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

231–240 of 247 posts

Re: Texas police want uvalde bodycam footage suppressed

#231

Post by wumpus »

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…

> Texas allows information to be suppressed when the suspect is deceased

Which is backwards. Dead people don't have any privacy rights.

Re: Texas police want uvalde bodycam footage suppressed

#232

Post by lamp987 »

Apocryphon wrote: post #74
drugstorecowboy wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

armed students

Re: Texas police want uvalde bodycam footage suppressed

#233

Post by err4nt »

ncmncm wrote: post #176
maybelsyrup wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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!

What would be a reasonable outcome? Firing all of the current PD staff seems like a great first step. Trick is, do you hire more in their place, and how do you pick them?

If they have guns issued to them, yet refuse use them even in an active shooter situation to protect the lives of innocent children being massacred, they probably don't need the guns for any situation. If police carrying all these unused guns around is any kind of liability (danger, theft) they should probably not be carrying them in the first place. (I'm okay with Police using them when the situation calls for it, but if they refuse to use them when the situation calls for it then they don't need them at all)

Re: Texas police want uvalde bodycam footage suppressed

#234

Post by pygy_ »

_-david-_ wrote: post #169
pygy_ wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The US has been increasing the number of guns and has seen a decrease in violence.

It might have reached saturation.

Violence is decreasing everywhere else too (dropping lead gasoline and screen time are the probable drivers).

The US is still an outlier as far as gun deaths go.

Re: Texas police want uvalde bodycam footage suppressed

#235

Post by encryptluks2 »

aaaaaaaaata wrote: post #46
encryptluks2 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can think of a few crimes that they could be charged with, but without evidence it certainly makes it harder.

Without legal requirement to protect anyone, probably no actual liability, besides being accused of wrong job syndrome or cowardice

If you block an ambulance and someone dies that can be considered manslaughter. Likewise, if a cop prevents people from trying to save others which they obviously aren't going to do, then that would be very similar.

Re: Texas police want uvalde bodycam footage suppressed

#236

Post by ryathal »

kube-system wrote: post #142
gensym wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Saving a house is not the same thing as saving children. People risk or sacrifice themselves to save others with some frequency. Just a week before Ulvade, Dr. John Chang gave his life to tackle the shooter at his church in Orange County. Bravery exists. The belief in bravery is why we give special privileges to law enforcement. If we knew that police would never put themselves in harm's way to save children, we woul…

Dr. John Chang is a one-in-a-million hero. If we hired every one-in-a-million hero as a police officer in the US, we'd have 165 police officers. There's about 700,000 police officers in the US, and we can barely hire them as it is.

firefighters routinely walk through burning buildings to find and save people, they have safety rules, but this is never a safe action.

Re: Texas police want uvalde bodycam footage suppressed

#237

Post by wfhordie »

sevenf0ur wrote: post #117
wfhordie wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> Any gun control measure that restricts firearms makes it harder to defend yourself.

Bump stocks were outlawed. What impact did that have on self-defense?

What impact did restricting assault weapons have on self defense?

You are making a claim here. It is necessary for you to back up your claim with evidence. The goal post already moved from the original comment I replied to, which is fine. To avoid further wriggling, though, we need data.

Re: Texas police want uvalde bodycam footage suppressed

#238

Post by ryathal »

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.

In most professions if you don't follow best practices to this degree, you are lucky to just be fired.

Re: Texas police want uvalde bodycam footage suppressed

#239

Post by the_only_law »

kube-system wrote: post #101
the_only_law wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a soldier goes AWOL because they're "scared" of fighting or consistently straight up neglects to do their job, I'm sure "natural self preservation" will be a stunning and effective defense at the court martial regardless if they're ina combat role or not.

Soldiers are not first responders.

Clearly that doesn't matter as GP made it clear that this is a human trait, not tied to any profession.

Re: Texas police want uvalde bodycam footage suppressed

#240

Post by clint »

Sohcahtoa82 wrote: post #192
doodlebugging wrote: post #86

I thought body cam footage was public data, discoverable and releasable under the law. There is no one left to prosecute here since they killed the shooter so there is no reason to delay disclosure. That thin blue line looks more and more like a line for cowards to hide behind while they seek to escape accountability for actions they know would have them arrested if they had no badge. Simply holding their noses while…

> That thin blue line looks more and more like a line for cowards to hide behind while they seek to escape accountability for actions they know would have them arrested if they had no badge. Half the country has known this for a couple years now. It's a shame it took the deaths of children for the rest to start to figure it out.

Half the country has known this for ~CENTURIES~
Post reply on HN