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

171–180 of 221 posts

Re: Investigation: Police Shootings

#171

Post by logfromblammo »

notatoad wrote: post #45
RealGeek wrote: 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.

Given that people in the U.S. have the right to be armed, with anything from nail clippers to 18-wheelers, I demand a bit more justification for a violent intervention than simply carrying or controlling a weapon.

So you are correct when you say armed with a toy and armed with a functional weapon should be treated in the same way. But I don't think possessing an object that may or may not be a weapon is sufficient justification in itself for the use of lethal force. I think police need to exercise every available opportunity to de-escalate conflicts, with the goal being to deliver the suspects alive and unharmed to the courts for arraignment. That may actually mean that the cops have to let the suspect fire a shot before he gets a lead shower. That would leave no doubt that yes, it is a real weapon, and yes, the suspect is willing to use it inappropriately.

I don't want 750k Judge Dredds on the street, acting as judge, jury, and executioner.

When a man takes cover and points a gun, he should be ordered to "show me empty hands" [0], then given a reasonable opportunity to assess his situation and comply. If he even fires the gun, and injures a cop, he should still be given an opportunity to surrender and make it to the courtroom alive.

[0] As "drop the weapon" is confusing to a person not actually carrying one.

Re: Investigation: Police Shootings

#172

Post by tptacek »

DanBC wrote: post #156
melted wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I take it you're not a cop, and don't have any cops in your family. The rule is very simple: unless you want to get shot, don't fuck with police. Pointing a toy weapon at an officer counts as fucking with police in my book.

It's not surprising when people describe the police as a fascistic brutal regime.

I'm not sure how you can extrapolate that from one person's insensitive comment about the police.

Re: Investigation: Police Shootings

#173

Post by tptacek »

shkkmo wrote: post #167
tptacek wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I didn't intend to engage in a semantics debate and I did read your comment carefully. You might carefully re-read your comment to see how I got that impression. > we don't prosecute people for errors. We prosecute them for doing things intentionally, or, as I said, for causing grave harm recklessly. We usually don't prosecute for intentional errors. That is precisely the problem: we are far to lax with incompetent/r…

You asked why the lack of criminal prosecutions for automobile fatalities wasn't a "failure of justice". I answered, and answered again, and now answer yet again: because our system of justice generally avoids prosecuting people for things that aren't crimes.

Re: Investigation: Police Shootings

#174

Post by maus42 »

jeffmould wrote: post #147
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…

First off, I am not a doctor and I didn't sleep in a Holiday Inn Express last night. But as someone that was an EMT and who worked around law enforcement for numerous years in other capacities, I have seen this all too often. "like how dangerous tasers are." Taser stats can be a bit deceiving. In the vast majority of cases where a taser is deployed the individual is in a drug-induced state with increased heart activi…

"Taser stats are a bit deceiving (the death toll is surprisingly large), it's lethal only to drug addicts"?

If Taser is dangerous to people high on drugs, it is a dangerous weapon, and we should care about that. Do you mean it's individual's fault that police uses a weapon that is lethally dangerous to "individuals in a drug-induced state" to apprehend individuals in a drug-induced state?

Re: Investigation: Police Shootings

#175

Post by Wingman4l7 »

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.

I think a better public understanding of police risk-averse training for common scenarios such as traffic stops would be a huge step in gaining common understanding in preparation for a meaningful dialogue.

To a driver asked for their license, reaching unanounced for a wallet in a concealed place (pocket, purse, glovebox) is an innocent and virtually instinctual movement. To a LEO, the same movement, by necessity, must be considered as having the potential to end their life.

Re: Investigation: Police Shootings

#176

Post by gherkin0 »

sliverstorm wrote: post #161
gozur88 wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it's reasonable to expect cops to allow criminals to take the first shot in case the gun might be a toy. Even if you're "positioned defensively" you can still be killed by someone who's lucky or skilled.

There seems to be a cohort of people who believe that policemen's lives are essentially forfeit, and thus any level of mortal risk to them is reasonable.

I don't think that policemen's lives are "forfeit," but that it's their duty to not have self-defense as their very top priority, which entails taking risks in some situations that we wouldn't expect of other people.

Re: Investigation: Police Shootings

#177

Post by shkkmo »

jdmichal wrote: post #169
shkkmo wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obviously you have completely missed the point. > Here's a gedankenexperiment for you: I instantaneously and permanently disable every car and car manufactory, thereby reducing all traffic fatalities to zero. Did I make driving safer? You certainly would have done an effective job of executing a 'war on car fatalities' which is what the harryh was claiming was demonstrated by the chart he posted. While I agree that d…

So your entire argument is centered around the semantics of "war on car fatalities"? In that case, there's not really anything for me to add, other than that I think you are taking a very uncharitable [0] view of the original post. [0] http://philosophy.lander.edu/oriental/charity.html

I noted that a set of statistics was being misused as evidence for the specific claim being made and added a source that supported that claim, abeit less strongly. That was 'uncharitable'?

You then 'charitably' missed my point twice, and argued against a strawman. You followed that up by 'charitably' accused me of only arguing semantics rather than responding to any of my actual points.

Re: Investigation: Police Shootings

#178

Post by gherkin0 »

talmand wrote: post #163
gherkin0 wrote: post #129

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. 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 wit…

So, we should just hope that innocent bystanders are not hit by that first shot at police as the they hide behind their defensive positions and superior equipment?

> So, we should just hope that innocent bystanders are not hit by that first shot at police as the they hide behind their defensive positions and superior equipment?

The scenario outlined did not involve an actual gun that could harm anyone.

If a car chase ends the suspect hiding behind a door with a "gun" in their hand, there are actually many possible scenarios, for instance:

1. The "gun" is not actually a gun, and was misidentified.

2. The gun is fake or a toy.

3. The gun is a real gun and the suspect will not shoot at anyone.

4. The gun is a real gun and the suspect will shoot at the police or others.

Some people say the suspect should be shot in all four scenarios (after all, he might shoot!). I disagree.

Re: Investigation: Police Shootings

#179

Post by shkkmo »

harryh wrote: post #165
shkkmo wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That graphic is rather misleading. Our success in reducing traffic fatalities is rather mixed and not nearly so dramatic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._traffic_deaths_as_fr...

The 60% drop since 1972 looks pretty good to me.

It looks less good when you compare our numbers vs. those of other countries:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-r...

We have higher traffic related death rates per capita than any other 'first world' country, including coutries with similar geograhpy such as Canada and Australia.

We have higher traffic related death rates per distance than any other 'first world' country (other than New Zealand, but still including Canada and Australia)

Re: Investigation: Police Shootings

#180

Post by serge2k »

b_emery wrote: post #90
serge2k wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

According to that link we should be terrified that any man is a sexual predator just waiting to take your kid away. Fuck that.
Post reply on HN