When police kill, what seems obvious on video rarely leads to convictions | Hacker News Reader

When police kill, what seems obvious on video rarely leads to convictions

washingtonpost.com

48 pointsDoreenMichele35 comments

Maybe we should look at tightening up the rules around lethal force for police officers. The rules are there to protect the officer from harm but according to the stats, they are of little risk of harm compared to other professions.

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/04/the-10-most-dangerous-jobs-f...

I wish they'd publish the transcripts of grand jury proceedings. At minimum, the jury instructions.

I believe grand juries are always secret to protect those involved in the investigations.

Kind-of, not really. Prosecutors are supposed to divulge redacted transcripts under the Jencks act in case a witness for the grand jury contradicts himself in front of the real jury.

Prosecutors thumb their nose at this obligation all the time and are very rarely called out on it.

https://outline.com/J2aW3J

There was a great Radiolab episode about this called "Mr. Graham and the Reasonable Man".[1]

It seems that if you're ever in a situation where a police officer is afraid of you (or can convince a jury that they were -- which they almost always can, and routinely get specific, professional training on doing just that), then they can kill you and get away with it.

[1] - https://www.wbez.org/shows/radiolab/radiolab-presents-more-p...

Also related:

"Police release body-cam video of Willie McCoy killing, showing him asleep in car"

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/mar/29/willie-mccoy...

I submitted that here to HN [1] and it was flagged for removal, but I don't understand why.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19530128

Probably because it's deemed political? The topic policing on "controversial" issues is pretty intense. Or maybe because there's a snuff video on that page. For what it's worth, I actually saw that, read the article, watched the video, and upvoted it - and thought to myself "this will get killed if it gets traction". Looks like I was right.

I do think it's on-topic, gruesome as it is - it's the intersection of technology and authority fraud prevention, in the context of flawed systems with fallible humans. Another topic that falls in this category is the debate about voting machines, frequently discussed on HN.

Hm interesting, thanks for sharing your thoughts. I hope HN can learn to accommodate these kinds of articles - it feels important to talk about.

News reports say the car Antwon Rose was riding in had two stolen handguns under the seat, a 9 mm and a .40 caliber gun. The car is believed to have taken part in a shooting a short while before, and Rose had a gun clip in his pocket.

Another rider in the car has been charged with the shooting the police were investigating.

It seems like a dangerous scenario. If my job required me to approach people fleeing from that car, I'd probably be very nervous for my own safety.

You would fear for your life when someone is running /away/ from you?

> While the driver was being handcuffed, Rose and the third occupant, Zaijuan Hester, attempted to evade arrest by running from the car. Rosfeld fired three rounds, and Rose was struck by all three.

Here in Oklahoma there was a police shooting last year at a rural church. An ex boyfriend showed up in the parking lot to stop the wedding and flashed a gun. Cop shows up, ex boyfriend races down the road on foot. Guy is made 50 yards away sprinting full speed, and you can just make it out on the body cam, but he twists quickly and points his gun at the cop, who just manages to shoot first hitting him in the head. The cop was an absolute ninja to make the shot while running, and likely saved his life or someone in the crowd behind him. Long story short people running with a gun can trivially turn around and shoot.

Aren’t they more likely to shoot if they are pursued?

Try running a justice system where police never pursue criminals.

The French police as a general rule (it's not absolute, but it's discouraged) doesn't pursue criminals in the Hollywood movie sense, they use traps and come knocking on their doors later. That's the trick with criminals: they are normal people who occasionally speed in front of a school or crossed the street at the wrong place, they still need a place to live and sleep.

One prime example is that they are instructed to not pursue someone with a car on a highway (it's very common that drug transportation happen on the north/south highways in France), just block the exits or intercept at the toll booths.

We live in a surveillance society (in particular in the US), the police has to adapt, it can save lives.

Someone who is armed like that is not one I would want wandering the streets freely. This is why police give chase. Not just so they can be prosecuted but to keep dangerous people away from the populace.

Fortunately, the Supreme Court disagrees with your rationale.

I don't know what you're talking about but I would quickly lock my doors if I knew such a criminal, as in this video, was wandering my neighborhood.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_v._Garner

Are you opposed to the Second Amendment?

Apparently you think the Second Amendment allows people to run from the police.

Running from the police is not a crime. Running from the police while armed is not a crime either.

I knew you were the type of person who would respond like that.

I am. It's an anachronsitic relic that lets people cloak violence in patriotism.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com