Live data from Hacker News

Death by gentrification: the killing that shamed San Francisco

theguardian.com

291–300 of 318 posts

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

#291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps it's my poor Dutch, but your link does not say that.

" An agent can also shoot to arrest someone suspected of a serious offense. In such situations has taught the agent on the legs of the accused to target. Where there is self-defense, the agent may shoot on the trunk of the suspect. " Modulo Google translation.

No meaningful difference. For one thing, shooting at someone's legs to arrest them makes no sense, and leads me to believe that something has been lost in translation.

But more importantly, the Dutch police will shoot to kill in self-defense, which is exactly the same as the US.

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

#292
post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point that the hacker news community is not homogenous is too obvious to be worth making. It doesn't imply that it's not possible to make generalizations about how it reacts to certain events. Your second paragraph illustrates my point. In the case of Nieto, you're coming up with excuses for the police; in the case of Swartz, you're coming up with excuses for Swartz. There is no objective reason for excusing the…

Your assumptions about both cases and your preconceived notions of racism have lead to you faulty conclusions. The Swartz case was about the response fitting the crime. The Nieto case is about police officers ostensibly fearing for their own safety and the safety of other. Had Nieto's weapon been holstered and had he been arrested, I might have been just as critical about the prosecutorial response as I am in the Swa…

>The Swartz case was about the response fitting the crime. The Nieto case is about police officers ostensibly fearing for their own safety and the safety of other.

This says it all: you think that the Nieto case is inherently about whether the police officers feared for their lives, and the Swartz case is inherently about how poor Aaron was prosecuted unjustly.

That is one perspective.

Another perspective would be the inverse: the Nieto case is about how an innocent man got shot for no good reason, and the Swartz case is about how a naive and perhaps somewhat entitled young man made a series of stupid and entirely avoidable choices that led, predictably, to his being prosecuted.

In other words, one could make an argument for blaming the victim in both cases. While it is apparently inconceivable to you that anyone should think of doing this in the Swartz case, it is so obvious to you that this is what we should do in the Nieto case that you can't even grasp the alternative.

That is the bias that I'm getting at.

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

#293
post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 shoo…

>You ask of evidence in a thread about a man being killed by police emptying multiple magazines into and the area around him. This is a question of accuracy and situation awareness, not of intention when shooting. >That doesn't even sound like shoot-to-kill that sounds like they were afraid to death. My question was directly related to the comment made about shooting to kill, not about when to shoot. >There's plenty…

It's a value judgement.

From the point of an officer in danger, a killed adversary is one where they can be 100% sure that the danger from that particular individual is eliminated. That's just good policy if your main objective is to save police officer's live above all.

If you're concerned that the general populace in general and the criminals with guns do not forfeit their chance at life for being in the wrong place at the wrong time or indeed be violent criminals out with guns to kill people, then that approach of "if you see a lethal threat, try to kill it", becomes less desirable, because innocent people get killed.

And while you are free to argue the difference of "shoot-too-soon" vs. "shoot-to-kill", the issue is, you might agree, that the outcome of shooting-too-soon-in-the-head and shooting-too-soon-in-the leg are decidedly different.

In the end arguing about whether the training someone to assess a situation before acting on it, is a little moot in general: Many of these situations involve incomplete information and the immediate need to act on it. In this case the officers say that, due to the guiding laser, they were under the impression to be in imminent danger. I sympathize with their lack of information to take easy decisions on.

But they point is: if they had decided to shoot to disable instead of kill, he would still be alive today, as would they be.

And even considering an actual armed adversary who was trying to take their lives, shooting to disable him would, often enough, still get them out of immediate danger to reassess how to apprehend the person and bring them to justice, instead of delivering a death sentence on the spot.

You might disagree, but a government policy which willingly accounts for the death of innocent people by direct force of the executive, to me, is fucking stupid.

You might argue that that's reverse, that a shoot-to-incapacitate policy would backfire, as officers would draw their guns more often perhaps, and I would agree. It's not the only thing wrong with policing today.

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

#294
post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>You ask of evidence in a thread about a man being killed by police emptying multiple magazines into and the area around him. This is a question of accuracy and situation awareness, not of intention when shooting. >That doesn't even sound like shoot-to-kill that sounds like they were afraid to death. My question was directly related to the comment made about shooting to kill, not about when to shoot. >There's plenty…

It's a value judgement. From the point of an officer in danger, a killed adversary is one where they can be 100% sure that the danger from that particular individual is eliminated. That's just good policy if your main objective is to save police officer's live above all. If you're concerned that the general populace in general and the criminals with guns do not forfeit their chance at life for being in the wrong plac…

There is no such thing as "shoot to disable". That's something from TV. When you "shoot to disable" someone armed with a gun, they shoot you back. If you can find any law enforcement guidelines --- or for that matter, any firearms training documents --- anywhere that suggest otherwise, can you please cite them?

If you want the police not to prioritize threat elimination over everything else, you need to not equip them with hand-held firearms.

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

#295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This just feels like another damning indictment of US policing. "Don't call the cops, because innocent people will end up getting shot." In most civilised countries you can call the police without first wondering if its worth the risk of bystanders ending up dead.

It absolutely is another damning indictment of US policing. There are two very different worlds here. The world Eric Snow lives in and the world Alex Nieto was taken from. Eric Snow and Justin Fritz don't know the rules and never bothered to find out the rules yet decided to live in this world. Their actions got people shot. Is this ideal? Hell no! It shouldn't be like this. No one fucking wants this. But pretending…

Let's be clear, it was the actions of the police officers that pulled the trigger that got him shot. I'm glad to live in a country where the police don't routinely carry firearms, and when they do evey instance of them even firing a round is investigated, never mind shooting someone dead.

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

#296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Given that he studied criminal justice and had no criminal record whatsoever, I'm sure he knew how stupid that would be. Nobody has provided a reasonable explanation for why he would've done something so stupid.

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

#297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And those policies ended 50 years ago! Liberals have been in charge of housing policy for literally decades.

And yet, race is still today a factor that can be quantified wrt housing: https://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/press/press_releas...

Gosh, it's almost like there are worse outcomes regardless of housing policy.

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

#298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nieto was clearly a man having a crisis, and his purported reaction when approached by police was not that of a rational person. Told to show his hands, Nieto allegedly demanded that the cops show theirs. He then reportedly drew his taser and fired three times. And so he was shot—and shot and shot—by officers who claim they did not realize Nieto was carrying a less-than-lethal device. This is the stuff she should h…

I'm generally sympathetic to Solnit's previous writings on gentrification in SF, but this just seems too much of a stretch to me. Police violence in SF (and across the US) is out of control. They need training in how to de-escalate confrontations without resorting to overwhelming firepower.

I don't think that the gentrification is completely referring to the police, but also to the couple that called the cops.

I actually know the couple, they are very nice people and I am sure they feel terrible about what happened. But they are from upper-middle and upper class families, I am sadly not too surprised that they felt threatened by a latino man in a park.

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

#299
post #140
post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In California, real property is only reassessed at market value when it is sold or transferred. So property taxes won't increase on long-time residents who don't move. Rent control is, I believe, intended to provide the same effect for long-time residents who rent instead of own. I agree that increases in other components of the cost of living of an area can have the same effect though.

It's also reassessed if you improve it in any substantial way. My property taxes doubled after a remodel. Some of that was the remodel, but roughly half was due to prices in the neighborhood going up since my wife and I originally bought the house. In my case we can afford these extra taxes, but I can easily imagine that in other circumstances this would be difficult. The alternative is doing work without permits, wh…

You got permits for your remodel? Everyone else I know in California does it on the dl and doesn't tell the city for this reason(and many others).

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

#300
Some other articles have mentioned that he was previously on some pretty powerful psych meds and there weren't any found in his system by the coroner. Quitting those medications cold turkey can make someone with previously minor mental health problems go full "point a taser at the cops" crazy.
Post reply on HN