.g. shots are actually fired at them). They also could be wearing unusual protective gear like body armor, which would further reduce their personal danger.

Now, if the person was actively threatening an innocent third party with a realistic toy gun in some way, then I think it would be much more justifiable for the police to shoot. Ditto if a person brandishes something clearly gun-like at an officer at close range.

Re: Investigation: Police Shootings

#130
post #80
post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You engage me in a semantics debate in a condescending tone and then are wrong. Manslaughter does not require 'intent to commit harm'. Yes, there are prosecutions of reckless/negligent drivers. However, the fact remains: 1) Most traffic fatalities are the result of human error. 2) Most traffic fatalities do not result in prosecution. I can't find numbers to back up #2 but this semi-anecdotal evidence is telling: http…

I think it's actually you who have decided on the semantic debate, since the reason we don't charge lots of people with felonies for killing people with cars is pretty apparent from the comment I just wrote.

I also don't think you read my comment carefully.

As a reset: here's what the state must prove in a manslaughter case:

    First, the defendant unlawfully killed someone;

    Second, while in a sudden quarrel or heat of passion, caused by
    adequate provocation:

    a) the defendant intentionally killed someone; or

    b) the defendant killed name of victim recklessly with extreme
    disregard for human life; and

    Heat of passion may be provoked by fear, rage, anger or
    terror. Provocation, in order to be adequate, must be such as might
    arouse a reasonable and ordinary person to kill someone.
Maybe you'd rather look at a vehicular manslaughter statute? Here you go, California's:

    To prove that the defendant is guilty of this crime, the People must
    prove that:
    1. The defendant (drove under the influence of (an alcoholic
    beverage/ [or] a drug) [or under the combined influence of an
    alcoholic beverage and a drug]/drove while having a blood
    alcohol level of 0.08 or higher/drove under the influence of (an
    alcoholic beverage/ [or] a drug) [or under the combined influence
    of an alcoholic beverage and a drug] when under the age of 21/
    drove while having a blood alcohol level of 0.05 or higher when
    under the age of 21);
    2. While driving that vehicle under the influence of (an alcoholic
    beverage/ [or] a drug) [or under the combined influence of an
    alcoholic beverage and a drug], the defendant also committed
    (a/an) (misdemeanor[,]/ [or] infraction[,]/ [or] otherwise lawful
    act that might cause death);
    3. The defendant committed the (misdemeanor[,]/ [or] infraction[,]/
    [or] otherwise lawful act that might cause death) with gross
    negligence;
    AND
    4. The defendant’s grossly negligent conduct caused the death of
    another person.
This describes only a tiny percentage of vehicular fatalities.

Again: we don't prosecute people for errors. We prosecute them for doing things intentionally, or, as I said, for causing grave harm recklessly.

Post reply on HN