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

Police had woman’s Facebook deactivated during standoff

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 123 posts

Re: Police had woman’s Facebook deactivated during standoff

#101

Post by panic »

twblalock wrote: post #94
panic wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The police could have left her alone and come back later. They were in her house, and she was only threatening to harm the officers, not her child.

If she had shot herself, or her child, or one of her neighbors, while she was in an unstable mental state, people would be outraged that the police had not done anything to prevent it. It's also intolerable in a society with the rule of law that someone could opt out of being subject to the law by waving a gun around and refusing to comply with a lawful order from the police. If that worked, everyone would do it. It…

Sure, but isn't it just as intolerable in a society with the rule of law that people are executed without a trial? There have been lengthy standoffs between the police and people trying not to pay their taxes (Google "police standoff taxes" for lots of examples; here's one: https://www.policeone.com/standoff/articles/1805292-It-was-l...). These standoffs don't typically end in death for the person under arrest.

Re: Police had woman’s Facebook deactivated during standoff

#102

Post by rahimnathwani »

2bitencryption wrote: post #77
bmmayer1 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does it matter? Having a cardboard license plate and an uncommon political belief doesn't make someone deserve to die.

Nobody deserves to die (unless you believe in the death penalty I guess?). However, threatening to kill people, and exhibiting signs of extreme instability and violence, makes someone a danger that needs to be neutralized. If that person pulls a gun on the police during that process, they are not likely to end up in a good spot. Especially with a five year old in the vicinity.

I agree that the outcome could have been predicted, and I would not have acted in the same way she did.

But let's have some empathy: she was in her home, and some folks came to her home and attempted to remove her, with threats of violence. She didn't believe they had legal authority to do that.

What would you do in that situation, with those beliefs?

Re: Police had woman’s Facebook deactivated during standoff

#103

Post by twblalock »

panic wrote: post #101
twblalock wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If she had shot herself, or her child, or one of her neighbors, while she was in an unstable mental state, people would be outraged that the police had not done anything to prevent it. It's also intolerable in a society with the rule of law that someone could opt out of being subject to the law by waving a gun around and refusing to comply with a lawful order from the police. If that worked, everyone would do it. It…

Sure, but isn't it just as intolerable in a society with the rule of law that people are executed without a trial? There have been lengthy standoffs between the police and people trying not to pay their taxes (Google "police standoff taxes" for lots of examples; here's one: https://www.policeone.com/standoff/articles/1805292-It-was-l... ). These standoffs don't typically end in death for the person under arrest.

When the police shoot someone who shoots at them, or threatens the lives of others, it is not reasonable to classify that as an execution.

Re: Police had woman’s Facebook deactivated during standoff

#104

Post by dTal »

walrus01 wrote: post #58
trvrsalom wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As nice as it would be to have a reliable nonlethal alternative to firearms, there simply are no nonlethal weapons capable of stopping someone who is presenting an immediate threat. Tranquilizers and anesthesia are administered by an anesthesiologist, a doctor trained to determine a dosage based on a person's body mass. Too much of a dose, or even administering it too quickly can cause serious complications, or even…

For reference, what happens when you use "knock out gas" in a contained space: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow_theater_hostage_crisi...

...everyone's reliably incapacitated, and most people survive? (potentially everyone with adequate medical care which was not provided in that situation)

That seems strictly better than shooting to kill.

Re: Police had woman’s Facebook deactivated during standoff

#105

Post by pjc50 »

Kenji wrote: post #11

I wonder if there was a way to resolve this standoff without her death. I.e. letting her shoot all the shotgun shells she has, or just waiting until she gets tired and slips up, gets hungry, etc. Yeah, it requires a lot of patience but hey, you can save a human life. I don't think she would have harmed her kid so waiting in cover seems like a relatively safe thing to do?

Sadly this is pretty much the one situation where, once negotiation has been exhausted, it is necessary to shoot the person holding the gun.

Even in the UK with its very low use of police gunfire (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/uk-police-shoo... - seven shootings out of ~12,500 incidents involving firearm officers) have done this on a few occasions involving sieges.

It's all the other incidents we should be concerned about.

Re: Police had woman’s Facebook deactivated during standoff

#106

Post by pjc50 »

wildmusings wrote: post #86
Kenji wrote: post #11

I wonder if there was a way to resolve this standoff without her death. I.e. letting her shoot all the shotgun shells she has, or just waiting until she gets tired and slips up, gets hungry, etc. Yeah, it requires a lot of patience but hey, you can save a human life. I don't think she would have harmed her kid so waiting in cover seems like a relatively safe thing to do?

Someone shooting at the police is a clear and present danger to everyone's life and needs to be neutralized as quickly as possible. "Letting her shoot all the shells she had" sounds like a cute scene in a movie, not reality. You don't know what the shells will be able to penetrate, whether bystanders in nearby apartments or on the street are at danger, etc. The preservation of her life stopped being a concern when sh…

You also don't know how many shells someone has when they can buy them by the crate at Wal-Mart.

Re: Police had woman’s Facebook deactivated during standoff

#107

Post by lsaferite »

panic wrote: post #19
HelloImDumb wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This was a hostage situation. Was the 5 year old boy, not a hostage to his crazed, gun-wielding mother in this standoff? I love Monday morning quarterbacks.

The police could have left her alone and come back later. They were in her house, and she was only threatening to harm the officers, not her child.

I find it interesting that serving such warrants is done in the home vs. catching them outside. It seems like backing someone into a familiar corner (their home) would be like backing a wild animal into it's den.

Re: Police had woman’s Facebook deactivated during standoff

#108

Post by rbanffy »

tamana wrote: post #70
aab0 wrote: post #24

> According to a police report from the March stop, which the department released after the shooting, Gaines was stopped when an officer saw that in place of a license plate she had a piece of cardboard on her vehicle. The cardboard declared, “Any Government official who compromises this pursuit to happiness and right to travel, will be criminally responsible and fined, as this is a natural right and freedom.” So she…

It's not gobbledygook to disagree with the government. (Is the Declaration of Independence gobbledygook?) It's only gobbledygook if you expect a police officer or court to be persuaded by your reasoning. Gaines defended her sovereignty with her gun, just like the US and MD government does. Unfortunately for her, the MD government used it's guns more preemptively, aggressively, and effectively.

Her sovereignty had absolutely no legal standing. Declaring oneself above the law does not automatically make it true. Neither shooting at police officers.

We read a lot about police violence but, in this case, I'm inclined to believe they acted very reasonably.

Re: Police had woman’s Facebook deactivated during standoff

#109

Post by rbanffy »

thelock85 wrote: post #6
ben_jones wrote: post #2

This is going to get upvoted because of the title, I really hope that people read the actual article before posting. The worst part is that this women put her children in extreme danger and had a history of instigating police and threatening extreme violence through social media. Furthermore others on social media actively encouraged her violence which directly led to her death and serious injury to her children. It…

An alternate explanation is a woman was protecting her child from a threat --real, perceived or otherwise. Poor choice? Probably. But I think you've only explored one side of the story and a lot more information has become available in the last 12 hours.

A shotgun is not a reasonable way to protect oneself from a state. The state probably has more police officers than you have bullets. You'll only make it worse.

Re: Police had woman’s Facebook deactivated during standoff

#110

Post by pavel_lishin »

dTal wrote: post #104
walrus01 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For reference, what happens when you use "knock out gas" in a contained space: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow_theater_hostage_crisi...

...everyone's reliably incapacitated, and most people survive? (potentially everyone with adequate medical care which was not provided in that situation) That seems strictly better than shooting to kill.

130 out of 850 people died. That's a 1 in 6 casualty rate - about what you'd get playing Russian roulette.
Post reply on HN