Hacker News Reader

Comment by 0_gravitas | Hacker News Reader

Obligatory 'citation needed'.

In addition, I'm quite personally tired of the "they felt threatened" argument. If we are going to give a person such exceptional power (to make arrests, to search a person, and to carry a deadly weapon) it should be suspected that they act with exceptional responsibility, not fear or recklessness. If part of your job description entails that you have the right to kill someone that is a legitimate threat to your own life, you better be 100% sure that that person is a legitimate threat to your own life before you hurt them. Police officers should especially be held to a higher standard, but for some reason they arent, which absolutely baffles me. How do stories exist of cops effectively executing people who are lying on the ground with their hands on their heads, where the cop not only doesn't go to jail, but they keep their job? How is this not absolute insanity?

View on HN

If part of your job description entails that you have the right to kill someone that is a legitimate threat to your own life...

I worry that you are operating from a misconception here. Cops definitely do not have any special rights to kill another person. Most self-defense legislation reads more or less the same as what you wrote: “...you have the right to kill someone that is a legitimate threat to your own life...”. Police officers have the same right of self defense as anyone else — they are just in that situation a lot more often than most people. Cops are not soldiers and don’t lose their rights as citizens. (Are you asking for cops to be soldiers?)

Cops do have some special rights to restrain people, make arrests, enter people’s property and so forth, just as you described, but killing other people is not one of them.

...you better be 100% sure...

There is only one way to be sure. How is this a realistic standard?

> Cops definitely do not have any special rights to kill another person.

I think you're confusing "de jure" and "de facto" here. Cops may not have such rights enshrined in law, but they don't end up in prison when they flashbang a baby during a no-knock raid either.

I think you're confusing "de jure" and "de facto" here.

Many people -- the earlier commenter among them -- believe that cops have some special grant in law to kill, but this is not the case.

Sometimes judges are lenient with cops; but that's not lawful, and we can't base further laws on stuff that's not lawful.

Cops may not have such rights enshrined in law, but they don't end up in prison when they flashbang a baby during a no-knock raid either.

This is probably negligent homicide and failure to treat it as such is a miscarriage of justice.

Earlier, though, we were talking about a case where a cop is threatened with deadly force or reasonably believes that they are. This falls under self defence. If cops walk away from that, it's not due to special treatment or special laws.

> Earlier, though, we were talking about a case where a cop is threatened with deadly force or reasonably believes that they are. This falls under self defence. If cops walk away from that, it's not due to special treatment or special laws.

IIRC California is not a "stand your ground" state, in that there is a duty to retreat. So even if the cop did have a reasonable belief that they were being threatened with deadly force, they would also have to believe that there was no way for them to escape the situation.

And even then, most state's "self defence" laws require that the defender not be the instigator of the situation.

...even if the cop did have a reasonable belief that they were being threatened with deadly force, they would also have to believe that there was no way for them to escape the situation.

Not that there is no way; just that they reasonably couldn't. Like, once someone has drawn a gun on you.

People must generally retreat if they can but cops generally can't retreat -- they have to serve the warrant, perform the arrest or find the briefcase, whatever it was they were dispatched to do.

And even then, most state's "self defence" laws require that the defender not be the instigator of the situation.

Being the instigator isn't really a clear criterion. Consider the case where someone trespasses in my home, and I approach them and tell them to leave, and they draw a gun on me. I am the instigator but it's a situation where I can (and often must) defend myself. If we flip it a little bit -- I am robbing someone's house and they draw a gun on me -- then I am not acting in self defence if I draw a gun on them. They key ingredient is whether I am acting lawfully.

The issue is not "who started it" (which would be tough for the law to deal with) but rather if someone is doing something lawful in a place where they have a right to do it. Police can lawfully approach and detain people and generally badger them in a far wider range of circumstances than other people can -- and indeed that is part of their charter, that's why we have them.

If police are acting lawfully and someone draws down on them, they are in a self defence situation.

----Edit for background follows----

California is a "Castle Doctrine" state. One is presumed to be acting lawfully when one acts against an intruder on one's real property (home, business, &c). In other situations, there must be a clear threat of bodily harm. https://statelaws.findlaw.com/california-law/california-self...

> People must generally retreat if they can but cops generally can't retreat -- they have to serve the warrant, perform the arrest or find the briefcase, whatever it was they were dispatched to do.
Does the meter reader coming to see how much someone owes the power company not have the option to retreat, then? The FedEx delivery guy dropping off a package? The Uber driver called to pick someone up down the street?
My impression would be that all of those have the option to retreat, even though that will result in their jobs not being completed. So this sounds like a way that cops have 'special rights relating to killing other people', at least to me.
> Being the instigator isn't really a clear criterion. Consider the case where someone trespasses in my home, and I approach them and tell them to leave, and they draw a gun on me. I am the instigator
Actually, in most states the intruder is the instigator. First illegal act, etc.
> Police can lawfully approach and detain people and generally badger them in a far wider range of circumstances than other people can -- and indeed that is part of their charter, that's why we have them.
> If police are acting lawfully and someone draws down on them, they are in a self defence situation.
Sure sounds like 'special rights relating to killing other people' to me. I mean, you can argue that police SHOULD have the right to kill people in much wider circumstances than the rest of us... But arguing that they DON'T have those rights seems to be an exercise in splitting hairs.

Does the meter reader coming to see how much someone owes the power company not have the option to retreat, then? The FedEx delivery guy dropping off a package? The Uber driver called to pick someone up down the street?
No, they don't. With cops though, they are just going to have to come back tomorrow. Not delivering the package is an option, but skipping an arraignment usually is not.
Actually, in most states the intruder is the instigator. First illegal act, etc.
In this, we may be close to a meeting of minds.
Sure sounds like 'special rights relating to killing other people' to me. I mean, you can argue that police SHOULD have the right to kill people in much wider circumstances than the rest of us... But arguing that they DON'T have those rights seems to be an exercise in splitting hairs.
I am not sure how it sounds like that. Does it sound wrong to you if I replace "police" with "anyone" and say "If anyone is acting lawfully and someone draws down on them, they are in a self defence situation?".
What I am arguing is that police don't have a special right to kill in self defence -- everyone has that right -- but they have special rights to engage with people in a way that may lead to conflict.
Where does it say anywhere in the law, that a cop has special permission to kill?

> I am not sure how it sounds like that. Does it sound wrong to you if I replace "police" with "anyone" and say "If anyone is acting lawfully and someone draws down on them, they are in a self defence situation?".
Obviously, because people aren't allowed to kill cops when the cops draw guns on them. Even if they weren't doing anything illegal beforehand.
> What I am arguing is that police don't have a special right to kill in self defence -- everyone has that right -- but they have special rights to engage with people in a way that may lead to conflict.
> Where does it say anywhere in the law, that a cop has special permission to kill?
If the law says "you can kill people in situation X if you got there by method Y (or also Z if you're a cop)" IMO that would be giving cops additional permission to kill. But once again, what's written into the law and what's actually enforced are two very different things, and cops are relatively rarely prosecuted for killings that civilians would be in prison for.

What I am not sure about from the above, is whether you maintain that:
(a) cops have a special grant in law to kill,
(b) or not.
If it’s (a), I guess we should try to find it. If it’s (b), there are some questions to ask around the interpretation of the law with respect to cops.

I bet if I shoot a person I will not be put on paid leave for the duration of investigation.

> Police officers should especially be held to a higher standard
I would guess that people who thought about this longer and harder than you did came to the conclusion that... they are also just human.

Then they should be treated like any other normal human when they execute an innocent person, and receive some other consequence besides paid leave and maybe a warning.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com