Most active commenters
  • jakelazaroff(7)
  • jrmg(4)
  • Rebelgecko(4)

←back to thread

242 points LinuxBender | 37 comments | | HN request time: 1.863s | source | bottom
Show context
BLKNSLVR ◴[] No.42169029[source]
I'm unwisely and unadvisedly wading into this half-cocked.

Swatting wouldn't even be a thing if <any number of logical things>

- Anonymous calls should be treated with high levels of suspicion as to their legitimacy

- First response training that's even moderately appropriate

- Situational awareness beyond what one's been informed by third parties

- Empathy for all humans

- Any kind of notion of that a scenario may not actually be as described by a single anonymous voice

A very (un)funny irony is that there are numerous stories I've read about domestic violence victims being arrested, as opposed to the attacker, which implies there's some level of suspicion in some circumstances about the information the police are being fed. Swatting, as a thing, indicates there's some kind of hero-pressure build-up that overrules any kind of <all the things I listed above> whereby that pressure has the possibility of impending release.

replies(5): >>42169059 #>>42169065 #>>42169237 #>>42169267 #>>42172756 #
stavros ◴[] No.42169065[source]
It's a US cultural thing to either avoid blaming the police for anything, or make excuses for them. Brutal police behavior is seen as either acceptable, or what even desirable. I've seen reddit posts where a protester slightly taunts the police and gets pepper sprayed in the face, and all the commenters were gleefully saying things like "fuck around and find out", without even thinking that maybe there wasn't enough fucking around to warrant any finding out.

When you try and point this out, you're called various names, because apparently you either support the police 100%, or you're a criminal.

replies(6): >>42169146 #>>42169180 #>>42169204 #>>42169352 #>>42169696 #>>42169949 #
1. jrmg ◴[] No.42169240[source]
Around 1000 people per year, which I absolutely agree is terrible - but at the same time, the population is over 300,000,000 so it stretches the meaning of the word to call it ‘regular’.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/585152/people-shot-to-de...

replies(5): >>42169329 #>>42169336 #>>42169423 #>>42169448 #>>42169622 #
2. ganoushoreilly ◴[] No.42169314[source]
This is a mischaracterization of what actually happens in the us. Using sensationalism doesn't help, instead let's focus on the actual numbers and be constructive on how to decrease them.

In 2023 it's estimated police killed around 1,248 people. Notice I said killed vs Murdered as words matter. Out of that only 104 were unarmed. Now without looking at each case or example here, you can still account for the mass majority of police interactions ending in a death, the civilian was armed at a minimum.

Using the data provided we could say easily that 1,248 people is way too many. Hell, 1 is too many. That doesn't change reality though, if 1,248 deaths were related to individuals engaging in crime, this is a causality that you can lay solely on the civilian victim, as they chose to engage in this action.

We can argue how many were crimes, that's fair and i'm happy to throw out and say let's assume 25% were not crimes and really were just an escalated interaction. The bureau of justice statistics gave numbers for 2022 that estimated that 49.2 million people or 19% of the US had an interaction with the police. If that's true, napkin math would put the police murders at .0025% of the interactions, and assuming 333,287,557 million people in 2022 (census bureau) places it at .00037% of the population died by the hands of police.

Some related statistic. Roughly 500 people die from falling out of bed or off furniture, 300-400 die from drowning in a bath tub, 4,000 die from choking on food, 150 die from coconuts falling on their head, 500-600 die from falling from a ladder.

Looking at the numbers, it's very hard to say that police "Regularly murder people".

As for the "Everyone having guns" that's a separate debate, but I would posit you're correct with regard to criminals performing criminal acts, that are armed, increase the likelihood of a negative out come. Federal arrests for weapons offenses were around 8,000 with states being at close to 12,000. Putting that at 20,000 or so arrests per year. Even with those numbers if you're arrested with a firearm, you're still at around 6% chance of death. Again given the circumstances and propensity for needless escalation, these numbers while bad aren't crazy.

There are multiple problems in the US. We need better training and funding for police departments, we do need to weed out the bad cops (as with any field), but with all that the most common denominator is criminal behavior.

All of that said, If you've got data points or information that may be counter to the above, i'd be very curious to see it. I'm very much open to having my mind changed on the topic and encourage you to post it up for all of us here.

replies(5): >>42169365 #>>42169469 #>>42169624 #>>42170172 #>>42172732 #
3. ◴[] No.42169329[source]
4. jmye ◴[] No.42169336[source]
That’s more than two people per day. But sure, let’s nitpick the definition of “regular” because that’s absolutely the important issue, here.
replies(2): >>42169402 #>>42171939 #
5. jrmg ◴[] No.42169402{3}[source]
Perhaps I made my point a little tactlessly - what I meant to imply is that people shouldn’t live in fear of this. While it happens too often, it’s still extremely uncommon.
replies(1): >>42169436 #
6. jdietrich ◴[] No.42169423[source]
It's an apples-to-oranges comparison for all sorts of reasons, but England and Wales has a population of about 60 million and averages about 3 fatal police shootings per year. From that perspective, 'regular' sounds like something of an understatement.

Swatting just isn't a thing here - our armed officers are trained completely differently and held to much stricter standards regarding the use of force. American police do have to deal with much more widespread gun ownership and higher rates of violent crime, but that's only one half of the equation.

Policing in the US is exceptionally fragmented across thousands of agencies, with no consistent standards of training and supervision. Even if there was a clear political mandate to reduce the number of police-involved shootings, there's no effective mechanism to change how policing is carried out on the ground.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/319246/police-fatal-shoo...

https://www.college.police.uk/about

replies(1): >>42169597 #
7. stavros ◴[] No.42169436{4}[source]
The (bigger) problem is that that's the tip of a much larger police brutality iceberg. It's not like the police is 99.9% pleasant and helpful and then just murders the occasional person, the murders are indicative of a disturbing police culture.
8. Manuel_D ◴[] No.42169448[source]
Of those 1000 people, the vast majority are armed and actively threatening either the public, the police officers themselves or both.
replies(1): >>42173217 #
9. jakelazaroff ◴[] No.42169469[source]
> In 2023 it's estimated police killed around 1,248 people. Notice I said killed vs Murdered as words matter. Out of that only 104 were unarmed. Now without looking at each case or example here, you can still account for the mass majority of police interactions ending in a death, the civilian was armed at a minimum.

Does the Second Amendment not exist? Which other constitutional rights do you think we should use to justify these murders?

replies(2): >>42169627 #>>42170022 #
10. monetus ◴[] No.42169597{3}[source]
Can I ask you about the political power of police? Is there an equivalent to our police union? My mayor is downright afraid of them.
replies(1): >>42172171 #
11. Rebelgecko ◴[] No.42169622[source]
That stat includes all shootings, not just murders
replies(1): >>42169839 #
12. kyralis ◴[] No.42169624[source]
If police kill an unarmed individual every 3 days, I would actually say that they do, in fact, regularly murder people.

And that's ignoring any of the armed individuals who are not, in fact, threatening anyone or committing a crime.

And the people for whom a crime may be being committed, but for which "death" is not an appropriate punishment - even ignoring the police being judge, jury, and executioner in a society where we presume innocence and require conviction by a jury of our peers.

replies(1): >>42169679 #
13. Rebelgecko ◴[] No.42169627{3}[source]
The 2nd Amendment doesn't give you the right to brandish at cops (or anyone else, outside of limited situations like self defense)
replies(1): >>42169915 #
14. bruce511 ◴[] No.42169679{3}[source]
I'd add that "armed" doesn't mean necessarily a firearm. I don't know what threshold is used in after-action reports (written by those involved or others), but presumably finding a pocket knife on someone counts as "armed".

Would personal protection devices (mace, batons etc) count as armed.

Call me a cynic, but 104 people being 'unarmed' makes me think the reports in those cases simply lack creativity in defining "arms" and, (again cynically) I expect some number of the other cases the individuals were either helpfully discovered to be armed after the fact. (And in some cases actually provided with arms after the fact.)

15. jrmg ◴[] No.42169839{3}[source]
I think many would argue that all deaths by shootings are murder - even if it’s in self defense, and perhaps especially if society grants more power, in the form of immunity, to one ‘side’.

I didn’t want to open that can of worms. Even the inclusive stat I cited is small enough to support the point I wanted to make.

replies(1): >>42174613 #
16. jakelazaroff ◴[] No.42169915{4}[source]
GP merely said “armed”, not “brandishing”.
replies(2): >>42170207 #>>42174569 #
17. kernal ◴[] No.42169963[source]
You should really qualify what you mean by murder because it’s very disingenuous. When a criminal uses deadly force against a police officer they will be shot.
18. harshreality ◴[] No.42170022{3}[source]
"Armed" is a proxy for criminals being criminals, and almost always reaching for, displaying, or using the weapon in some antisocial way prior to being shot dead.

Legal gun owners not committing obvious crimes are only rarely accosted by police, and shootings are exceedingly rare, and they usually make the news and result in legal action. They also usually involve the victim doing something that's not advisable, even if they're not doing anything legally wrong. Philando Castile, for instance, or Johnny Hurley.

"Unarmed" doesn't represent what the suspect was doing that got them shot. Were they resisting arrest or being noncompliant and reaching for their waist or a center console or glove compartment?

There are cases where police shoot suspects, armed or unarmed, unjustifiably. They're not as rare as anyone wishes they were. They're still fairly rare. Behaving civilly, even while recognizing that many police are like barely constrained wild animals, goes a long way toward ensuring that an accidental furtive gesture isn't interpreted as reaching for a weapon.

replies(1): >>42172440 #
19. brohee ◴[] No.42170172[source]
Going in details on how they were armed would be interesting. How many people with a limp "armed" with a cane...

Pretty sure they managed to sneak this one (https://www.cbsnews.com/baltimore/news/john-fauver-harford-c...) in the armed category

Also dogs are not any more armed in the US than in Europe, yet American cops shoot a lot more dogs. They do so because they are antisocial and know they'll face no consequences (and even if they get fired from on PD, another will recruit them). I'd say there is both a recruiting issue and an immunity issue.

replies(1): >>42171887 #
20. ganoushoreilly ◴[] No.42170207{5}[source]
Armed during a police encounter. I agree we need more information on the stats, primarily what was the catalyst for the interaction? I would suspect though that most of these stats are based on interactions driven by criminal behavior. This isn't counter to BRUEN and current interpretations of 2a rights.
replies(1): >>42172384 #
21. brohee ◴[] No.42171887{3}[source]
Looks like they changed the URL https://www.cbsnews.com/baltimore/news/john-fauver-harford-c...
22. edanm ◴[] No.42171939{3}[source]
Agreeing on facts is always important, because if not, nothing else matters in a discussion.

We should never criticize people for actually bringing real numbers into a conversation to clarify things. I didn't know that statistic, and I suspect many "disagreements" are things where if the actual numbers and facts were known to all, they would actually agree.

replies(1): >>42180093 #
23. jdietrich ◴[] No.42172171{4}[source]
Extremely limited. Police officers are not legally permitted to join a conventional trade union, because of the risk to public safety that would be posed by industrial action. Rank-and-file officers are represented by the Police Federation, which has many of the functions of a trade union but none of the legal recognition.

More broadly, the British police are a service, not a force. A British officer would never refer to a member of the public as a "civilian", because our police are civilians in uniform. They have powers granted to them by Parliament, but their right to use those powers comes from the consent of the public that they serve. It's a radically different attitude that colours every interaction between police and the public.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_Federation_of_England_a...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_principles

24. jakelazaroff ◴[] No.42172384{6}[source]
“Armed during a police encounter” — right, so what? Is there, like, an asterisk on the Second Amendment that says “unless it’s during a police encounter, then they get to summarily execute you, sorry”?
25. jakelazaroff ◴[] No.42172440{4}[source]
No, “armed” isn’t a proxy for anything. It means they were found to be carrying a gun. It doesn’t matter whether they were committing a crime or doing something inadvisable — the point is that if merely being armed justifies your extrajudicial murder by police, then the Second Amendment doesn’t actually exist.
replies(1): >>42174417 #
26. nilamo ◴[] No.42172732[source]
> In 2023 it's estimated police killed around 1,248 people.

Holy shit and we don't fire these maniacs?

27. bcdtttt ◴[] No.42173217{3}[source]
According to the cops. The same cops who shoot people for having wallets and sticks. Same cops who beat Deaf people for not following verbal instructions. Same cops who shoot autistic folks.

Yeah, I don't think "armed" means "was an imminent threat to life" in the slightest. It's much more likely it's a cover your ass designation.

replies(1): >>42174001 #
28. Manuel_D ◴[] No.42174001{4}[source]
No, according to third party police use of force tracking projects: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/investigations/polic...
29. harshreality ◴[] No.42174417{5}[source]
It is, because cops never shoot someone just for being armed. They just don't. It's a combination of being armed plus (believed) criminal status, or behavior during the encounter.

(And it's exceedingly rare that cops will believe an upstanding citizen who's legally armed and behaving civilly is a criminal. It happens, for instance in the two cases I cited, but it's rare. They're a rounding error in the police killing stats.)

replies(2): >>42175353 #>>42176547 #
30. Rebelgecko ◴[] No.42174569{5}[source]
That feels like a weird category to use IMO. People who brandish are armed but not all armed people are brandishing.

More to the point, if you went to your local PDs website and watched body cam from the last 10 shootings, how many do you think would be involve law abiding gun owners with CCWs using guns in a way consistent with the 2nd Amendment vs people brandishing or using their guns in a criminal and/or dangerous way?

replies(1): >>42174928 #
31. Rebelgecko ◴[] No.42174613{4}[source]
Why?
replies(1): >>42177818 #
32. jakelazaroff ◴[] No.42174928{6}[source]
Again, I am not the one using that category; I am responding to its use.

How many were using their guns in a dangerous and/or criminal way? We may never know, because they were deprived of their right to the trial by jury which would have determined that.

33. jakelazaroff ◴[] No.42175353{6}[source]
Why do you believe that? We routinely see police break the law, harass people and otherwise abuse their power, but when it comes to encounters with armed civilians they become upstanding professionals with perfect judgment?
34. mrguyorama ◴[] No.42176547{6}[source]
>It is, because cops never shoot someone just for being armed. They just don't.

So you don't know about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Philando_Castile

replies(1): >>42177403 #
35. jakelazaroff ◴[] No.42177403{7}[source]
They do, they mentioned him earlier:

> They also usually involve the victim doing something that's not advisable, even if they're not doing anything legally wrong. Philando Castile, for instance, or Johnny Hurley.

“Not advisable”, of course, being a goalpost on wheels that allows them to justify police misconduct.

36. jrmg ◴[] No.42177818{5}[source]
You’re asking me to defend a position I don’t entirely agree with now, which is always dangerous…

I believe the argument is that deliberately killing another person is always wrong. It does’t matter if it’s in self defense - taking a life is such a morally abhorrent thing to do that it’s always indefensible. It’s always murder.

Some who wouldn’t go that far would still argue that for police to do it - people who are in a position of power, and who should know there are risks associated with the job of protecting society - is indefensible even if it would not be for a regular person.

Not my position - self defense if you know you’d otherwise die is, I think, morally justified. But I can see the argument.

37. jmye ◴[] No.42180093{4}[source]
The criticism was not about “bringing facts”, it was about pedantically parsing word choices. Whether you think 2.5ish people per day is “regular” is irrelevant to the larger point.