←back to thread

242 points LinuxBender | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
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 #
ClassyJacket[dead post] ◴[] No.42169204[source]
[flagged]
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 #
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 #
harshreality ◴[] No.42170022[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 #
jakelazaroff ◴[] No.42172440[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 #
harshreality ◴[] No.42174417[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 #
mrguyorama ◴[] No.42176547[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 #
1. jakelazaroff ◴[] No.42177403[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.