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

221–230 of 318 posts

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

#221

Post by thaw13579 »

zeveb wrote: post #127
marcus_holmes wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the difference is choice. White flight is white folks choosing to move out of an area. Gentrification is white folks choosing to move in to an area. No-one else gets a choice. Only the white folks.

> No-one else gets a choice. Only the white folks. That's not really fair. White flight was a result of mandatory school integration policies, which forced middle-class (i.e., by-and-large white) and lower-class (i.e., by-and-large black) children into the same schools; white folks didn't have a choice about that, nor did those who stayed a bit longer have a choice about the continued decline of their cities. Poor ci…

To be clear, Brown v Board of Education school integration ended racial segregation, not economic segregation. Things are arguably different now, but back then race was a major component of the perceived "decline."

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

#222

Post by tptacek »

hga wrote: post #204
tptacek wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you fire a gun at someone, your goal is to kill them. If you're confronting an armed subject and you manage only to wound them, then not only are you making it possible for the to shoot you back, but you're making it overwhelmingly likely that they will --- who could blame them for trying desperately to save their own lives? So to me, 1 bullet, 20 bullets, 40 bullets, who cares? Dead is dead. If you don't want p…

When you fire a gun at someone, your goal is to kill them. NO NO NO NO NO! In the US in civilian life, and this includes police although they don't really count as that any more, the goal is to stop them. Deliberate killing is reserved for the judicial system after due process. Now, if you're not lucky enough to either have a target who stops after the first hit (this is very common) or gets a Central Nervous System…

Can you cite a piece of police training material that suggests police be sparing with bullets once they commence firing at a target?

Again, to be clear: I think the police should largely be disarmd. I do not think patrol officers should routinely be armed with handguns.

I think it is monstrously silly to suggest that the solution to police shooting problems could somehow involve police being more judicious with the number of shots they take. The problem is the guns, not the way that they're used.

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

#223

Post by maxsilver »

seibelj wrote: post #105
eli_gottlieb wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Housing would be cheaper if they built more of it. Rents in Seattle actually declined this year.

No idea why you are being downvoted. Supply and demand, this is Economics 101. I have made the same arguments about SF and people downvote me too. The #1 way to decrease rent is to build more supply. If there was double the apartments in SF, the rent would not be as high.

> No idea why you are being downvoted.

Perhaps because the parent poster is wrong. Seattle rents did not decrease this year, or last year.

The rate at which rent is increasing has slowed (previously double-digit percentage increases have dropped to single-digit percentage increases). But actual rents have not fallen.

Seattle rents continue to grow each year, just at a slightly slower pace than before.

http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/blog/2015/11/bad-timingas...

(This is not an argument against building new housing, I also believe we need more of that. But the issue is far more complicated than simply "supply and demand, economics 101")

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

#224

Post by goldbrick »

the-dude wrote: post #218
dbpokorny wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sounds like suicide by cop, which is a real thing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_by_cop

Are you implying death by police state is not a thing?

It's not a thing.

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

#225

Post by sschueller »

davidw wrote: post #104
raldi wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What happens in Europe when someone is seen in a public park waving around something that looks like this? http://i2.wp.com/missionlocal.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03...

There are far fewer guns floating around in most of Western Europe, so it's less likely in the first place.

There are a lot of guns in Switzerland but the police doesn't come in shooting.

Most important training the police gets is how to diffuse a situation not how to shoot to kill.

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

#226

Post by pm24601 »

rlonstein wrote: post #178
Fiahil wrote: post #35

So. Four policemen put 40 bullets in somebody, and that's supposed to be "normal". What the hell?

Stress. Under stress the fight-or-flight response kicks in and a lot of fine motor skills and training goes out the window. An instructor of mine said that when the adrenaline hits, at best you have half of your trained skill, lose a lot of fine motor control, and won’t be able to think coherently for thirty to sixty seconds. You’ll do what was trained to the point of being automatic or is simple. Police officers typ…

then they probably need more training or they shouldn't be police.

As a civilian, we are expected to exercise restrain when using lethal force when defending ourselves. Multiple bullets and reloading would be used as evidence as intent to murder.

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

#227

Post by tptacek »

yoo1I wrote: post #209
tptacek wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you are saying that it's incredibly stupid to routinely put police into situations where they have less than 5 seconds to decide whether or not they are required to kill someone to protect themselves or their partners, I agree. I think we should disarm most police.

Well, obviously the less police and the general public are put in this position the better, and when there is a gunman running around the neighborhood, there better be police to subdue, and yes, if it's required to save other lives, kill him. The point here, though is not to deny police their right to self defense, the point is to train them in a way that their first action to exercise that right is not with as much…

That's actually not my point. My preferred solution to this problem isn't utopian. We could do it tomorrow:

Step 1: Ensure every police patrol vehicle has a shotgun locked in the trunk.

Step 2: Take away handguns from all patrol officers.

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

#228

Post by hga »

tptacek wrote: post #222
hga wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you fire a gun at someone, your goal is to kill them. NO NO NO NO NO! In the US in civilian life, and this includes police although they don't really count as that any more, the goal is to stop them. Deliberate killing is reserved for the judicial system after due process. Now, if you're not lucky enough to either have a target who stops after the first hit (this is very common) or gets a Central Nervous System…

Can you cite a piece of police training material that suggests police be sparing with bullets once they commence firing at a target? Again, to be clear: I think the police should largely be disarmd . I do not think patrol officers should routinely be armed with handguns. I think it is monstrously silly to suggest that the solution to police shooting problems could somehow involve police being more judicious with the…

Sorry I wasn't clear enough: once you make the decision to use the lethal force of a gun, you keep shooting, as quickly and accurately as you can, until the threat is over. The only "judiciousness" in this comes in making the decision to start, and to stop after the threat is over, and of course the latter is not always clear.

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

#229

Post by raldi »

RVuRnvbM2e wrote: post #186
raldi wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> Fritz wasn't the one who called the police. Yes, he was. > What would you have done if you'd seen that? I disagree with the ridiculous US weapons laws, but if a defensive weapon can't be drawn against an aggressive dog, when can it be drawn?

You're right, I mixed him up with Evan Snow:

"He grabbed the item in the holster, he removed it from the holster, and he pointed it directly at me,” Snow testified.

http://missionlocal.org/2016/03/witness-says-alex-nieto-poin...

It's perfectly fine to draw a weapon to protect yourself from such a dog. But when the police show up and tell you to drop it, it's incredibly dangerous to refuse.

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

#230

Post by yoo1I »

Lawtonfogle wrote: post #185
yoo1I wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Police training demands they shoot to kill. Something that is incredibly fucking stupid, and there are plenty of countries who do very well without this misguided use of of lethal weapons.

>Something that is incredibly fucking stupid Any evidence of this point? >and there are plenty of countries who do very well without this misguided use of of lethal weapons. Many countries choose to not use guns. There is a vast difference between not using guns and trying to shoot to wound. If you want to protest against the police using guns, speak directly to that.

You ask of evidence in a thread about a man being killed by police emptying multiple magazines into and the area around him. That doesn't even sound like shoot-to-kill that sounds like they were afraid to death.

There's plenty of more stories of where that one came from. Were you unaware of that?

It ultimately comes down to the relationship that you want the populace to have with their police force. A policy of shoot-to-kill tells the populace, that ultimately the lives of police are more valuable than that of any other citizen, and you better be terrified to be caught in any situation with the police where stress-levels are elevated.

A policy of shoot-to-disable, where killing an offender is a possibility, but it's a policy of using this lethal force as as a last resort, sends a message that the police actually care about the people they are trying to protect.

I'm not protesting police using guns, clearly there are situations where it's necessary to match and up the force of a threat. And clearly there are situations where police are justified in killing a human being.

I take issue to the police being justified in using lethal force as a first resort.

Surely we can train them better than "just try to hit the general area of where the suspect is, it's fine if you hit them in the head".

Post reply on HN