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

181–190 of 247 posts

Re: Texas police want uvalde bodycam footage suppressed

#181

Post by kube-system »

nescioquid wrote: post #105
kube-system wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most people won't willingly die at work for any amount of money or accountability, and I don't blame them. These kinds of situations are outrageous because people want to believe in superheros, but they don't exist.

An antiquated notion of a profession is some "job" that has a primary responsibility to the public: nurse, doctor, lawyer, police officer, firefighter, etc. You should not go into a profession that entails personal risk if that prevents you from meeting your obligations to the public. I surely wouldn't call actually following the department's policy and training in response this event superhuman in any way, though pr…

There's a large difference between taking on expected amounts of risk, and engaging an active shooter. Most of the risk that police officers are expected to take on are struggling with an arrest suspect, being in the vicinity of violent people, standing along a busy roadside, or the potential of being in car accidents. Most of their obligation to the public is to show up after a crime has happened, writing a report, and investigating the high priority crimes. About 3/4 of police in the US never use their gun over their entire career.

Re: Texas police want uvalde bodycam footage suppressed

#182

Post by jiocrag »

zackees wrote: post #112
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…

Sir, this is a Wendy’s.

Seriously though — you’re arguing this is a conspiracy to increase gun control, in which a local Texas PD is complicit? The United States is false flagging us into increased gun control by sanctioning the murder of little kids?

That’s pretty bonkers.

Re: Texas police want uvalde bodycam footage suppressed

#183

Post by kube-system »

rrrrrrrrrrrryan wrote: post #178
kube-system wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Calculated risks, yes, like going in to the same building as an active shooter. They're not going to jump in front of a bullet to protect anyone else, though. The primary responsibility of any first responder -- police, fire, or EMS -- is to preserve their own lives.

> The primary responsibility of any first responder -- police, fire, or EMS -- is to preserve their own lives. Over the lives of children, though? Putting your life in danger to save a random guy's life is heroic, but not expected. You're both adults, your safety isn't guaranteed, and it's not guaranteed that you'll be able to save him. But it's quite different when, instead of a random guy, it's a group of children.…

Socially, there's an expectation that all other considerations are disregarded when children are involved. But you really can't save anyone if you're dead anyway. People want to think that heroes will die trying, but those heroes also want to go home to their own children. There's really no black-and-white line here, it's a big grey area.

Re: Texas police want uvalde bodycam footage suppressed

#184

Post by jjulius »

rrrrrrrrrrrryan wrote: post #178
kube-system wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Calculated risks, yes, like going in to the same building as an active shooter. They're not going to jump in front of a bullet to protect anyone else, though. The primary responsibility of any first responder -- police, fire, or EMS -- is to preserve their own lives.

> The primary responsibility of any first responder -- police, fire, or EMS -- is to preserve their own lives. Over the lives of children, though? Putting your life in danger to save a random guy's life is heroic, but not expected. You're both adults, your safety isn't guaranteed, and it's not guaranteed that you'll be able to save him. But it's quite different when, instead of a random guy, it's a group of children.…

>Society also expects the same from police (laying down your life to save a child), but I'm not sure these police fully understood this societal expectation at the time of the incident, or else they would have acted differently.

And yet...

>“People are going to ask why we’re taking so long,” a man who investigators believe to be Chief Arredondo could be heard saying, according to a transcript of officers’ body camera footage.

>By that point, officers in and around the school had been growing increasingly impatient, and in some cases had been loudly voicing their concerns. “If there’s kids in there, we need to go in there,” one officer could be heard saying, according to the documents.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/09/us/uvalde-shooting-police...

Re: Texas police want uvalde bodycam footage suppressed

#185

Post by orwin »

kube-system wrote: post #170
philistine wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're removing all the oxygen from the real debate: police officers are expected to rush an active shooter scene to end the threat. Containment only increases the casualties. This has been the best response for a long time. Read this: https://www.theiacp.org/resources/policy-center-resource/act... What has seemingly happened in Uvalde is a complete betrayal of that typical response. Officers contained the threat, al…

I don't disagree that it's a best practice, or that those best practices are a good idea. Expecting the police to follow those best practices every time is not any more reasonable than expecting any other profession to follow best practice every time. The reason we don't legally require them to prevent crime is that it's an unachievable standard.

I'm sorry, i worked with patient health data, and i'm currently working with people banking informations.

Expecting i follow the industry best practice is the MINIMUM. It is reasonable that my employer expect me to store my passowrds/api keys everytime and that i do not publish them on github/gitlab. It is also reasonable that my APIs are protected. Its is also reasonable that i monitor if my services are up or down. I don't understand why a police officer would not be held by the same standards.

Also, ~7 years ago, i was a counselor at a youth camp for police orphans. The three directors were from the RAID (SWAT equivalent in my country) and the medical assistant from the CRS (specialized police for riot control). They might have oversold their heroics, and those of the parents of the children we created activities for, but even then, any one of them would've gone inside as soon the shooter was contained.

Re: Texas police want uvalde bodycam footage suppressed

#186

Post by 908B64B197 »

maybelsyrup wrote: post #97
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…

> But nothing here will change. It's hard but it's important to keep faith, and to keep working to change people's minds about police. Even your comment can make a difference: a place like HN is full of intelligent people who generally come here fairly open minded. Maybe your comment - the top one right now - can open someone's eyes to what cops really are. Stay in the fight!

Something will change for sure: you'll have to surrender your legal guns.

"Just give away your guns. You don't need them for protection, you and your kids will be safe with the police" "Me? Oh it's different. See I need theses armed bodyguards with me and my kids. For security reasons you know!"

Re: Texas police want uvalde bodycam footage suppressed

#187

Post by ncmncm »

jiocrag wrote: post #182
zackees wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Sir, this is a Wendy’s. Seriously though — you’re arguing this is a conspiracy to increase gun control, in which a local Texas PD is complicit? The United States is false flagging us into increased gun control by sanctioning the murder of little kids? That’s pretty bonkers.

Poe's Law strikes again.

Don't forget those "/s" tags, folks!

Re: Texas police want uvalde bodycam footage suppressed

#188

Post by palmetieri2000 »

zackees wrote: post #112
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…

No post body was provided.

Re: Texas police want uvalde bodycam footage suppressed

#189

Post by [deleted] »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #53
markovbot wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

parents tried to go in UNARMED and the cops arrested them. Bringing a gun wouldn't have helped them, unless they had mowed down every cop first. Do you think they should have done that?

I don't know enough about this situation to make a call, but you can imagine hypothetical trolley problems where that is the moral requirement.

[deleted]

Re: Texas police want uvalde bodycam footage suppressed

#190

Post by Sohcahtoa82 »

> Texas police want uvalde bodycam footage suppressed

The only time this should ever be legal is if the footage is of the officer using the restroom.

Otherwise, as far as I'm concerned, even requesting that body cam footage be suppressed is a blatant admission of guilt.

Post reply on HN