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

211–220 of 221 posts

Re: Investigation: Police Shootings

#211

Post by dudul »

krapp wrote: post #140
dudul wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Police should certainly be held to a higher standard - and when they shoot someone, they should be treated the same as anyone else, if not put under greater scrutiny, because of the greater responsibility their position entails. But the fact remains that, for better or worse, every American by default has the right to shoot people with guns under certain circumstances. I am not a lawyer but I don't see a legal justif…

I don't necessarily disagree, but the problem is you could say the opposite. If you claim that police officers should have the same rights as a civilian, couldn't you argue that civilians should have the same rights as police officers?

I believe that the role of "police officer" comes with the idea that before defending yourself you should be prepared to defend other first.

Re: Investigation: Police Shootings

#212

Post by tptacek »

kbenson wrote: post #191
tptacek wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ow1ktm5nwy6um5f/Screenshot%202016-... Excuse the formatting. That's the top 10 by fatalities weighted by population. Short answer: it's all over the map.

Ah, thanks! It looks like Percent Threat is minority deaths over total deaths for that state? The other thing I wondered was how it looked when normalized to the racial makeup of the state (I'm not asking you to do this, just wondering).

No, percent threat is the (active attack + deadly weapon) / total fatalities.

The racial data is easy enough to get, but when you state rank in police shootings/population to it, it's pretty much all over the map. Wyoming, New Mexico, and Oklahoma, the leading three states, have below-average African American populations. Two slots later, DC has the highest in the country.

Re: Investigation: Police Shootings

#213

Post by talmand »

gherkin0 wrote: post #178
talmand wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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

It did not involve an actual gun in that particular instance. I would like you to explain exactly how the police may identify whether the object that appears to be a weapon is an actual weapon other than waiting for the suspect to fire first.

Again, we should just hope that innocent bystanders are not hit by that first shot at police as they hide behind their defensive positions and superior equipment? Police officers and innocent bystanders don't always fare too well when the police are obligated to follow stupid rules of engagement.

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

See, that's where I agree with you. Because none of the scenarios in your list is a reason for police officers to fire as you list them. But tack on the end of each item that the suspect acted in a threatening manner with an object that appeared to be a weapon then the police officer may choose to fire their weapon. To be fair, if the suspect tried to run down other people or cops during the chase to show that he was a threat then just getting out of the car with an object that appeared to be a weapon will get him shot. It's all about context.

Re: Investigation: Police Shootings

#214

Post by gherkin0 »

gozur88 wrote: post #181
gherkin0 wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Clearly the cop doesn't have self-defense as his top priority, or he wouldn't be in that situation at all. He'd make sure he was somewhere else when the possibility of violence manifested itself. Like, say, I would. Police officers shouldn't be shooting people on the off chance that a suspicious bulge might be a gun, but it seems pretty unreasonable to expect police officers to put their self-defense as the very lowe…

But what I'm saying isn't putting their self-defense at "the very lowest priority," it's just putting it after correctly determining the suspect is an imminent mortal threat before deciding to kill them.

The police are after all are the ones with the experience and training: they shouldn't ever be killing kids with toy guns or people with wallets, which they in fact are. The thinking that enables that needs to change.

Re: Investigation: Police Shootings

#215

Post by newman314 »

knowaveragejoe wrote: post #159
newman314 wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Source please for "in the US an officer is much more likely to be killed"? I took a quick look and found this. [1][2] Looks like number of cop deaths are at a 50 year low but can't find a country by country comparison. [1] http://www.groupnewsblog.net/2014/09/i-saw-posting-on-facebo... [2] https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131230/15411225716/numbe...

It's surely anecdotal, however I have a hard time believing most of Europe, in particular the UK, has more mentally ill and/or drug addicts who are more prone to this kind of behavior than the general populace. You also have a variety of high profile examples of cop-killing in the US that play into this kneejerk reactionary arms race on the part of police.

Once again. Provide examples of high profile cop killings contributing to so-called arms race. It's not an arms race when police always has a gun while the suspect may or may not have one in any given encounter.

You have moved from one statement to another without much to show for it.

Reusing your own comment in a different thread, "what terrible reasoning"

Re: Investigation: Police Shootings

#216

Post by gherkin0 »

talmand wrote: post #213
gherkin0 wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> The scenario outlined did not involve an actual gun that could harm anyone. It did not involve an actual gun in that particular instance. I would like you to explain exactly how the police may identify whether the object that appears to be a weapon is an actual weapon other than waiting for the suspect to fire first. Again, we should just hope that innocent bystanders are not hit by that first shot at police as the…

I agree the context is important, and it may sometimes provide reasonable justification for the police to shoot first, like if there's a crowd behind the officer. Generally, I think the officers should minimize the probability that 1) innocent bystanders get shot, 2) unarmed suspects get shot, and 3) the officer gets shot; in that order. Some people seem to put 3) in front of 2), and I think that's wrong.

However, a in lot of recent videotaped incidents, it's been shown that many police officers are shooting and often killing people merely because the officer falsely "thought" they had a real gun. That behavior is unacceptable and needs to stop, even if that means police have to take more personal risks themselves.

Re: Investigation: Police Shootings

#217

Post by talmand »

gherkin0 wrote: post #216
talmand wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The scenario outlined did not involve an actual gun that could harm anyone. It did not involve an actual gun in that particular instance. I would like you to explain exactly how the police may identify whether the object that appears to be a weapon is an actual weapon other than waiting for the suspect to fire first. Again, we should just hope that innocent bystanders are not hit by that first shot at police as the…

I agree the context is important, and it may sometimes provide reasonable justification for the police to shoot first, like if there's a crowd behind the officer. Generally, I think the officers should minimize the probability that 1) innocent bystanders get shot, 2) unarmed suspects get shot, and 3) the officer gets shot; in that order. Some people seem to put 3) in front of 2), and I think that's wrong. However, a…

I agree, to a point, because most of the unjustified police shootings I'm aware of, that we have video for, did not show any direct threat to the officer or any bystanders. In almost all those cases the victim did not even have an object that could be mistaken as a weapon. I personally don't see those as police shootings but as murder, manslaughter at best.

But I still have problems with your wording. In your examples above you feel 2 is more important than 3 and you disagree with people that reverse it. I agree with you. The difference is I see the possibility that the police may think the unarmed suspect is armed and is a direct threat to the officer or bystanders. By your wording you seem to suggest that scenario is not possible, and just in case the officer should wait until fired upon to determine whether the suspect is armed or not. That's a bad rule of engagement.

Re: Investigation: Police Shootings

#218

Post by gozur88 »

gherkin0 wrote: post #214
gozur88 wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Clearly the cop doesn't have self-defense as his top priority, or he wouldn't be in that situation at all. He'd make sure he was somewhere else when the possibility of violence manifested itself. Like, say, I would. Police officers shouldn't be shooting people on the off chance that a suspicious bulge might be a gun, but it seems pretty unreasonable to expect police officers to put their self-defense as the very lowe…

But what I'm saying isn't putting their self-defense at "the very lowest priority," it's just putting it after correctly determining the suspect is an imminent mortal threat before deciding to kill them. The police are after all are the ones with the experience and training: they shouldn't ever be killing kids with toy guns or people with wallets, which they in fact are. The thinking that enables that needs to change…

>...they shouldn't ever be killing kids with toy guns or people with wallets, which they in fact are. The thinking that enables that needs to change.

I disagree. That's not an achievable standard without putting officers' lives at undue risk. Cops can not tell the difference between toy guns and real guns without a close inspection.

Re: Investigation: Police Shootings

#219

Post by krapp »

dudul wrote: post #211
krapp wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Police should certainly be held to a higher standard - and when they shoot someone, they should be treated the same as anyone else, if not put under greater scrutiny, because of the greater responsibility their position entails. But the fact remains that, for better or worse, every American by default has the right to shoot people with guns under certain circumstances. I am not a lawyer but I don't see a legal justif…

I don't necessarily disagree, but the problem is you could say the opposite. If you claim that police officers should have the same rights as a civilian, couldn't you argue that civilians should have the same rights as police officers? I believe that the role of "police officer" comes with the idea that before defending yourself you should be prepared to defend other first.

As far as I know, civilians and police officers in the US do have the same rights, as far as firearms are concerned.

Re: Investigation: Police Shootings

#220

Post by bobwaycott »

notdonspaulding wrote: post #206
bobwaycott wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To your third: How exactly do you define "provocation"? I'm curious because you seem to have a very lenient definition when talking about police using deadly force. This is remarkable to me when there have been a number of highly reported incidents involving police shooting a civilian without provocation that warrants deadly force (by my definition and video evidence). Here are a few to consider: 1. Tamir Rice 2. Joh…

I'll agree that all 4 of your non-provocative behaviors should not escalate a situation to the level of deadly force being required. I specifically asked for examples from the list, because the list seems designed to support a very specific thesis, one that you expressed in this comment: > It happens far too frequently that Americans are killed > by police firearms when they are not posing an immediate > and credible…

It honestly takes very little effort to find "more than a handful" of cases. I've provided four already. That's 2 short of "more than a handful". It's even easier to increase the number if we expand the parameters to citizen deaths at the hands of LEO with or without that death being from a bullet. There's a serious problem with American policing, and its behavior toward the citizenry. I have no interest in, nor am I trying to, "shut up the naysayers". I find naysayers tend to say nay as a rule, and default to any number of shifting goal posts and mental gymnastics to remain convinced there is no problem worth considering seriously. You've just done this yourself—you asked for a single example of an unprovoked death; now you've crafted a tailored list of questions meant to narrow the field of validity based on different parameters (you've now shifted to asking for deaths that are "unjustifiable", whatever that means).

When a 12-yr-old boy with a toy gun is shot by police after being on the scene for a few seconds, and the cop doesn't wind up in prison, there is a problem. And that problem extends from bad policing to the justice system as a whole.

Post reply on HN