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

131–140 of 230 posts

Re: Police Homicides in the United States

#131

Post by michaelt »

vidarh wrote: post #92
keiferski wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is based on a false assumption: that the proper police response to life-threatening criminal acts is to kill the perpetrator. If you get past the they deserve it Puritan mentality, the ideal scenario is for police minimize death (of criminals and police officers) at all costs. Numerous other countries handle violent criminals in ways other than "kill them immediately"; the tendency of police officers to use imme…

An example I tend to give is the case a while back where someone was wielding an axe. Two police officers went after him, and the axe-wielding man was shot and killed because he went for one of them. Success, surely? He protected his partner, who might have been harmed. The way something like this would likely have gone down somewhere like the UK would be that the first responders would have called for reinforcement,…

I wonder if some of the preference for violence in the American policing tradition goes back to Western films - where outlaws are wanted dead or alive, a quick draw is the main thing a lawman needs, and the climax of the film is the lawman meeting the bad man in the street, drawing first and shooting him dead.

Re: Police Homicides in the United States

#133

Post by sjg007 »

TheAdamAndChe wrote: post #102
stoolpigeon wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a Puritan mentality. It's the fact that any person they interact with could be armed. The reason many other countries police deal with violent criminals in a different way is because it is very unlikely those criminals will be armed. Where I live (Hungary) there is almost no gun violence. The few instances I'm aware of that do involve guns are things where violent groups are involved like organized crime or…

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…

Cops won't even go to areas that are gang infested with a proportion of poverty and guns. They call these "no go" areas.

Re: Police Homicides in the United States

#134

Post by sjg007 »

tomalpha wrote: post #62
foepys wrote: post #12

3 years ago German police officer /u/krautcop posted on reddit about his opinion on why police violence is much higher in the US than in Germany. [1] This might open a new perspective to some people. 1: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskLEO/comments/2dgwkp/what_makes_a...

That is an excellent, well thought out and well written post. It’s not short but it’s well worth a read. I think he pretty much nails it. He also manages to be reasonably objective which can be tough for someone close to the subject matter. To summarize crudely, through the lens of my own biases and in a way that doesn’t do it justice at all (no really, go read it in full): - Police in Germany don’t have to shoot fir…

It's highly unlikely anyone will shoot at a cop in the USA as well, especially during a traffic stop.

Re: Police Homicides in the United States

#135

Post by tomohawk »

stctgion wrote: post #126
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.

There's plenty of other exemplars of police violence to make the point. No need to turn the incident with Michael Brown into something it wasn't.

I'd hardly describe a violent, 6'4", 300 pound guy charging at me as something that needs to be dealt with with kids gloves.

According to our legal tradition, you can use deadly force if you fear for your life. This is the universal right of all free people - to defend themselves.

Re: Police Homicides in the United States

#136

Post by maxxxxx »

michaelt wrote: post #131
vidarh wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An example I tend to give is the case a while back where someone was wielding an axe. Two police officers went after him, and the axe-wielding man was shot and killed because he went for one of them. Success, surely? He protected his partner, who might have been harmed. The way something like this would likely have gone down somewhere like the UK would be that the first responders would have called for reinforcement,…

I wonder if some of the preference for violence in the American policing tradition goes back to Western films - where outlaws are wanted dead or alive, a quick draw is the main thing a lawman needs, and the climax of the film is the lawman meeting the bad man in the street, drawing first and shooting him dead.

You see that also in American action movies where the "good" guy often with joy kills the "bad" guy. You don't see that that much in European movies where a killing situation is often portrayed with more internal conflict.

Re: Police Homicides in the United States

#137

Post by stoolpigeon »

vidarh wrote: post #104
stoolpigeon wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a Puritan mentality. It's the fact that any person they interact with could be armed. The reason many other countries police deal with violent criminals in a different way is because it is very unlikely those criminals will be armed. Where I live (Hungary) there is almost no gun violence. The few instances I'm aware of that do involve guns are things where violent groups are involved like organized crime or…

Even armed criminals are not approached this way most places in Europe. The policy in the UK is to get civilians away, contain the threat, call for reinforcements, and if possible wait and/or try to negotiate. If it quite rare for it to become necessary to shoot. You don't engage someone armed unless it is to avoid immediate and acute danger to anyone. The proliferation of guns make it harder to respond like that, bu…

I think the ability to take an approach that time and resource intensive is made possible by the fact it happens so seldom.

Re: Police Homicides in the United States

#138

Post by stoolpigeon »

ci5er wrote: post #98
stoolpigeon wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a Puritan mentality. It's the fact that any person they interact with could be armed. The reason many other countries police deal with violent criminals in a different way is because it is very unlikely those criminals will be armed. Where I live (Hungary) there is almost no gun violence. The few instances I'm aware of that do involve guns are things where violent groups are involved like organized crime or…

1) Where did you live in the US? I'm in a medium-ish sized metroplex (whatever that means) of about a million people, and I never hear live fire. 2) Why would you worry about a (remote) gun-shot that you heard? By the time you hear it, you will be already shot-or-not. If not - why worry?

I have lived in a number of places - Phoenix, AZ, Chicago, IL, Orlando, FL are probably the spots I spent the most time.

When I lived in Glendale, a suburb of Phoenix, the city installed a system that could track gunfire and pinpoint the location for police. I can say I've heard gunfire in every city I've mentioned and called it in to police in those places more than once.

I don't even know where to begin with 2. I was fishing with a friend on the Verde river in AZ. We were just below the Horseshoe dam. We were fishing for catfish at night. Someone a little further down river (couldn't see them through the bushes and such) started firing off guns. We immediately packed up and left. They were probably partying and shooting up into the air.

The idea that if you hear gunfire you should just ignore it unless you've been hit - well I have to believe you are just trolling.

Re: Police Homicides in the United States

#139

Post by stoolpigeon »

TheAdamAndChe wrote: post #102
stoolpigeon wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a Puritan mentality. It's the fact that any person they interact with could be armed. The reason many other countries police deal with violent criminals in a different way is because it is very unlikely those criminals will be armed. Where I live (Hungary) there is almost no gun violence. The few instances I'm aware of that do involve guns are things where violent groups are involved like organized crime or…

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…

I don't think it is everything but I think it is a lot. Comparing a very small northern European country to the whole of the USA is a bit difficult in my opinion. I think it's hard to make comparisons that make sense.

Re: Police Homicides in the United States

#140

Post by throwaway-hn123 »

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 Americans deserve the shithole your country has turned into.
Post reply on HN