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

Police Homicides in the United States

granta.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 230 posts

Re: Police Homicides in the United States

#121

Post by TheAdamAndChe »

scotty79 wrote: post #120
TheAdamAndChe wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The proliferation of guns isn't everything. Finland has one of the highest number of guns per capita[1], yet their crime rates are one of the lowest. There is a massive correlation between (gun) crime and poverty. Regional inequality means that those who live in poverty have a pretty poor chance of improving their lives. To me, the problem stems less from guns and more from a poor quality of life for massive numbers…

But if you compare communities equal in poverty then amount of gun violence correlates with amount of guns. So either give poor communities heaps of money or take away guns. Or just wait till they shoot themselves, which is current US approach to the problem.

I don't understand your logic. You acknowledge that low quality of life is a huge part of what pushes people to commit crime, yet you'd rather take away their weapons instead of doing something about poverty?

We have 101 guns per 100 Residents[1]. Do you really think removing guns is a viable option at this point? What makes you think this wouldn't be met with violent resistance from people who want to defend their constitutional rights? Even if we _could_ remove all guns, wouldn't those in poverty just begin using knives, acids, and explosives like they do in other countries? Why not make people's lives better instead?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_guns_per_c...

Re: Police Homicides in the United States

#122

Post by coredog64 »

mitchellberry wrote: post #39
bufferoverflow wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the percentage of the police killing are unjustified though? Even in this video the guy is reaching behind his back a couple of times, while being told to keep them visible.

You watched the entire video? It's 5 minutes of conflicting instructions and repeated death threats by a man heavily covered in tattoos carrying an assualt rifle with the words "you're f *ed" engraved on it. How were the multiple police officers incapable of handcuffing the clearly compliant crying victim in 5 whole mins? Am amazed anyone watching that could possibly defend it.

You're missing the context of the encounter.

Police were called when someone saw an occupant of the hotel room brandishing a weapon. The responders don't just walk up and cuff the man and woman because they are not sure if these are the armed people and are trying to stay out of a theoretical field of fire from the room.

That's not to say this isn't an awful video to watch. The officers scared the guy so much that it was impossible for him to comply.

Re: Police Homicides in the United States

#123

Post by scotty79 »

ci5er wrote: post #73
pron wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a good point, but much of social research breaks down when you start talking about imaginary worlds. For example, I see (mostly very young) people oppose affirmative action on grounds similar to, "but in a perfect world, skin color shouldn't matter, therefore such laws are bad." This may be true, but laws are aimed to tackle the world we actually live in, not the one we wished we lived in. I call that "spheric…

> I don't think resisting arrest qualifies This pull quote isn't related to your main point, but to digress a bit on it... The state, having a presumed monopoly on the legitimate use of pre-emptive force, reacts this way to application of laws, no? For example - there is a law that says that I can't plant pink flowers or sell looseys or whatever. I violate that law. The progression of consequences subsequently goes l…

If force is overwhelming then you are overwhelmed and put in the metal box. There's no posdibility for you to meaningfully resist so there's no reason to kill you.

The killing is only possible by mistake at any stage of this process.

Even on the first one. They collected a fine from you and you have no money to buy yourself life saving medicine and you die. They killed you by taking away you last money at the moment your life depended on it.

Probability of killing you obviously increases as escalation progresses but never reaches 100%

Re: Police Homicides in the United States

#124

Post by scotty79 »

TheAdamAndChe wrote: post #121
scotty79 wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But if you compare communities equal in poverty then amount of gun violence correlates with amount of guns. So either give poor communities heaps of money or take away guns. Or just wait till they shoot themselves, which is current US approach to the problem.

I don't understand your logic. You acknowledge that low quality of life is a huge part of what pushes people to commit crime, yet you'd rather take away their weapons instead of doing something about poverty? We have 101 guns per 100 Residents[1]. Do you really think removing guns is a viable option at this point? What makes you think this wouldn't be met with violent resistance from people who want to defend their c…

> you'd rather take away their weapons instead of do something about poverty?

I'm just pointing out it's cheaper solution to resolving gun violence.

> Even if we _could_ remove all guns, wouldn't those in poverty just begin using knives, acids, and explosives like they do in other countries?

Mostly knifes I guess. But it's harder to kill a person accidentally with a knife then it is with a gun. Almost all gun death are accidental. Killer just wanted the victim to stop doing something or to punish him/her for some percieved transgression and it wasn't supposed to be capital punishment.

Re: Police Homicides in the United States

#126

Post by stctgion »

tomohawk wrote: post #125

Michael Brown was shot because he was charging at a police officer. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/25/us/witnesses-told-grand-j... Lumping him in with actual victims does actual victims a disservice.

If an unarmed man charges at you, you don't have the right to kill them. Police forces all round the world manage fine with battons and other non lethal weapons.

Re: Police Homicides in the United States

#127

Post by ojbyrne »

KGIII wrote: post #116
ojbyrne wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not sure what I need to elaborate. The NRA promotes wider gun ownership and more expansive concealed carry. Police use wider ownership of guns and concealed carry to justify more use of deadly force and militarization. In any other country than the US, this feedback loop would be obvious. In the US the NRA works to blur the obvious by talking about “responsible gun owners” while eliding the leakage between respon…

And this led to the police militarization?

It's not the only cause (I'll save you the rant on US defense spending, you can watch Why We Fight (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0436971/) , but it's a positive feedback loop. I don't believe I used the word "led" or suggested one caused the other. I am suggesting that once gun ownership (and concealed carry) and police militarization are established, one reinforces the other.

Re: Police Homicides in the United States

#128

Post by sjg007 »

Tomte wrote: post #101
ci5er wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The NRA is responsible for militarization of domestic police?

Sure, both to that and to policemen‘s fear of simple traffic stops. In most other countries the police officer can encounter a citizen without drawn gun because the odds of the citizen wielding a gun or worse are miniscule. In America even the drawn handgun might not be superior armament.

Even with all of the guns it is highly unlikely a cop will be shot at during a routine traffic stop. It's highly unlikely to get shot at in general. Risk factors include living in an open carry state (Arizona), heavily tinted windows (the cop can't see in), not being white, and driving a risky car.

In this case, while not a traffic stop, the attempted arrest protocol was just stupid and it resulted in his death. That whole department needs to be reformed by the FBI. I hope his widow wins a huge settlement.

The argument that someone was reaching for a weapon or afraid for safety needs a higher burden of proof.

Re: Police Homicides in the United States

#129

Post by ci5er »

scotty79 wrote: post #123
ci5er wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't think resisting arrest qualifies This pull quote isn't related to your main point, but to digress a bit on it... The state, having a presumed monopoly on the legitimate use of pre-emptive force, reacts this way to application of laws, no? For example - there is a law that says that I can't plant pink flowers or sell looseys or whatever. I violate that law. The progression of consequences subsequently goes l…

If force is overwhelming then you are overwhelmed and put in the metal box. There's no posdibility for you to meaningfully resist so there's no reason to kill you. The killing is only possible by mistake at any stage of this process. Even on the first one. They collected a fine from you and you have no money to buy yourself life saving medicine and you die. They killed you by taking away you last money at the moment…

> They collected a fine from you and you have no money to buy yourself life saving medicine and you die. They killed you by taking away you last money at the moment your life depended on it.

I am probably more aware of this than most. In addition to the clinical example, it actually occurs (in the US) in family law a fair amount more than I see admitted in the public discourse.

> Probability of killing you obviously increases as escalation progresses but never reaches 100%

Well, yes. But uncertainty abounds on both sides. Neither of the counter-parties to the violent transaction know each other well enough to prevent a certain non-linear ratchety-ness to the escalation.

I am not for cop's killing civians ... but I don't see any other outcome to the environment (cultural context, and situational uncertainty) that we have (collectively) created.

I will admit that we might be wise to hire calmer officers of the law, but, on average, when they have come to "get me", I've found them pretty calm. (Some nicer and more accomodating than others - but usually mostly professional).

EDIT: Comments in this thread may make me appear as if I am some sort of bad-man or out-law. I tend to not think of myself that way - I don't rob, break-in, assault, rape, kidnap or murder. Or even take stuff that isn't mine. Or break or paint on other people's property. The US regulatory system is complex and one might get caught up in any number of ways. The other thing, though, is that I am curious, and often wonder: What would they do if a non-violent offender just says "no"? The direct consequenses are usually not very harsh, but there are some knock-on effects that do impair one's life. "Civil disobediance" (whatever that means) can be costly over time. (Maybe that's the point of it? IDK)

Re: Police Homicides in the United States

#130

Post by sjg007 »

KGIII wrote: post #116
ojbyrne wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not sure what I need to elaborate. The NRA promotes wider gun ownership and more expansive concealed carry. Police use wider ownership of guns and concealed carry to justify more use of deadly force and militarization. In any other country than the US, this feedback loop would be obvious. In the US the NRA works to blur the obvious by talking about “responsible gun owners” while eliding the leakage between respon…

And this led to the police militarization?

9/11 and the two wars led to police militarization. Directly due to funding to Police departments to purchase ex-military weapons and indirectly by hyping the terrorist threat.
Post reply on HN