Police Homicides in the United States • Hacker News Board

Re: Police Homicides in the United States

#151

Post by refurb » Sat, Dec 09, 2017, 2:42 PM UTC

Tomte wrote: post #146

krapp wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm no fan of the NRA but let's be honest about cause and effect. Fear by the police, the proliferation of firearms in the US and the arms race between the people and the state are all consequences of the Second Amendment of the US Constitution working, arguably, as intended. The NRA didn't cause any of that, although they do make hay of it for their own political and financial ends.

The NRA is the predominant defender of 2nd amendment rights, which is, arguably, the second worst idea of the US constitution (after the extreme formulation of the first amendment).

Really? My position is that the 2nd amendment is one of the best ideas in the US Constitution.

Re: Police Homicides in the United States

#152

Post by indubitable » Sat, Dec 09, 2017, 2:42 PM UTC

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.

There's a lengthy line between condemn and condone. One of the police shootings I find completely and absolutely condemnable is that of Charles Kinsey in Florida [1]. And that was perhaps a nervous breakdown of the officer. Apparently when asked why he shot his immediate response was, "I don't know." In this (Daniel Shaver) video, I think you have to consider the context. If this was a normal scenario and this guy was being arrested for e.g. drunken disorderly/theft or something of the sort, then I think murder charges would be completely in order here. However, that's not the context. Let's say you receive multiple reports of a person pointing a rifle outside a hotel window. How are you going to perceive the situation? I find it difficult to imagine many scenarios other than somebody planning to engage in murder or possibly terrorism. The best case scenario would a mentally disturbed individual who is armed and likely dangerous.

Did you notice how the officer was constantly tucking himself around the corner? He had no way of knowing whether there were more individuals waiting to ambush the officers. And that is a perfectly justifiable fear given the context of this situation. And the victim in this case reached behind his back multiple times, even after being told precisely not to. He could have been reaching for a weapon or it could have been something for more dangerous - imagine he was reaching for a detonator. It's easy to condemn the police officer, but at the same time this shooting took multiple unbelievably provocative actions on part of the victim to reach this point: point rifle outside hotel room apparently in vicinity of other hotel guests, decide to reach around back when specifically told to keep hands visible, repeat that mistake and reach even more directly towards your waist. I obviously can't condone the act, but on the other hand I also can't entirely condemn it either. It's an extremely unfortunate scenario.

[1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqLd-lEFqsM

Re: Police Homicides in the United States

#153

Post by Tomte » Sat, Dec 09, 2017, 2:47 PM UTC

refurb wrote: post #151

Tomte wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The NRA is the predominant defender of 2nd amendment rights, which is, arguably, the second worst idea of the US constitution (after the extreme formulation of the first amendment).

Really? My position is that the 2nd amendment is one of the best ideas in the US Constitution.

Yes, really. One of those points where it seems to matter a lot in which culture one has been brought up.

Re: Police Homicides in the United States

#154

Post by Jill_the_Pill » Sat, Dec 09, 2017, 2:49 PM UTC

TeMPOraL wrote: post #13

Interesting analysis. As a counterpoint to the headline that might be little fear-inducing, my first reaction when reading it was: only so little? Things must be bad. I mean: the perfect situation is when there are no homicides at all. But in a little less perfect imaginary world, in which bad people never get the chance to hurt innocents because police stops it, some bad people might still go down resisting arrest,…

"But in a little less perfect imaginary world, in which bad people never get the chance to hurt innocents because police stops it, some bad people might still go down resisting arrest, at which point 100% of all homicides would be police-inflicted, and that would be good. Not perfect, but better than what we have."

No, because every police killing is extra-judicial execution. Our laws don't put a capital punishment on resisting arrest, fleeing from police, reaching for a wallet, or being scary looking (i.e., black) (/s). They don't even prescribe capital punishment for most malicious acts and crimes. It's not up to police to serve as judge, jury and executioner.

Re: Police Homicides in the United States

#155

Post by ryanlol » Sat, Dec 09, 2017, 2:49 PM UTC

emodendroket wrote: post #144

ryanlol wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Someone ought to make a website naming, shaming and tracking these people. Maybe the courts wont punish them, but it shouldn’t be very hard to ensure that the label of MURDERER will follow them for life.

What effect will that even have on them if police departments don't care?

It's definitely not much, but having the first google result for someones name point to a dossier with ideally:

* Name, DoB

* Some decent photos for easy identification

* Footage of them murdering someone, pages like this without solid evidence don't seem like a good thing.

* Collection of news articles, court documents

* Contact information (social media, home address(es), phone numbers)

* Employers contact information

it's not nothing.

Hopefully it'll at least hurt their future employment prospects a little, maybe make it harder for them to find a place to rent. At the very least it'll be easier for their neighbors to find out that they're living next to a killer.

Best case scenario they'll waste a lot of their time and money trying to get the site taken down via legal means. From experience I would expect many of these folks to drive themselves crazy trying to do that, generating further source material and drawing even more attention to their past.

The somewhat unlikely worst case scenario is that it simply doesn't bother them at all.

Re: Police Homicides in the United States

#156

Post by maxerickson » Sat, Dec 09, 2017, 2:51 PM UTC

indubitable wrote: post #152

mitchellberry wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There's a lengthy line between condemn and condone. One of the police shootings I find completely and absolutely condemnable is that of Charles Kinsey in Florida [1]. And that was perhaps a nervous breakdown of the officer. Apparently when asked why he shot his immediate response was, "I don't know." In this (Daniel Shaver) video, I think you have to consider the context. If this was a normal scenario and this guy wa…

Imagined scenarios shouldn't ever be used to justify lethal force. That's all there is to say.

Police probably shouldn't ever fire their weapons first...

Of course that would make being an officer slightly more physically dangerous, but only slightly. Most never have cause to fire their weapons in the line of duty anyway.

Re: Police Homicides in the United States

#157

Post by stctgion » Sat, Dec 09, 2017, 2:53 PM UTC

tomohawk wrote: post #135

stctgion wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 them…

I think that's my point. Using unlimited force for self defense is not good. I couldn't care less about the legality

Re: Police Homicides in the United States

#158

Post by noobiemcfoob » Sat, Dec 09, 2017, 2:58 PM UTC

Tomte wrote: post #146

krapp wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm no fan of the NRA but let's be honest about cause and effect. Fear by the police, the proliferation of firearms in the US and the arms race between the people and the state are all consequences of the Second Amendment of the US Constitution working, arguably, as intended. The NRA didn't cause any of that, although they do make hay of it for their own political and financial ends.

The NRA is the predominant defender of 2nd amendment rights, which is, arguably, the second worst idea of the US constitution (after the extreme formulation of the first amendment).

The broadness of the first amendment is largely responsible for modern American society having as much personal liberty as it does by encompassing the "live and let live" concept

The 2nd amendment then keeps the government from having a great justification for countless "protective" measures. Don't help me when I can help myself.

Re: Police Homicides in the United States

#159

Post by alphonsegaston » Sat, Dec 09, 2017, 2:59 PM UTC

krapp wrote: post #109

Tomte wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm no fan of the NRA but let's be honest about cause and effect. Fear by the police, the proliferation of firearms in the US and the arms race between the people and the state are all consequences of the Second Amendment of the US Constitution working, arguably, as intended. The NRA didn't cause any of that, although they do make hay of it for their own political and financial ends.

The proliferation of firearms is a factor, but the main driver is income inequality and racism.

You can go to a wealthy white neighborhood in a hard-right place like Texas and there will be plenty of guns. But the cops won’t feel the need to dress up like soldiers and kill people for minor offenses.

Enforcing the kind of economic system where the poor have few ways to carve out a better life for themselves necessitates violence. Wage stagnation and an ever-increasing criminalization of poverty pushes more and more people into contact with the police. And austerity politics ensures that there is nothing to respond to any form of crisis with except the police.

Re: Police Homicides in the United States

#160

Post by macintux » Sat, Dec 09, 2017, 3:03 PM UTC

refurb wrote: post #151

Tomte wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The NRA is the predominant defender of 2nd amendment rights, which is, arguably, the second worst idea of the US constitution (after the extreme formulation of the first amendment).

Really? My position is that the 2nd amendment is one of the best ideas in the US Constitution.

If the 2nd amendment were a great idea, they'd have written it intelligibly.

Some of us parse the rationale such that it seems obsolete: we no longer rely on a militia to defend the nation, we have a professional military for it.

> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

Some of us, obviously, don't.