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

NYC passes POST Act, requiring police department to reveal surveillance tech

venturebeat.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 94 posts

Re: NYC passes POST Act, requiring police department to reveal surveillance tech

#81

Post by mindslight »

tomschlick wrote: post #54
akudha wrote: post #36

In the last few weeks many cities have passed laws to bring more transparency to police brutality. This is a good step, but I am curious - how much are these laws enforceable? I was just reading that some Atlanta cops are not reporting to work - protest for the arrest of the cop who shot Rayshard Brooks. If that is the mentality, how much cooperation can we expect? Not talking about this particular NYC law, just in g…

The cops that walked out regarding the charges for the RB shooting did so because it seems the DA is contradicting Georgia law, and his own statements from a few weeks ago. A taser is considered a deadly weapon under GA law and the DA had charged other officers a few weeks ago with using a taser as a deadly weapon. Now he is saying its not a deadly weapon when stolen and used against them, and didn't warrant deadly f…

I agree that this case is debatable, but you left out the fact that RB was running away when shot. The officer did not shoot in self-defense.

Also we would expect any regular citizen to be arrested and charged in this situation. That's precisely what courts are for - to sort out whether the details are strong enough to warrant conviction. Police should not have some informal parallel justice system outside of the courts - that's the whole point.

Re: NYC passes POST Act, requiring police department to reveal surveillance tech

#82

Post by tomschlick »

mindslight wrote: post #81
tomschlick wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The cops that walked out regarding the charges for the RB shooting did so because it seems the DA is contradicting Georgia law, and his own statements from a few weeks ago. A taser is considered a deadly weapon under GA law and the DA had charged other officers a few weeks ago with using a taser as a deadly weapon. Now he is saying its not a deadly weapon when stolen and used against them, and didn't warrant deadly f…

I agree that this case is debatable, but you left out the fact that RB was running away when shot. The officer did not shoot in self-defense. Also we would expect any regular citizen to be arrested and charged in this situation. That's precisely what courts are for - to sort out whether the details are strong enough to warrant conviction. Police should not have some informal parallel justice system outside of the cou…

The officer did shoot in self defense. Rayshard shot the taser as he was running away. The officer when seeing the taser being pointed at him immediately dropped his own and drew his sidearm and fired. By that time (under half a second) the taser had fired at him and RB had turned back around with the taser still in his hand. Taser X2s have two shots instead of one, so he was still armed with a deadly weapon according to GA law. He showed utter disregard for the life of the officer whom he fired at and escalated the situation to deadly force. He escalated the situation from a simple and cordial DUI arrest to deadly force because he didn’t want to go back to jail for a parole violation.

From everything I have seen the cop was justified by law. Still a shitty situation but this smells of politics by the DA.

Edit: forgot to mention that Tennessee vs Garner established that officers have justification to use deadly force to stop someone fleeing who is a deadly danger to the public.

Re: NYC passes POST Act, requiring police department to reveal surveillance tech

#83

Post by mindslight »

tomschlick wrote: post #82
mindslight wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that this case is debatable, but you left out the fact that RB was running away when shot. The officer did not shoot in self-defense. Also we would expect any regular citizen to be arrested and charged in this situation. That's precisely what courts are for - to sort out whether the details are strong enough to warrant conviction. Police should not have some informal parallel justice system outside of the cou…

The officer did shoot in self defense. Rayshard shot the taser as he was running away. The officer when seeing the taser being pointed at him immediately dropped his own and drew his sidearm and fired. By that time (under half a second) the taser had fired at him and RB had turned back around with the taser still in his hand. Taser X2s have two shots instead of one, so he was still armed with a deadly weapon accordin…

Continuing to chase and shooting RB in the back contradicts the claim of self defense. At any time, the officer could have stopped the immediate chase and ended the confrontation. This would have been the prudent thing to do, given that they had his ID (and his car), and the two officers hadn't recovered from being overwhelmed.

This is a good example of why responding officers shouldn't carry firearms or even tasers on their person - they're too quick to keep escalating like they see on TV. If a suspect violently escapes arrest, then send in a larger armed crew with a deliberate plan.

re your addition: Seems like a decision that enables bad policing. Nothing about the situation makes it seem like RB was actually a danger to the public, but the police will push that justification all day long to legitimize what was essentially a personal ego escalation.

Re: NYC passes POST Act, requiring police department to reveal surveillance tech

#84

Post by bobthepanda »

thinkingemote wrote: post #72
bobthepanda wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Generally speaking, the NYPD operates under the executive branch (the mayor) and the legislative branch (City Council) can declare whatever powers they want to oversee, but they do have to be explicitly declared first. The separation of powers in NYC/NYS is very messy so this doesn't surprise me.

Can the mayor make the police reveal things? Is the mayor elected by the population?

The elected mayor can, if they want to. Or at least they can start a fight.

The police union, however, is a very organized labor union, and the current mayor was brought to heel even though he was elected on the most anti-police platform of his first election.

Re: NYC passes POST Act, requiring police department to reveal surveillance tech

#85

Post by tomschlick »

mindslight wrote: post #83
tomschlick wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The officer did shoot in self defense. Rayshard shot the taser as he was running away. The officer when seeing the taser being pointed at him immediately dropped his own and drew his sidearm and fired. By that time (under half a second) the taser had fired at him and RB had turned back around with the taser still in his hand. Taser X2s have two shots instead of one, so he was still armed with a deadly weapon accordin…

Continuing to chase and shooting RB in the back contradicts the claim of self defense. At any time, the officer could have stopped the immediate chase and ended the confrontation. This would have been the prudent thing to do, given that they had his ID (and his car), and the two officers hadn't recovered from being overwhelmed. This is a good example of why responding officers shouldn't carry firearms or even tasers…

You’re arguing the morality not the legality. I’m arguing the latter, specifically related to the DA in this case bringing up charges against and officer where by law he seems more than covered. That’s it.

Re: NYC passes POST Act, requiring police department to reveal surveillance tech

#86

Post by a1369209993 »

dang wrote: post #80
a1369209993 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tangentially to this, is there any way to view the actual raw text of a (arbitrary) HN post? Because there are no asterisks in your displayed text. Clearly the text exists, because 'edit' links work, but there doesn't seem to be any way to retrieve it from a post you can't edit.

Sorry, but I don't believe there is.

Pity. Thanks for the confirmation that I wasn't missing something obvious, at least.

Re: NYC passes POST Act, requiring police department to reveal surveillance tech

#87

Post by mindslight »

tomschlick wrote: post #85
mindslight wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Continuing to chase and shooting RB in the back contradicts the claim of self defense. At any time, the officer could have stopped the immediate chase and ended the confrontation. This would have been the prudent thing to do, given that they had his ID (and his car), and the two officers hadn't recovered from being overwhelmed. This is a good example of why responding officers shouldn't carry firearms or even tasers…

You’re arguing the morality not the legality. I’m arguing the latter, specifically related to the DA in this case bringing up charges against and officer where by law he seems more than covered. That’s it.

The morality is important, as we're talking about whether to prosecute and legal arguments can be made both ways. As I said, I do not agree that a person stealing a taser constitutes a deadly danger to the public. Even if the taser is considered a deadly weapon, there was no demonstrated intent to attack random people.

As this is not a clear cut case of justifiable homicide, the right thing to do is let a court sort it out. If the courts are too slow and expensive, welcome to another broken aspect of the criminal justice system that is in dire need of reform!

Re: NYC passes POST Act, requiring police department to reveal surveillance tech

#88

Post by pmorici »

downerending wrote: post #79
pmorici wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Two thoughts. Fire the ones that refuse to comply. The unemployment rate is 15% right now. Second you have a law enforcement agency that is separate from the one with the problem enforce the rules. That could be a state police agency that polices the local police or a special investigative part of the government that ensures compliance.

You can't just hatch experienced law enforcement officers in a week (or a year). And putting inexperienced officers in early can make things far worse, from a police brutality perspective. Beyond that, though, painting an entire profession as monsters is simply wrong. Be careful what you wish for--it appears that an upswing in resignations is happening now.

"painting an entire profession as monsters is simply wrong."

Asking people to act to professional standards and holding them to those standards isn't painting them as monsters nor does it seem unreasonable.

Re: NYC passes POST Act, requiring police department to reveal surveillance tech

#89

Post by randompwd »

runawaybottle wrote: post #78
metrokoi wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anyone like to refute this instead of just downvoting? I don't believe anything in this comment is incorrect, if I am false please correct whichever fact is incorrect.

> He also likely drove there drunk, so investigating was ethical. This can’t be proved. I’ve poured a few shots into a drink and had it with my meal at fast food places plenty of times. He could have been drinking inside Wendy’s, easily. He could have gotten drunk, couldn’t walk to his sister’s place, decided to sleep some of it off in the car. It’s hard to argue if there is a rejection of the need for nuance and tha…

It's quite clear you're confidently commenting without having watched any of the multiple videos available.

He was passed out in his car in the drive thru lane. Did you even watch any of the videos? He was not cognizant for most of the video.

> I also don’t think RB needed to go to be cuffed that night, and needed a place to sleep it off like he suggested.

Riiiight...

Re: NYC passes POST Act, requiring police department to reveal surveillance tech

#90

Post by downerending »

pmorici wrote: post #88
downerending wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't just hatch experienced law enforcement officers in a week (or a year). And putting inexperienced officers in early can make things far worse, from a police brutality perspective. Beyond that, though, painting an entire profession as monsters is simply wrong. Be careful what you wish for--it appears that an upswing in resignations is happening now.

"painting an entire profession as monsters is simply wrong." Asking people to act to professional standards and holding them to those standards isn't painting them as monsters nor does it seem unreasonable.

No, it's not. But there is a lot of such painting going on, and you can't solve one evil by committing a second.
Post reply on HN