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

The Human Toll of Flashbangs

propublica.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 262 posts

Re: The Human Toll of Flashbangs

#211

Post by happyscrappy »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #208
happyscrappy wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While we should be on guard for police abuses let's not pretend it is anywhere near Mao or Stalin.

It's not "police abuse" anymore, it's police murdering people in broad daylight, for no reason whatsoever (e.g. see that video of a homeless person being shot). And around the whole country, military-grade equipment is widely deployed, to be used against civilian situation. That scares the shit out of me, and I don't even live in the US. Maybe your government is nowhere near Mao or Stalin, but all the required pieces…

Some European's cartoon vision of the US has no relevance to the likelihood of America's risk of being subjected to Mao or Stalin like oppression. It is just laughable.

Re: The Human Toll of Flashbangs

#212

Post by mod »

brazzy wrote: post #130
IkmoIkmo wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> “If she hadn’t been selling illegal items out of the home, no warrant would have been served,” he said. “What you call extreme, we call safe.” The thing that disgusts me the most is not the fact she received a wallet. The cop seems to think (or at least avert the question) that the warrant was the problem. The journalist doesn't mention this because this comment is just so clearly ridiculous that his silence is pro…

> This woman is described as a diminutive grandmother for crying out loud. Ah, but don't the second amendement defenders keep reminding everyone that guns are the "great equalizer" that allows elderly ladies to be just as dangerous as a 250lbs steroid addict? This is the logical conclusion: the police treat every arrest like a battlefield operation because it could conceivably turn out to be exactly that .

Maybe they could have come to the logical conclusion that the best way to arrest this woman would be to approach her while she's selling her illegal things again, in the same manner as the first time.

Maybe in plainclothes again. They didn't seem so worried about it during the buy operation.

Re: The Human Toll of Flashbangs

#213

Post by jrmurad »

brazzy wrote: post #130
IkmoIkmo wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> “If she hadn’t been selling illegal items out of the home, no warrant would have been served,” he said. “What you call extreme, we call safe.” The thing that disgusts me the most is not the fact she received a wallet. The cop seems to think (or at least avert the question) that the warrant was the problem. The journalist doesn't mention this because this comment is just so clearly ridiculous that his silence is pro…

> This woman is described as a diminutive grandmother for crying out loud. Ah, but don't the second amendement defenders keep reminding everyone that guns are the "great equalizer" that allows elderly ladies to be just as dangerous as a 250lbs steroid addict? This is the logical conclusion: the police treat every arrest like a battlefield operation because it could conceivably turn out to be exactly that .

Logical conclusion? So you believe, in the absence of the 2nd Amendment (which allows law-abiding citizens to arm themselves), police executing warrants against suspected law-breaking criminals can safely assume that their targets wouldn't possibly be in violation of gun control regulations?

Re: The Human Toll of Flashbangs

#214

Post by TeMPOraL »

happyscrappy wrote: post #211
TeMPOraL wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not "police abuse" anymore, it's police murdering people in broad daylight, for no reason whatsoever (e.g. see that video of a homeless person being shot). And around the whole country, military-grade equipment is widely deployed, to be used against civilian situation. That scares the shit out of me, and I don't even live in the US. Maybe your government is nowhere near Mao or Stalin, but all the required pieces…

Some European's cartoon vision of the US has no relevance to the likelihood of America's risk of being subjected to Mao or Stalin like oppression. It is just laughable.

Well, keep in mind that we the Europeans had a few oppressors in the last hundred years. We know how it looks.

Re: The Human Toll of Flashbangs

#215

Post by wutbrodo »

EliRivers wrote: post #152
base2 wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess police departments (if they haven't already) would be stupid enough to deploy them in a trivial situation. If your dealing with against a threat with a firearm I'm going to assume there are going to be more cops with guns in the majority of the situations. Those are the folks you don't want to set off! So if you can feel a little bit safer in a little ole MRAP you might not be inclined to start a shooting gal…

On the other hand, there is evidence from other situations that when people feel safer, they simply increase the risk level. When people wear seatbelts, they drive more dangerously. Fit airbags; people drive more dangerously. Wear a helmet while cycling; people cycle more dangerously. Turn up inside an armoured tank...

You´re conflating two concepts that are the opposite of each other. The examples you gave are about people putting _themselves_ in more danger when they have safety gear. This is analogous to cops being more likely to de-escalate situations instead of just shooting prematurely (the latter of which is much safer for the cop in general). The concept we´re discussing in this thread is making _others_ safer in the presence of a situation involving cops. The defenses in all of these alleged excessive cop violence cases has been that they were trying to protect their safety and were thus premature with firearm use (et al). The effect you´re describing in essence exactly what we want: cops will feel safer and thus be less inclined to excessive personal-safety measures that are actively dangerous to civilians (like quick trigger fingers).

I´m not sure I articulated that all that clearly, sorry...

Re: The Human Toll of Flashbangs

#216

Post by code_duck »

chris_wot wrote: post #120
[deleted] wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[deleted]

Justify this: "If she hadn’t been selling illegal items out of the home, no warrant would have been served," he said. "What you call extreme, we call safe." She sold some beer and food illegally. The police through a bomb into her house. Real safe.

Pretty typical law enforcement logic for the United States. It's about like, to protect you from the supposed harm of smoking cannabis… We will anally search your wives on the side of the road, put you in prison with hardened criminals, and blow up your babies with grenades. Oh, whoops, it's almost the same topic. It's just more unusual to see this bizarrely inappropriate level of force applied to unlicensed kitchens.

Re: The Human Toll of Flashbangs

#217

Post by 0xDOOD »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #214
happyscrappy wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some European's cartoon vision of the US has no relevance to the likelihood of America's risk of being subjected to Mao or Stalin like oppression. It is just laughable.

Well, keep in mind that we the Europeans had a few oppressors in the last hundred years. We know how it looks.

To be fair, unless you're over 60, you probably don't know how it looks, you only know what you've been told, or what you've led yourself to believe.

Re: The Human Toll of Flashbangs

#218

Post by woodman »

maxerickson wrote: post #182
woodman wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not able to find the BLS methodology used to come up with that $57k figure, does anybody know? Unless they're drawing that from the IRS, I really doubt the accuracy. Cops generally make quite a bit of money from overtime and generous pensions. They also frequently moonlight and get paid well to do very little: any business that employs a large number of temp workers will have an off duty cop hanging out in a back…

They survey employers: http://www.bls.gov/oes/oes_ques.htm#overview (The OOH uses OES data: http://www.bls.gov/ooh/about/occupational-information-includ... ) It specifically does not include overtime: http://www.bls.gov/respondents/oes/payterms.htm#overtime_pay

Ah, thanks. So yeah, I'd interpret the information as only accurately reflecting the results of the survey - not reality :)

You'd think the BLS would be able to get anonymized IRS data.

Re: The Human Toll of Flashbangs

#219

Post by TeMPOraL »

0xDOOD wrote: post #217
TeMPOraL wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, keep in mind that we the Europeans had a few oppressors in the last hundred years. We know how it looks.

To be fair, unless you're over 60, you probably don't know how it looks, you only know what you've been told, or what you've led yourself to believe.

Fair enough; what I know is from what we learn in school, from discussions with people, from my parents and grandparents, and of course in part from media.

Re: The Human Toll of Flashbangs

#220

Post by rmxt »

zo1 wrote: post #206
happyscrappy wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Police need to try harder to ignore the statistics of who commits crime. Just because one group is statistically committing more crime that should not affect their dealing with an individual who is innocent until proven guilty.

It's only a problem if unreasonable, excessive and unwarranted violence is used by the law enforcers. They should use every available indicator of crime in order to focus on problem areas. The alternative means that we're willingly sacrificing safety, peace and security in order to not offend, and that I find absolutely distasteful and negligent. Of course, 100% innocent until proven guilty; I'm not saying we should…

No, there are problems with racial profiling long before things devolve to "unreasonable, excessive and unwarranted violence." What defines a "problem area" as you put it? What is an "indicator"? Am I incorrectly reading between the lines here to say that you believe that it is perfectly acceptable to police black neighborhoods at a higher rate merely because they are black neighborhoods? That is, your "indicator" is, to put it bluntly, blackness.

EDIT: Like any mutual fund manager will tell you, "past performance is not a guarantee of future results." Police policy is barking up the wrong tree if they think that blackness/race are the variables to watch, much like anyone would be amiss if they solely looked at TTM rate of return for an investment option, and that is to say nothing of the positive feedback loop that racial profiling creates. Poverty, education levels, and the availability of social mobility are the variables that should be watched to create sane public policy in the USA.

Post reply on HN