Hacker News Reader

Comment by apexalpha | Hacker News Reader

"Police responding to the alert surrounded the home at the address Barriss provided and shot 28-year old Andrew Finch as he emerged from the doorway of his mother’s home. Finch, a father of two, was unarmed, and died shortly after being shot by police."

I'm sorry but this whole article is ridiculous. Yes, calling the police on someone for jokes is absolutely not okay, and he deserves punishment for it. But it seems very farfetched, and honestly pretty insane, that the police murdering an unarmed man is something you should consider happening when you call the police.

The police have the guns, they are responsible for using them. Whether the call is a hoax or not, the police should not kill anyone unless they absolutely have no other choice. If someone is unarmed this is obviously not the case.

It is ridiculous that this article tries to frame some idiot for murder / manslaughter. The police killed the guy. No one else.

View on HN

One thing you're missing is that this isn't just calling the police. The person in the article phoned the police and described an armed hostage situation. These calls aren't just 'X is committing a crime.' They describe a compelling high risk situation to the police. It's totally understandable that the Police go to the call primed to deal with what they're told is going on: a possible armed perpetrator with the intention to kill people.

The police have to go into that situation ready and there's a natural opposition between being ready to react quickly and the risk you react too quickly and mistakenly hurt someone. The other side is the police are risking going in, being too slow to react and getting shot themselves. So it's a very difficult job to do and things WILL go wrong.

When you convince someone to go into a house armed and prepared to kill someone, you have to take responsibility that there's a risk someone in that house gets shot by accident.

This is one of the big differences for me coming from germany to the US to visit.

Back home I can happily approach a police officer at night while drunk asking for directions and expecting general help and friendliness. It feels safe when they are around.

In the US and I am in the presence of a police officer I feel threatened and unsafe, even though I am a law abiding citizen.

They both killed the guy. The guy lied with the intent to get heavily armed people to point guns at someone. Anyone who does this and tries to claim that they couldn't possibly know that the risk is deadly, is either lying or lacks basic reasoning skills.

> They both killed the guy.

A good way to check logic is to test the statements against other scenarios.

> The guy lied with the intent to get heavily armed people to point guns at someone.

What if we apply your reasoning to politicians that lied in order to enable invasions of other countries? Does that mean they also committed mass murder and war crimes? If no, then please explain what is the difference? If yes, then why are the politicians not charged?

What if we apply your reasoning to the same exact scenario but instead of it having been false, this was where there was an actual armed attack and a victim had been made to open the door and then been shot within seconds by the policeman? In that scenario, would you not say that the policeman had committed an act of murder or at least gross negligence leading to murder?

Some politicians are guilty of mass murder and war crimes under exactly the circumstance you give. And part of the reason those from more powerful countries are not charged is they have made every effort to put themselves above international law. For instance, Bush Jr signed the Hague Invasion Act - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr... - to guard against this very risk.

edit - And in your second scenario, that would be negligence causing a homicide. It wouldn't be murder unless there was an intent to kill the hostage.

>The police killed the guy. No one else.

It honestly feels like we're stuck in some bad Nash Equilibrium. If criminals wouldn't have guns then the police would not have to engage with guns, but they do, so their best response is to engage with guns out and ready to fire.

The amount of force used by the American police is literally mind-boggling to read about for a European (Netherlands, in particular). The whole gun culture is so insane.

On the other hand, police got word from an armed hostage (!) situation, so it does make sense in a way. The police can't really say "Oh well it's probably a fake call, let's not engage with our guns."

I'm so on the fence on this one, it's really sad and stupid that we have to have this conversation.

>police got word from an armed hostage (!) situation, so it does make sense in a way

so it is ok to kill a hostage? the police didn't see a gun, and it would actually be very probable that a hostage would be made to open the door.

I understand where you're coming from, but I think it's less reasonable because the caller and the victim (and the SWAT team) are American.

Are you implying that if you call the police in the U.S. you just need to accept that there is a chance that you get shot? Even if you are unarmed?

A 28 year old person was shot dead when he opened his door. In what universe is anyone responsible for this except for the fucking police, shooting the UNARMED guy who simply opens the door at his mothers house?

Honestly we live on the same planet, but in different worlds.

You do not open the door when the bell rings, you go on the floor like any sane person? Im sure OP is lying there right now in a puddle of freedom.

In this universe, if you call the police and say you are an armed man holding hostages, you should expect that you will get shot. The fact that someone was shot based on a malicious false report like this wasn’t even a surprise, for many people. It was literally expected to happen at some point. You are confusing a description of how the world “should be” with how it “is” - he is being charged based on how the world is.

The universe where someone else intentionally coerced badly trained and overarmed idiots into being there and made them think they might be shot at.

> Are you implying that if you call the police in the U.S. you just need to accept that there is a chance that you get shot? Even if you are unarmed?

Well, it happens - http://edition.cnn.com/2017/07/17/us/minneapolis-woman-kille...

> A 28 year old person was shot dead when he opened his door. In what universe is anyone responsible for this except for the fucking police, shooting the UNARMED guy who simply opens the door at his mothers house?

In this universe, where someone called in a hostage situation knowing that a full blown SWAT team would be sent in.

I am in no way saying that the police were anything other than completely and utterly in the wrong to shoot that man.

What I am saying is that doesn't absolve the responsibility of the person intentionally calling in SWAT in the United States because they're upset with someone over a $1.50 bet. With how often there are news stories about plain officers shooting unarmed civilians, you have to know that calling in a SWAT team carries with it the chance of death.

I honestly, seriously don't understand why this is controversial.

That's an easy comment to make from behind the saftey of a keyboard. For a cop, you might get called to something like this [1]. There are plenty of cases where calls get misreported the other wa as well: I knew a cop called to a routine domestic disturbence type situation and walked through a door to a shotgun stuck in his face. He hadn't been told about any firearms or anything and nearly lost his life.

If a person "SWATS" someone, they do so knowing that they're putting people's lives at risk. That's why they do it. IMO this guy should get more than manslaughter. He was trying to get people shot for a laugh (and apparently this wasn't even the only one he had done!).

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout

Reply on news.ycombinator.com