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

111–120 of 247 posts

Re: Texas police want uvalde bodycam footage suppressed

#111

Post by colinmhayes »

tvaughan wrote: post #79
jjulius wrote: post #27

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. 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...

I'm under no legal obligation to do my job either. Doesn't mean I won't face discipline if I stop working. The job of police is to protect and serve. That's what they're trained to do. Whether or not they can face legal consequences if they refuse isn't really relevant here.

Re: Texas police want uvalde bodycam footage suppressed

#112

Post by zackees »

jmyeet wrote: post #55

Are we afraid won't actually do their job when it actually involves putting themselves in danger? I think the cat is out of the bag on that one. Quite famously, the police are much better at shooting children [1] than they are at shooting to protect children. The Uvalde PD consumes 40% of the town budget ($4m of $10m exclusive of a $500k grant they got from the state of Texas months earlier). 19 police officers were…

We live in a surveillance society now. This individual that attacked the school wasn’t operating in stealth: he let his murderious intentions be known on social media.

The choice now is whether to believe that law enforcement at the local and federal level simply turned a blind eye, or they knew and helped guide this individual to action in order to use the public reaction to advance the gun control agenda.

And while some will recoil at the thought of organized terror attacks in the US, we have to acknowledge that terror attacks by the state are not unprecedented. The communists, the nazis, the current russian empire all utilized terror attacks to advance their state policy. For example, right before the Crimea referendum to join Russia, terror attacks against the civilian population “were discovered” by FSB forces that swung their support to joining Russia.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26878193.amp

Re: Texas police want uvalde bodycam footage suppressed

#113

Post by jeremyjh »

tvaughan wrote: post #79
jjulius wrote: post #27

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. 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...

That means they can't be sued for this, but GP is taking about their training, and departmental policy/procedures. It is their professional responsibility to stop the threat.

Re: Texas police want uvalde bodycam footage suppressed

#114

Post by Supermancho »

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.

> 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

I disagree because I use a different bar for "sufficient". I never have a conversation with people (or online) within the midwest states without a jab at the ineffectiveness of LEOs. There's been a national consensus for awhile, which has been diminished, for sure. For many, Jan 6 was another event showing that the lack of police action can lead to outrageous events that were previously fantasy. Confidence in police (local or not) has been eroding for decades and this is a tentpole event that will be referenced in the future.

Re: Texas police want uvalde bodycam footage suppressed

#115

Post by dylan604 »

akira2501 wrote: post #5
Arrath wrote: post #2

I think the 'weakness' of their response is plainly obvious. If criminals can find advantages in this footage, its an opportunity to overhaul training programs and response plans. The training and response was woefully inadequate for this crisis, after all. There should be no reasonable reality in which the release of this footage is suppressed. This is an undeniable tragedy, battening down the hatches and obstinatel…

That leads to the most obvious question: "Are your training manuals and materials as closely guarded of a secret?" If not, then your implementation of them, however compromised, is not a secret either.

It's actually more along the lines of counter-intelligence. You have printed manuals and materials that get leaked so the attackers study those tactics. Then, during the attack, there is total confusion when the police do not react as thought by those training materials. The upper hand now resides with the police /s

Re: Texas police want uvalde bodycam footage suppressed

#116

Post by pygy_ »

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.

The argument is that fewer guns in circulation decreases violence. That is to the point where cops are unarmed in Norway, most of the UK and Ireland, Iceland, New Zealand, Botswana and a dozen smaller countries.

Re: Texas police want uvalde bodycam footage suppressed

#117

Post by sevenf0ur »

wfhordie wrote: post #92
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.

> If you remove my ability to protect myself am I not forced to rely on the police to protect me? Gun control does not remove your ability to protect yourself. This is a false premise. Even in a world where the US government institutes mandatory buy backs of anything that looks like a gun, you are not completely devoid of options to protect yourself. Statistically, aside from some very specific places in the US like…

What self defense tool is as effective as a firearm, especially in hands of a smaller or elderly person? Any gun control measure that restricts firearms makes it harder to defend yourself. I'd like to think you can depend on the police but that's not always the case.

Re: Texas police want uvalde bodycam footage suppressed

#118

Post by Apocryphon »

daenz wrote: post #93
Apocryphon wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

>Why aren't [non-lethal weapons] ever suggested They are suggested. Many people carry mace/pepper spray. Tasers are finicky and require a fortunate prong placement in the attacker, and the attacker to not be wearing thick clothing, or it just doesn't work. Stun guns require you to be upclose and personal with the attacker. If you're a smaller/weaker person, this is extremely risky. Most non-lethal weapons are for you…

Makes me wonder why we haven't seen more advancements in this space in the last few decades, especially with the U.S. military overseeing multiple occupations where sublethal weaponry would've been helpful. No startups trying to invent sci-fi stun guns at all?

Years ago I once made a joke that Tesla could pivot into that by inventing a "lightning gun." Given Musk's descent into attention-grabbing memelordom, I'm surprised he hasn't suggested such a possibility yet, to unilaterally solve all these controversies in the news, himself.

Re: Texas police want uvalde bodycam footage suppressed

#119

Post by andruby »

GloriousKoji wrote: post #85
donmcronald wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the problem is that no one wants to take the blame for being wrong or unprepared and the media won't pass up an opportunity to sensationalize mistakes as incompetency, maliciousness, etc.. I wish more of the world could function like the culture adopted by the western airline industry where every incident and investigation is treated as an opportunity to learn and improve the system rather than an opportunity…

> I wish more of the world could function like the culture adopted by the western airline industry where every incident and investigation is treated as an opportunity to learn and improve the system rather than an opportunity to lay blame. If the airline industry had kept that culture we wouldn't have had so many incidents with the Boeing 737 MAX.

I don't follow. Were airline investigations not able to do a proper and thorough investigation of the 737 MAX crashes?

I'm not saying no mistakes were made. Of course mistakes were made. It was my assumption that the typical "post-mortem" process of those crashes did happen.

Re: Texas police want uvalde bodycam footage suppressed

#120

Post by kube-system »

ceejayoz wrote: post #103
kube-system wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it's expected that first responders may do things that are generally dangerous but they're not on kamikaze missions, it's completely normal for them to back out when they believe their own life is in danger. This is not any different for any first responder. Firefighters will run right back out of your house if they think it's required to save their own lives.

19 cops (in the hallway alone; more outside!) with rifles, armor, and complete control of the scene against one shooter is not a "kamikaze mission". What's the point of militarizing the police if they can't handle 19-on-1 situations?

Having a large number of police doesn't decrease the risk to the first person to jump through the door. And most police body armor is only effective against handgun rounds, across part of the body.

Police militarization helps the police protect themselves when a situation gets out of control. I don't think there's much evidence to show that it ever helps police protect others. Although, there's a lot of reasons why people might be misled to believe so.

Post reply on HN