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

Texas police want uvalde bodycam footage suppressed

vice.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 247 posts

Re: Texas police want uvalde bodycam footage suppressed

#71

Post by Apocryphon »

drugstorecowboy wrote: post #37
woodruffw wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not, to my knowledge, an argument that anybody who is serious about gun control uses.

Isn't it implied? If you remove my ability to protect myself am I not forced to rely on the police to protect me? Unless they are arguing that gun control will solve all future violent crime I don't see how you could say this with a straight face. If they are "serious" about gun control or not would certainly be up for debate, but I have heard this argument many many times.

Why aren’t tasers and other nonlethal weapons ever suggested as an alternative to guns for personal defense?

Re: Texas police want uvalde bodycam footage suppressed

#74

Post by Apocryphon »

drugstorecowboy wrote: post #49
bitwize wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The new argument is "If trained police officers are afraid to engage an active shooter, why should we expect school staff to?"

Yes, which completely ignores the difference between a person who has had this situation forced on them (A teacher or school administrator) and someone who has to choose to enter it. I think it might be quite a bit easier to confront a shooter when its obvious that doing nothing will result in your death. In this situation in particular I can't imagine how armed teachers would have made it any worse, but can certainl…

What if an armed teacher becomes the active shooter?

Re: Texas police want uvalde bodycam footage suppressed

#75

Post by d1str0 »

EricE wrote: post #10

It sort of blows up the whole pro gun control argument that citizens shouldn't be expected to have to protect themselves but instead rely on law enforcement :p

I think it’s funny that this footage is deemed to dangerous for the public, but the weapons used by the gunmen are totally safe for the public to purchase.

Re: Texas police want uvalde bodycam footage suppressed

#76

Post by Apocryphon »

kingcharles wrote: post #16

I'm a serial litigator of Freedom of Information requests. The reason I have to even litigate is because the public bodies believe every tiny thing they do is not disclosable. I'm about 6 years into one lawsuit to disclose the contents of a jail Policy and Procedures manual. The AG ruled that it was all subject to disclosure except the bits about locks and keys and where the weapons are stored. The jail is free to ig…

Out of curiosity, how is it that you came to be part of HN? Always good to have posters here who aren’t engineers or other tech workers.

Re: Texas police want uvalde bodycam footage suppressed

#77

Post by ALittleLight »

threatofrain wrote: post #56
drugstorecowboy wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't it implied? If you remove my ability to protect myself am I not forced to rely on the police to protect me? Unless they are arguing that gun control will solve all future violent crime I don't see how you could say this with a straight face. If they are "serious" about gun control or not would certainly be up for debate, but I have heard this argument many many times.

In this case you would've needed enough guns to subdue the police, as the police were threatening to taser and arrest parents who wanted to save their kids. There's sufficient consensus on both the stronger/weaker gun control sides to agree that police are the most tactically equipped to deal with an ongoing crime, and that you should not interfere with professionals who are already at the scene.

Saying that you shouldn't interfere with an ongoing crime implicitly assumes the police are doing something about the crime and not just watching children be murdered. Best case is parents stand back while the police engage - but if the police aren't doing that then all bets are off.

Re: Texas police want uvalde bodycam footage suppressed

#78

Post by bitwize »

drugstorecowboy wrote: post #49
bitwize wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The new argument is "If trained police officers are afraid to engage an active shooter, why should we expect school staff to?"

Yes, which completely ignores the difference between a person who has had this situation forced on them (A teacher or school administrator) and someone who has to choose to enter it. I think it might be quite a bit easier to confront a shooter when its obvious that doing nothing will result in your death. In this situation in particular I can't imagine how armed teachers would have made it any worse, but can certainl…

Or, we could mitigate the active shooter problem by making guns less easily available. Bring back the assault weapons ban and strict licensure for all other firearms and ammunition.

Re: Texas police want uvalde bodycam footage suppressed

#79

Post by tvaughan »

jjulius wrote: post #27
giraffe_lady wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They maintained control with minimal personal risk to themselves. From a "policing realism" perspective that's exactly what police do. Preventing or ending any sort of crime or violence is optional at that point, and they opted not to. This is extremely at odds with how the police want to be perceived , and managing that contradiction is certainly their biggest concern right now. From that perspective it's easy to un…

>They maintained control with minimal personal risk to themselves. From a "policing realism" perspective that's exactly what police do. Preventing or ending any sort of crime or violence is optional at that point, and they opted not to. Absolutely untrue, and has been for decades. Their hesitation to react and go in is the complete opposite of what they were trained to do, which is go in and eliminate the threat imme…

> Absolutely untrue

The police are under no legal obligation to protect and serve, https://mises.org/power-market/police-have-no-duty-protect-y...

Re: Texas police want uvalde bodycam footage suppressed

#80

Post by daenz »

woodruffw wrote: post #17
EricE wrote: post #10

It sort of blows up the whole pro gun control argument that citizens shouldn't be expected to have to protect themselves but instead rely on law enforcement :p

This is not, to my knowledge, an argument that anybody who is serious about gun control uses.

>anybody who is serious about gun control

This sounds like a "no true scotsman" fallacy. If your definition of someone who is not serious includes people who say "rely on police to help", then it is circular logic.

Post reply on HN