Comment by slantedview | Hacker News Reader

Comment by slantedview | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I listened to the This American Life story [1] that went along with this NYT piece. In it they interviewed a hospital worker who pointed out that he and other workers regularly deal with the same imbalanced individuals that police deal with. They get hit. They get attacked. It is part of their jobs. What they don't do is fire weapons at their patients, nor do they carry weapons.

If relatively low-paid, relatively unprotected hospital workers are "tough" enough to deal with difficult and dangerous hospital patients without using violence, why aren't the police? Unfortunately our laws have made it too easy for police to use violence against people in difficult situations where others in the exact same situation could not or would not use violence. These laws even go so far as to protect police who use absolutely brutal violence to injure or kill individuals who really just need medical care, such as Kelly Thomas [2].

[1]: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/579/m...

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Kelly_Thomas#Incident

I don't live in the US, but here's a story from Israel: a doctor I personally know was threatened by a relative of her patient, along the lines of "if he doesn't get well, I'll kill you." She told that to the police, who asked for the relative's name, and having heard the name, told her "be careful - this guy can actually kill you."

All is well (I guess the patient recovered), but I'm not sure she'd call herself "tough enough to deal with dangerous patients without using violence"!

The implication was mafia or mossad -- or some other group above the law?

Seriously - what do you think? If it was in the US, what would you bet on - it being a guy from the mafia or from the CIA? "Mafia", obviously (or whatever you'd call Israel's somewhat-organized criminals.)

It's not about "being above the law", either, it's about the criminal being better protected by the law, in this instance, than the victim. The policeman likely told her the truth - that no action taken against this guy based on her reported threat is going to deter him from fulfilling it, likely the reverse, so she better be careful.

Perhaps it was the word choice: "can" implies that the killing would not be punished. Obviously any person can kill another, so to say "can kill" suggests a "license to kill". If I were a policeman warning someone about a criminal, I would say "might kill" or some other phrase that discusses likelihood rather than capability.

Well, yeah, but if a guy from the CIA murders a doctor in the US, will he be punished? I kinda think he will be. Is he likely to threaten a doctor with murder in the first place, as a way to ensure his relative is properly treated? I kinda think he's not. Why do you think a guy from the mossad is any different or will be treated any differently? Would you ever put "CIA" in the same sentence where you put "mossad" in your comment if the story happened in the US?

Because I can't imagine a policeman ever saying "he can kill you" except in a fictional setting where James Bond is licensed to kill and that policeman somehow knows about Bond.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com