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

A SWAT team blew a hole in my 2-year-old son

salon.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

381–390 of 464 posts

Re: A SWAT team blew a hole in my 2-year-old son

#381

Post by giardini »

hyperliner wrote: post #345
giardini wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This. Background: it's long been known that law enforcement officers (LEOs) are _safer_ on the job than non-LEOs. Only an unfortunate few die in violent encounters with the criminal elements. When LEOs scream about how dangerous their job is, they're almost always asking for a pay raise. Nonetheless, there was a time in the not-so-remote past when LEOs _consciously__accepted_ the possibility that they might die or be…

You must live in the comfortable confines of tranquil suburbia americana. Stay there. Don't wake up. Be happy. It's better for you that way. Have another latte. Like the rest who must escape to reality on a daily basis, I rather have a) My gun with me, and b) A cop by my side.

Making unsupported assumptions about someone usually not only produces incorrect conclusions but is also a poor form of argument. I fail to see how anything you said is relevant to this discussion.

FWIW I live inside a very large US city, am familiar with firearms and have worked in law enforcement for many years.

And now for something supported by the numbers: have you considered the likelihood that the cop by your side shares his/her bed with someone else?

Re: A SWAT team blew a hole in my 2-year-old son

#382

Post by chc »

alexeisadeski3 wrote: post #335
chc wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is true to some degree, though I think legalizing many drugs would still not take away a large portion of the associated criminality. People with bad coke or meth addictions just don't care very much who they hurt.

Hurting people is already illegal.

Yes? Why are you telling me this?

Re: A SWAT team blew a hole in my 2-year-old son

#383

Post by NhanH »

giardini wrote: post #381
hyperliner wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You must live in the comfortable confines of tranquil suburbia americana. Stay there. Don't wake up. Be happy. It's better for you that way. Have another latte. Like the rest who must escape to reality on a daily basis, I rather have a) My gun with me, and b) A cop by my side.

Making unsupported assumptions about someone usually not only produces incorrect conclusions but is also a poor form of argument. I fail to see how anything you said is relevant to this discussion. FWIW I live inside a very large US city, am familiar with firearms and have worked in law enforcement for many years. And now for something supported by the numbers: have you considered the likelihood that the cop by your…

I agree with everything you said. But I'm not following your point of "have you considered the likelihood that the cop by your side shares his/her bed with someone else". What do you mean with that statement?

Re: A SWAT team blew a hole in my 2-year-old son

#384

Post by berberous »

pessimizer wrote: post #377
berberous wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure what your reference to "executive interpretations" is about, but the level of process that is due has been determined through case law. The test for the past 30+ years has been a balancing test that considers the following factors: "Three factors are relevant in determining what process is constitutionally due: (1) the private interest that will be affected by the official action; (2) the risk of an erro…

>I'm not sure what your reference to "executive interpretations" is about, http://www.thewire.com/national/2012/03/holder-due-process-d... >"Three factors are relevant in determining what process is constitutionally due: (1) the private interest that will be affected by the official action; (2) the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additi…

You are correct that a balancing test is always going to be more vague and open-ended than hard, bright line rules. But the advantage is that it lets the courts adapt to new situations flexibly. This is the entire approach of the "common law" on which our legal system is based. And when you are familiar with prior court cases in which judges have applied the test, the test becomes less vague and open-ended.

For example, there are seminal court cases that lawyers know in which 1) a person has their welfare benefits revoked, 2) a person has their disability benefits revoked, 3) a tenured public university professor is fired, and by knowing those cases, you gain an understanding how most courts would likely view the suspension of pay of an officer with no notice or hearing of any kind. Different facts will obviously change the results, and different courts may come to different conclusions, but the current test and existing case law is not impossibly vague or unworkable.

Re: A SWAT team blew a hole in my 2-year-old son

#385

Post by rayiner »

pessimizer wrote: post #377
berberous wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure what your reference to "executive interpretations" is about, but the level of process that is due has been determined through case law. The test for the past 30+ years has been a balancing test that considers the following factors: "Three factors are relevant in determining what process is constitutionally due: (1) the private interest that will be affected by the official action; (2) the risk of an erro…

>I'm not sure what your reference to "executive interpretations" is about, http://www.thewire.com/national/2012/03/holder-due-process-d... >"Three factors are relevant in determining what process is constitutionally due: (1) the private interest that will be affected by the official action; (2) the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additi…

Your statement ("modern executive interpretations that 'due process' in the law simply means any established process") is not consistent with Holder's statement, as described by the very title of the article you linked to: ("Attorney General Holder: Due Process Doesn't Necessarily Mean a Courtroom.")

Due Process does not require a courtroom. That does not mean that "any established process" will suffice. The amount of process due depends on the context. The open-endedness of the concept is embedded in the phrase itself: the word "due" means "warranted" or "appropriate."

I don't think there's a Supreme Court case specifically involving police officers, but the general idea that public employees have protections against suspension is well-established: http://www.huizenga.nova.edu/course-materials/6240/cases/Con....

Re: A SWAT team blew a hole in my 2-year-old son

#386

Post by tucosan »

einrealist wrote: post #313
abritishguy wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have the same thing in the UK, you won't see any flash bangs being used here though.

Like in the the other European countries, too. If someone pulls a knife or even a pistol in Germany, the police will try its best to save even the offenders life - even if it takes hours.

Except when they're not. Just some recent example http://bit.ly/1jfqHbr

Re: A SWAT team blew a hole in my 2-year-old son

#388

Post by hga »

EpicEng wrote: post #343
thathonkey wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, I think you're missing my point that is even if somehow they could flush the entire amount of the illicit substance in time, they probably have other items on hand that would be just as good from an evidence perspective. For example, you can't flush a scale down the toilet. If we're talking low-level or mid-level dealers, chances are they have a quantity of pre-packaged amounts of their product on hand and may…

A scale with a bit of powder on it does not demand 10+ years in prison. A gun, if registered (and it's not like all dealers have illegal guns) carries no penalty in and of itself. They (the cops) need something to barter with. You're much more likely to get useful information from someone facing 10+ years than someone facing 1 year (6 months with good behavior) or probation. They want to find everything.

Registered???

In most of the US, and I suspect for most of the population, there is no such thing as registering guns (that would be akin to registering laser printers, especially those high capacity ones).

On the other hand it's illegal for a drug user to possess a firearm, 18 USC § 922(g): http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922

Re: A SWAT team blew a hole in my 2-year-old son

#389

Post by dwd »

rayiner wrote: post #27

This was the result of a no-knock warrant: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-knock_warrant , which allows police to enter a home without prior warning, on the theory that giving notice will allow people inside to destroy evidence. They are almost uniquely a product of the drug war. One can imagine very few situations outside of drugs were evidence could be so easily destroyed as to justify a no-knock warrant.

The issue really is the proliferation of paramilitary in western society expanded under whatever pretext was valid at the time: war on drugs, war on terror, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paramilitary

The list of examples (while possibly biased) gives a clear idea of where, having these kinds of miitarised civilian forces, can lead a society.

Re: A SWAT team blew a hole in my 2-year-old son

#390

Post by refurb »

anon4 wrote: post #317
refurb wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Go onto youtube and search for "german police beating". There are hours of footage of German police kicking the crap out of protesters (punches to the face, etc). The German police are notorious for being very physical.

Punches to the face are better than holes in the chest. If I had to pick from "will get punched in the face with 90% certainty" or "will get a hole in the chest with 0.01% certainty", I'd pick the first one. Heck, I'd punch myself in the face once for good measure, too.

I would as well, but I think my example shows that public tolerance of police behavior varies among countries. German would be horrified with US cops shooting random civilians and Americans are horrified by German police beating suspects for relatively minor infractions.
Post reply on HN