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

81–90 of 247 posts

Re: Texas police want uvalde bodycam footage suppressed

#81

Post by the_only_law »

kube-system wrote: post #66
jjulius wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you don't want to find yourself in harm's way, don't become a police officer. Legally required or not, they knew the risks when they signed up, they knew what they were trained to do, and then they... didn't.

This is just unreasonable. Humans have a natural desire to preserve their own lives. First responders aren't any different. The idea that first responders are superheros is a fallacious trope. The vast majority of police never use their gun over their entire career.

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.

Re: Texas police want uvalde bodycam footage suppressed

#82

Post by threatofrain »

ALittleLight wrote: post #77
threatofrain wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In this case you would've needed enough guns to subdue the police, as the police were threatening to taser and arrest parents who wanted to save their kids. There's sufficient consensus on both the stronger/weaker gun control sides to agree that police are the most tactically equipped to deal with an ongoing crime, and that you should not interfere with professionals who are already at the scene.

Saying that you shouldn't interfere with an ongoing crime implicitly assumes the police are doing something about the crime and not just watching children be murdered. Best case is parents stand back while the police engage - but if the police aren't doing that then all bets are off.

The police were doing something. They were threatening the parents with tasers and arrests if they interfered. Does "all bets are off" mean that parents should have enough tactical force to subdue the police? In evaluating potential scenarios, is a shootout with the police on the table of possibilities?

The police even threaten parents with obstruction of justice and violating probation for merely talking to the media about running into the school.

Re: Texas police want uvalde bodycam footage suppressed

#83

Post by jjulius »

kube-system wrote: post #66
jjulius wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you don't want to find yourself in harm's way, don't become a police officer. Legally required or not, they knew the risks when they signed up, they knew what they were trained to do, and then they... didn't.

This is just unreasonable. Humans have a natural desire to preserve their own lives. First responders aren't any different. The idea that first responders are superheros is a fallacious trope. The vast majority of police never use their gun over their entire career.

If you're not willing to put your life at risk, you should not be a first responder. Plain and simple.

Re: Texas police want uvalde bodycam footage suppressed

#84

Post by ceejayoz »

kube-system wrote: post #66
jjulius wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you don't want to find yourself in harm's way, don't become a police officer. Legally required or not, they knew the risks when they signed up, they knew what they were trained to do, and then they... didn't.

This is just unreasonable. Humans have a natural desire to preserve their own lives. First responders aren't any different. The idea that first responders are superheros is a fallacious trope. The vast majority of police never use their gun over their entire career.

Putting themselves in harms way is the deal. It’s why they get to retire over a decade earlier than the rest of us with a nice pension. It’s why they get qualified immunity for a whole bunch of actions.

They aren’t holding up their side of the deal here.

Re: Texas police want uvalde bodycam footage suppressed

#85

Post by GloriousKoji »

donmcronald wrote: post #48
Arrath wrote: post #2

I think the 'weakness' of their response is plainly obvious. If criminals can find advantages in this footage, its an opportunity to overhaul training programs and response plans. The training and response was woefully inadequate for this crisis, after all. There should be no reasonable reality in which the release of this footage is suppressed. This is an undeniable tragedy, battening down the hatches and obstinatel…

I think the problem is that no one wants to take the blame for being wrong or unprepared and the media won't pass up an opportunity to sensationalize mistakes as incompetency, maliciousness, etc.. I wish more of the world could function like the culture adopted by the western airline industry where every incident and investigation is treated as an opportunity to learn and improve the system rather than an opportunity…

> I wish more of the world could function like the culture adopted by the western airline industry where every incident and investigation is treated as an opportunity to learn and improve the system rather than an opportunity to lay blame.

If the airline industry had kept that culture we wouldn't have had so many incidents with the Boeing 737 MAX.

Re: Texas police want uvalde bodycam footage suppressed

#86

Post by doodlebugging »

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 a colleague escapes prosecution for criminal acts by hiding behind a badge or a brotherhood of LEO is about as chickenshit as it gets.

Re: Texas police want uvalde bodycam footage suppressed

#87

Post by wbl »

emmelaich wrote: post #41
jjulius wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>They maintained control with minimal personal risk to themselves. From a "policing realism" perspective that's exactly what police do. Preventing or ending any sort of crime or violence is optional at that point, and they opted not to. Absolutely untrue, and has been for decades. Their hesitation to react and go in is the complete opposite of what they were trained to do, which is go in and eliminate the threat imme…

For a fair assessment, also read the interview with the police chief: https://www.texastribune.org/2022/06/09/uvalde-chief-pete-ar... In particular he did bring a radio but decided to remove it. Read the article for why.

Why didn't he make sure his radio worked for him?

Re: Texas police want uvalde bodycam footage suppressed

#89

Post by troon-lover »

markovbot wrote: post #15
EricE wrote: post #10

It sort of blows up the whole pro gun control argument that citizens shouldn't be expected to have to protect themselves but instead rely on law enforcement :p

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?

No post body was provided.

Re: Texas police want uvalde bodycam footage suppressed

#90

Post by falcolas »

insightcheck wrote: post #32
SrslyJosh wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If by "chastised" you mean "threatened to tase", yep. They're also retaliating against one woman who went in to save her own kids. IIRC, she's on probation and they're trying to take her kids away now.

For the original source, a mother first told this to CBS News in a video interview: https://www.cbsnews.com/video/mother-who-ran-into-texas-scho... Online publication "The Root" paraphrased this (source: https://www.theroot.com/uvalde-mom-who-saved-her-children-sa... ) as: "Angeli Rose Gomez told CBS News that she was informed that if she continues to talk to media about her fearless actions, she would be charged wit…

Thankfully, a judge nixed that threat. Still, that the threat was even made in the first place is disgusting.

"But Gomez said the judge overseeing her probation told her she did not face new legal problems and that her bravery would be rewarded with a shortened probation."

https://nypost.com/2022/06/04/angeli-gomez-says-she-was-thre...

Post reply on HN