The United States needs to overhaul its law-enforcement system • Hacker News Board

Re: The United States needs to overhaul its law-enforcement system

#141

Post by res0nat0r » Sat, Dec 13, 2014, 9:18 PM UTC

Crito wrote: post #139

res0nat0r wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn't because gun ownership is up, it is stating that police shootings occur because of the mere fact that there are already more guns in the USA than any other first world country, thus police are more likely to encounter criminals with guns. We also have the highest gun homicide rate of any first world country. The two are directly related.

> "it is stating that police shootings occur because of the mere fact that there are already more guns in the USA than any other first world country, thus police are more likely to encounter criminals with guns" Police in America are less likely today to encounter guns than they were 40 years ago, but police shootings are apparently at all time highs. If their theory held water, that would not be the case.

The USA still has 300 million guns. This is far and beyond any other first world country, so yes this is in fact related to police in the USA more likely shooting first than they would in other countries which do not have such an insane saturation of guns like the USA.

Re: The United States needs to overhaul its law-enforcement system

#142

Post by dragonwriter » Sat, Dec 13, 2014, 9:28 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #74

joesmo wrote: post #4

How about also ending grand juries altogether (or at least in cases of potential homicide)? It's obvious that the people on the grand juries are not qualified to asses anything and it's an archaic system not employed by any other country ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_jury ). In addition, the prosecutors' powers need to be curtailed. Such crimes should always be charged, regardless of what the prosecutor wants.…

How exactly does eliminating grand juries help with out-of-control law enforcement? Grand juries are a safeguard for the accused . Do they work in practice? No. But eliminating them concedes the problem to the prosecution entirely. You're not the first person I've seen suggest this, and I'm baffled by the logic.

> Grand juries are a safeguard for the accused. Do they work in practice? No. But eliminating them concedes the problem to the prosecution entirely.

No, it doesn't, because eliminating grand juries does not eliminate the gate to a full trial; criminal cases in which that function is not served by the one-sided, prosecution-controlled grand jury process in which the target is not entitled to have representation, cross-examine witnesses or challenge evidence, present evidence, or even be informed that the process is taking place have the function served instead by a preliminary hearing in which the defendant is entitled to all of those things.

The grand jury indictment as an alternative to the preliminary hearing otherwise used is not a safeguard for the accused, it is a means by which the society at large (represented by the grand jury selected from among them rather than the judge handling a preliminary hearing) that the actions of the prosecutor in response to serious crimes are well-directed, it trades away protection of the accused for protection of societal interest in oversight of the executive branch by the public.

> You're not the first person I've seen suggest this, and I'm baffled by the logic.

You seem to think that the alternative to the grand jury is no procedural gateway between accusation and trial, which is not the case. Its understandable that, under that misapprehension, the idea that removing the grand jury would lessen the power of prosecutors would be baffling, because it misses the alternative that actually exists and is, in fact, used for those cases where grand jury indictment is not.

Re: The United States needs to overhaul its law-enforcement system

#143

Post by walshemj » Sun, Dec 14, 2014, 12:29 AM UTC

Crito wrote: post #138

walshemj wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually no certainly in the uk if a copper has to fire they are trained fire to kill - of course in serious anti terrorist situations they call in the SAS.

In Germany, and perhaps other countries, police are instructed to fire warning shots. It is only because German police have to fire their guns so infrequently that this has not caused innocent fatalities. The practice violates numerous firearm safety rules.

Unfortunately Germany has had a number of very high profile terrorist incidents where it went pear shaped.

Re: The United States needs to overhaul its law-enforcement system

#144

Post by cushychicken » Mon, Dec 15, 2014, 2:43 PM UTC

jonah wrote: post #40

cushychicken wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Legal constraints of selling tobacco require a licensed vendor to sell them in licensed packages/quantities. Eric Garner wasn't licensed, and single cigarettes aren't allowed to be sold in the US. Fairly petty crimes, but crimes.

You can buy single cigarettes in many bars. (Don't know if it's legal though.)

Interesting. I've never seen that. The packaging thing may be a state to state restriction, because I've never been to a bar that sold cigarettes in quantities less than a pack.

Re: The United States needs to overhaul its law-enforcement system

#145

Post by Crito » Wed, Dec 17, 2014, 6:55 PM UTC

res0nat0r wrote: post #141

Crito wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "it is stating that police shootings occur because of the mere fact that there are already more guns in the USA than any other first world country, thus police are more likely to encounter criminals with guns" Police in America are less likely today to encounter guns than they were 40 years ago, but police shootings are apparently at all time highs. If their theory held water, that would not be the case.

The USA still has 300 million guns. This is far and beyond any other first world country, so yes this is in fact related to police in the USA more likely shooting first than they would in other countries which do not have such an insane saturation of guns like the USA.

When you have a hypothesis, you have to try making predictions with it and see if it fits real-world data. If it doesn't, then it is wrong. It doesn't matter how elegant or beautiful your hypothesis is, if it does not fit the data then it is wrong.

Your hypothesis does not fit the data.