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

Death by gentrification: the killing that shamed San Francisco

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 318 posts

Re: Death by gentrification: the killing that shamed San Francisco

#51

Post by beachstartup »

TheMagicHorsey wrote: post #30

Why would a person ever point a taser with a laser sight at uniformed police in this country? Yes this is a tragedy, but how are police supposed to react to a gun-like object pointed at them, in the heat of the moment? Cops get shot also. They are nervous on the job. As we would be, in their position. Are they supposed to react to a pointed gun with understanding and open arms? I just don't think that's practical.

> Why would a person ever point a taser with a laser sight at uniformed police in this country?

this is why police continue getting away with it. there are people out there like TheMagicHorsey who just believe everything they say, no matter how ridiculous or nonsensical.

upon hearing something totally and utterly unbelievable, he thinks "this guy was crazy", instead of "the police are lying their asses off to cover their own ass, who you gonna believe, cops or the dead guy?"

and bless his heart, that's probably because he's never had to deal with the police in any meaningful way. good for him. must be nice.

Re: Death by gentrification: the killing that shamed San Francisco

#52

Post by [deleted] »

TheMagicHorsey wrote: post #30

Why would a person ever point a taser with a laser sight at uniformed police in this country? Yes this is a tragedy, but how are police supposed to react to a gun-like object pointed at them, in the heat of the moment? Cops get shot also. They are nervous on the job. As we would be, in their position. Are they supposed to react to a pointed gun with understanding and open arms? I just don't think that's practical.

[deleted]

Re: Death by gentrification: the killing that shamed San Francisco

#53

Post by foldr »

ousta wrote: post #42
foldr wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aaron Swartz commits suicide after being prosecuted for a crime that he did commit, and he's a martyr. A working class latino guy in San Francisco gets shot by the police because some white dudes didn't like the look of him, and it's basically his fault. Hacker news values.

yes. he obviously got killed because some white dude didnt like the look of him. the gun he was pointing at the cops is not related to his death.

He got killed largely because some white dude called 911 for no good reason. (I mean, we're talking about someone who's so clueless about what a city is that he thinks that anyone who's brown is likely to be "foreign".) We have no evidence that Nieto pointed the taser at the cops who shot him.

Re: Death by gentrification: the killing that shamed San Francisco

#54

Post by hutzlibu »

TheMagicHorsey wrote: post #30

Why would a person ever point a taser with a laser sight at uniformed police in this country? Yes this is a tragedy, but how are police supposed to react to a gun-like object pointed at them, in the heat of the moment? Cops get shot also. They are nervous on the job. As we would be, in their position. Are they supposed to react to a pointed gun with understanding and open arms? I just don't think that's practical.

Thats the whole point. The victim worked in security - he knew about police work.

So either the police was lying (as one witness said) or they did not identify themself as police

Re: Death by gentrification: the killing that shamed San Francisco

#55

Post by raverbashing »

foldr wrote: post #47
TheMagicHorsey wrote: post #30

Why would a person ever point a taser with a laser sight at uniformed police in this country? Yes this is a tragedy, but how are police supposed to react to a gun-like object pointed at them, in the heat of the moment? Cops get shot also. They are nervous on the job. As we would be, in their position. Are they supposed to react to a pointed gun with understanding and open arms? I just don't think that's practical.

Cops always say that they feared for their life when they end up shooting an innocent person. If we just take their word for it, we're effectively saying that there are no circumstances under which we can legitimately criticize the police for killing someone (because the officers involved will always say that they perceived their lives to be in danger).

Yes, but then the situation is evaluated

One of the reasons for body cameras

Re: Death by gentrification: the killing that shamed San Francisco

#56

Post by eli »

Agustus wrote: post #28
ashray wrote: post #10

Is there no rent control in SF or other US cities? How do people get priced out?

There is rent control in San Francisco, Los Angeles, Washington D.C., and Oakland, CA. People get priced out of the market through an increase in demand and a lack of corresponding supply opportunities. 1. The lessee stays in a rent controlled location during a period of price increases, absolving themselves of the real-world price increase that is occurring to the landlord. So, to move from the house would mean the…

DC technically has rent control, but there are a variety of loopholes and it does not apply in most cases.

Re: Death by gentrification: the killing that shamed San Francisco

#57

Post by justaman »

dangerlibrary wrote: post #12
raldi wrote: post #6

This is the taser Alex Nieto pointed at the police and refused to drop (if the police are telling the truth): http://i2.wp.com/missionlocal.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03...

allegedly pointed The four police officer's stories contradict one another as well as some of the physical evidence.

If the taser was found anywhere but holstered it means that he _likely_ drew it. Any motion to draw a weapon(lethal or otherwise) is seen as a threat. Given that it is gun-shaped, it was a really stupid move if he did draw it.

Re: Death by gentrification: the killing that shamed San Francisco

#58

Post by raldi »

RVuRnvbM2e wrote: post #31
raldi wrote: post #6

This is the taser Alex Nieto pointed at the police and refused to drop (if the police are telling the truth): http://i2.wp.com/missionlocal.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03...

Whether he did or not is almost irrelevant. The police wouldn't have even been there if some dude hadn't decided to call 911 on the guy for "walking while hispanic": > Fritz said he only saw Nieto pacing near a bench and eating from a bag but did not himself see any weapon. http://missionlocal.org/2016/03/witness-testified-alex-nieto...

Fritz wasn't the one who called the police. Multiple other witnesses testify that Nieto had the weapon out and was pointing it at people and a dog:

http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Man-killed-by-S-F-police...

What would you have done if you'd seen that?

Re: Death by gentrification: the killing that shamed San Francisco

#59

Post by Retric »

jemfinch wrote: post #43
tinco wrote: post #21

This article seems to miss some crucial details. How does a jury go from the given description of a man armed with only a Taser being not only shot to disable but absolutely destroyed and vote unanimously in the police's favor? Was the question asked to the jury more specific, did the Guardian leave something out or was the jury really racist as the Guardian implies (by listing their races)?

> being not only shot to disable but absolutely destroyed There is no such thing as "shoot to disable" with firearms. Firearms are lethal weapons. They should only be used when deadly force is justified, and cannot reliably be used to "disable" someone apart from killing them.

You can "shoot to disable" though it can often result in death. Which can be useful if your trying to keep someone alive to interrogate. However, US police are flat out trained to kill.

Note: Disable does not mean they are unarmed / unconscious, it generally means they can't move quickly and even if they could still be quite dangerous.

Re: Death by gentrification: the killing that shamed San Francisco

#60

Post by foldr »

raverbashing wrote: post #55
foldr wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cops always say that they feared for their life when they end up shooting an innocent person. If we just take their word for it, we're effectively saying that there are no circumstances under which we can legitimately criticize the police for killing someone (because the officers involved will always say that they perceived their lives to be in danger).

Yes, but then the situation is evaluated One of the reasons for body cameras

There isn't any camera footage in this case, is there? There is, on the other hand, witness testimony to the effect that the police are lying.
Post reply on HN