Live data from Hacker News

FBI Didn't Knock Down a Suspect's Door Because 'It Was an Affluent Neighborhood'

reason.com

271–280 of 393 posts

Re: FBI Didn't Knock Down a Suspect's Door Because 'It Was an Affluent Neighborhood'

#271
post #139

Fought Experiment: Lets say law enforcement was given the task to examine the affairs of 100, randomly selected, poor/medium income households and 100, randomly selected, very wealthy households. Statistically, where would they find the most amount of criminal activity? Has any similar research been done, and would you care to share the data?

That's some very loaded phrasing. What are you implying here?

Re: FBI Didn't Knock Down a Suspect's Door Because 'It Was an Affluent Neighborhood'

#273
post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, when there is reimbursement (via lawsuits) it is the city that pays for it. The police should be self-insured, backed by their pension fund. They are granted incredible power with no real accountability.

This, exactly this. Police pension funds should be the source of all police misconduct payments. The older guys would _immediately_ weed out the bad apples when it starts hurting their own wallet badly enough. Paying for misconduct from city funds is a joke.

This. It is indeed a joke.

I highly doubt there'd be any immediate weeding out, but it would begin to restore some accountability and make it less police vs the world and more about police vs incompetent/corrupt police.

Re: FBI Didn't Knock Down a Suspect's Door Because 'It Was an Affluent Neighborhood'

#274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the fact that you have to go to alternative media like Reason to find articles about it speaks volume. Check out searches of mainstream news sites: Google search for "Duncan Lemp" site:nytimes.com[1]: Two articles, neither of which are about his shooting, but which mention him in passing when talking about Boogaloo "extremists." Google search for "Breonna Taylor" site:nytimes.com[2]: Dozens of articles from t…

Simply comparing search results between publications really ignores the context of the stories and how they develop. People think that all newspapers should put out the exact same amount of content on each topic all of the time, but it's never worked that way. Again, Breonna Taylor's story became an example of the case against the status quo of policing in America. Her story was elevated precisely because it was yet…

You switched from passive voice "Her story was elevated" to the active voice "Who in Duncan's community elevated his story?" This raises a question of fact - who got Breonna Taylor's story heard? How did they do it? Did someone attempt to share Duncan's story, and get rejected? Why?

It's easy to speculate. For example, Duncan didn't fit the racial narrative the media is comfortable with. This framing achieves several goals that the more accurate narrative, that police violence is evidence of severe problems with our justice system. The racial narrative pleases left-leaning viewers, it also plays better to right-leaning viewers because the problem of individual racism is still big, but much smaller and easier to accept. Or, they can love to hate the story.

A general failure of the American justice system is just not a narrative anyone wants to hear; it's too big. That narrative is one that challenges the mainstream view that the police are the good guys, and that American justice is fair. It's like "climate change", as a subject - much easier to pick it apart into anecdotes and pass judgement on individuals, which feels good and has no effect, or ignore it entirely, rather than confront the true scope of the issue.

Ultimately the problem is that "news" has shifted firmly from a "public service" of broadcasters, that loses money, to a for-profit endeavor chasing audience, aka "content". The former service tells us what we need to hear, but the latter only tells us what we want to hear. And precious few of us want to hear the truth, especially about ourselves.

Re: FBI Didn't Knock Down a Suspect's Door Because 'It Was an Affluent Neighborhood'

#275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's rich, trying to make exercising one right at a gathering of people exercising another right seem like a bad thing.

I think it's the fact that he went to that civil rights protest with a weapon and the idea of policing the protestors that was probably a bad thing. Most responsible gun owners would argue that he shouldn't have even been there with weapons. No one is attacking the exercising of one's right. They're pointing out the poor decision making of rittenhouse. It would be no different than showing up to a freedom rally/prote…

It was a riot.

Re: FBI Didn't Knock Down a Suspect's Door Because 'It Was an Affluent Neighborhood'

#276

People screaming systemic racism in this thread because the FBI didn't knock down "Tarek Abou-Khatwa's" door, doubtfully read the article. If the system is racist than I can either guess they didn't read this or I imagine that they are implying the system is racist by protecting Arabic men. Also this man committed insurance fraud, a non-violent crime with no history of violence so the need to catch them off guard bef…

> It's not clear whether the FBI agents who searched Abou-Khatwa's house were doing him a favor by eschewing a front-door entry. The agent's testimony makes it sound as if the main concern was the impact that knocking down Abou-Khatwa's front door would have on his wealthy neighbors.

From the article that you definitely read.

Re: FBI Didn't Knock Down a Suspect's Door Because 'It Was an Affluent Neighborhood'

#277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You said "This kind of violence affects everyone" and this is disingenuous when we look at the ratio of black vs white being murdered by police. If you want to argue that this kind of violence affects certain races more, that's fine. But why downplay the fact that it affects all races? The percentages are higher for Black Americans, but White Americans still make up the majority of people shot by police[1]. If peop…

> If people actually cared about creating a broad coalition to address this, they would want to highlight both facts, not hide the latter fact. People fighting for black lives aren't hiding bad things that happen to white people. The reason Duncan Lemp doesn't have posters up about him isn't because black activists against police violence haven't fought for him, it's because both black and white activists against pol…

> Again: you can't get white activist gun owners to defend a licensed gun owner who was surprised and shot in his own home by police executing a no-knock warrant that wasn't for him.

That's patently false at the very least. Everyone I've talked to said it was a horrible act and those officers deserve legal charges.

Re: FBI Didn't Knock Down a Suspect's Door Because 'It Was an Affluent Neighborhood'

#278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re omitting the part where the shooter went to a civil rights protest with a rifle. The fact that he happened to kill two white people rather than black ones isn’t an overriding consideration.

That's rich, trying to make exercising one right at a gathering of people exercising another right seem like a bad thing.

Legal right or not, showing up to a protest with weapons is a show of force, intimidation, and in my view enough threat to life to justify self-defense in basically any case where the armed person does basically anything other than stand like a statue.

Like we're not 6 years old, surely we're not so naive to believe "I'm not shoooting youuu. I'm not shooooting youuuu" is somehow peaceful.

Re: FBI Didn't Knock Down a Suspect's Door Because 'It Was an Affluent Neighborhood'

#279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Usually some rich old guy won't shoot at cops, when they come knocking at the door. Those people use lawyers, not guns.

Statistically, they don't prosecute wealthy people much to start with.

Statistically, there is not much wealthy people.

Re: FBI Didn't Knock Down a Suspect's Door Because 'It Was an Affluent Neighborhood'

#280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but received almost no media attention Just because something didn't become an internet cause célèbre doesn't mean it didn't get attention. I mean, just from this site: - https://reason.com/2020/03/16/maryland-man-killed-in-no-knoc... - https://reason.com/2020/07/02/why-havent-we-seen-the-body-ca... - https://reason.com/video/2020/10/16/the-complicated-truth-ab... - https://reason.com/2021/01/08/prosecutors-office-…

I think the fact that you have to go to alternative media like Reason to find articles about it speaks volume. Check out searches of mainstream news sites: Google search for "Duncan Lemp" site:nytimes.com[1]: Two articles, neither of which are about his shooting, but which mention him in passing when talking about Boogaloo "extremists." Google search for "Breonna Taylor" site:nytimes.com[2]: Dozens of articles from t…

>Check out searches of mainstream news sites...

Simply for what it is worth, if I Google "duncan lemp", I see articles about the shooting from The Washington Post, USA Today, the AP, ABC and The Guardian.

Post reply on HN