Comment by awillen | Hacker News Reader

Comment by awillen | Hacker News Reader

Crimes should be charged more seriously, not less, when they're committed by police. This is only reasonable - any crime committed by an on-duty officer is inherently more harmful that the same crime committed by a civilian, because in addition to the damage of the actual crime, the officer's commission of it also does harm to the public trust in the police and our society.

Beyond that, the police should be held to a higher standard because we as a society acknowledge that they are trained well enough to walk around with guns and the ability to deprive people of their freedom (even those who are innocent - if you're locked in a cell and later not charged, you don't get that time you spent in a cell back). We should be able to charge Chauvin with first degree murder despite a lack of premeditation, because he was trained to know not to do precisely what he did. If I kneel on a guy's neck and kill him unintentionally it's manslaughter, but if a cop does it, it should be worse because that cop should be expected to know that doing so is not an acceptable form of restraint.

So many double standards.

A police officer is allowed to "panic and fear for their life" and shoot me as a result. I, as a private citizen, am expected to remain cool, calm and composed in the face of multiple guns in my face.

Even more mundane things: if I break a law, "ignorance is no excuse". When cops arrest photographers for shooting in public spaces, I have literally heard government officials explain it away as "We cannot expect our police officers to be constitutional lawyers".

I as a private citizen, am expected to remain cool, calm and composed in the face of multiple guns in my face.

Have you seen that scene from the demonstration in Salt Lake City, where MAGA-man pointed a hunting bow at demonstrators? He was taken down and handed over to law enforcement unharmed. The bystanders displayed extraordinary restraint, no doubt because everything was filmed, and anyone who used deadly force would be harassed for the rest of their lives.

We'd like to see that same standard applied to cops.

This is what I read about that event. “In response, people at the protest tackled the man and attacked him. At least 15 people pinned the man against his vehicle to punch, kick and throw things at him. His face was left bloody and his vehicle was looted and flipped, according to 2News reporter Kelly Vaughen“

https://www.google.com/amp/s/kutv.com/amp/news/local/slc-pro...

There need to be consequences for threatening people with a deadly weapon. An overturned truck is mild in such a situation. I'd have expected at least a broken bone, but, no, only a bloody face. Try that with the cops.

This is not unharmed. You clearly knew about the case yet you deliberately obfuscated the facts until you were called out on it. Instead of backpedaling own up to why you would try to distort the facts. This is not to say the fellow with the bow and arrow isn't a complete imbecile, and didn't deserve what was coming. On that I have no view.

At least the fellow still has all his teeth, unlike that physician that Chicago transport cop pulled off that plane.

Still should have at least said something like “nearly unharmed” instead of “unharmed”?

So your definition of unharmed is somewhere between unharmed, and the beating by the Chicago transport cop of a physician on a plane.

We're talking apples and oranges, HarryHirsh, and I don't think you're willing to view this discussion in good faith. Good day.

Wow, that guy is lucky he didn't accidently flag a cop with his bow; they would have beat him with truncheons, pepper sprayed him, then killed him with a blood choke!

No, he's white. He might have been arrested at most.

Now do this one: https://www.theblaze.com/news/violent-mob-brutally-beats-dal...

Only if you do these first: https://nypost.com/2020/05/30/nypd-officer-plows-into-crowd-...

> According to video captured by TheBlaze's Elijah Schaffer, violent protesters descended on the man after he chased looters with a large sword. The man did not, however, attack the looters.

In my world, "chasing someone with a large sword" sounds like initiating a fight, no? Is the complaint that... he lost it? Because it seems clear that he started it.

A meta point: this is why you need to stay away from sites like The Blaze. The guy with the lethal weapon was "beaten", but it's the protestors who were "violent".

I mean I'm pretty sure that hitting someone with a fucking rock in the head with full force qualifies as "violent". I'm sure you wouldn't like it, sword or no sword. Nor would you like to protect your property from looters unarmed.

This comment and others like it reminds me of this gem right here: https://twitter.com/Whateverlmao/status/1267132165935923201/...

Reddit has something to say about this man: https://www.reddit.com/r/Dallas/comments/gu5eal/machetewield...

It thinks he was a total fuckwit.

The article doesn't allege he was hit with a rock unbidden though. It says he was attacked after "chasing" "looters" with a sword. I'm sorry, but at that point combat has been engaged. Every 2A advocate here would agree that anyone in that circumstances would be entitled to stand their ground and fight back. And apparently they did.

So if looters get shot, that's OK in your book as well? Or, if a store owner catches a looter, would it be OK to "engage combat" and bash their head in with a rock? Best I can tell he was just chasing them away, he hasn't done harm to anybody.

If I see someone chasing another down with a quote, "large sword", then they turn and start running at me with this sword, I am sure that in that moment I would be afraid for my life. I think many if not most agree deadly force can be used in direct defense of your own life.

Why lie? The guyt threated people, but was not unharmed and his car was burned. https://twitter.com/MsDBZbabe/status/1266904275785056262?s=2...

> "We cannot expect our police officers to be constitutional lawyers".

If police do not know the law, then they should not be allowed to enforce it.

I would argue no person can know "the law" unless they have read it. All of it. Constitutions, statutes, case law / jurisprudence, common law, HOA bylaws, etc. for every jurisdiction they are in.

I have no expectation that the average police officer "knows the law", but that same problem should not be used against civilians.

It does stand, however, that an officer should be reprimanded for trying to enforce a law where they don't know the law.

I think that is the idea. If people can be convicted for breaking laws they don't know about, then cops can be convicted for enforcing laws that don't exist.

Another good reason to abolish common law.

I'm a critic of all of the foundations of the US legal system, but I would want to know more about the effects of something like "abolish common law" before we jump right in.

I see that a little like someone yelling "let's abolish gravity" without stopping to consider: "what continues to exist if gravity no longer applies?"

I first encountered Chesterton’s Fence [0] in an HN thread about a year ago. I think your comment echoes that principle nicely.

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Chesterton%27s_fen...

I've spent more than a decade working in the courts. Also there is an entire section of the Wikipedia page on common law called "alternatives to common law systems".

Imagine a system in which every time you encounter a new problem or a new variation on a known problem, the only acceptable response is one which comports with what you've done before. That's common law.

A police officer may be required to put his life on the line tens of times a year. A private citizen may have his life on the line maybe once or twice in their entire lifetime.

Violent crime is a scourge on America, with 15,292 homicides last year, not including non fatal shootings and/or other violent crime. As part of their job, police officers are called to deal with hardened criminals. There is a high level of risk involved. Can we stop for a second and be a tad grateful to the people that keep our neighborhoods reasonably safe?

'You've got a split second to decide whether the suspect is reaching for a gun or not. Make a mistake one way and we'll send condolences to your family, make a mistake another way and we'll throw you in jail for two decades. Make the right choice, and we'll throw another one your way next week'. Who in their right mind would take that kind of a deal? And if nobody in their right mind would do, who's going to keep the tough guys from imposing their own rule at gun point?

A police officer chooses to put his life on the line tens of times a year. Black people don't get that choice.

Anyway this is an idiotic bullshit argument in the context of George Floyd. The man was on the ground, unarmed with four police there. That police officer wasn't being asked to put his life on the line, so what you're saying is irrelevant.

> Anyway this is an idiotic bullshit argument in the context of George Floyd. The man was on the ground, unarmed with four police there.

To be fair, that officer was both fired and was arrested + charged, which in my understanding means neither the (mayor? department?) and the prosecutor do not think qualified immunity is merited in this case.

It does drive us to the important point: where is the threshold where qualified immunity is forfeited?

Who cares where the line is? It shouldn't exist.

Really? You don't think an arresting officer should be legally protected against frivolous lawsuits because they accidentally bruised the wrists of a non-compliant suspect in the act of handcuffing?

I'm more interested in hearing level-headed proposals.

> frivolous lawsuits

Let judges decide what lawsuits are frivolous.

Look at this guy that thinks judges can be trusted... LOL.

It's literally their job title, lol.

I'm for removing it entirely. We can build a new legal standard. The reasonable professional standard works fine for doctors.Seems like it should work fine for cops.

> The reasonable professional standard

I don't know much about it, but taking "qualified immunity", which is evaluated by prosecutors and DAs, and moving it to a police organization (expecting police to police the police) doesn't sound like an improvement.

Perhaps it would work if it was coupled with some sort of a complete overhaul in the culture of policing, but I don't see how the "culture" changes from the outside.

As a firefighter/paramedic, I entirely understand the perspective of being willing to put your life on the line for the community. I have attended three line-of-duty death funerals.

There are justified situations, and there are grey areas.

And then there are situations whereby a man will have his hands on the top of his head, be kneeling still in the street. And he'll be shot 8+ times by the police.

I can be entirely grateful to the police who do an honorable job. And to those in uniform who condemn egregious injustices by their own. They are doing honorable, good work.

I can simultaneously have a depth of derision and anger for those who see a badge, a uniform, and a gun as an excuse to exercise their latent psychological weaknesses, aggression, etc.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

Being a police officer is less dangerous than driving a taxi, but I don't see an epidemic of taxi drivers killing people. We need to stop excusing horrific crimes because of the relatively minor dangers that police face.

The occupation of police officer in the US is roughly as dangerous as being a construction worker. Police aren't even in the top 10 most dangerous occupations [1]. So this type of fear is not really justified and probably contributes to the problem.

[1] https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2019/01/08/most-dangero...

Considering the number of occupations that is not really a good number.

considering the comparison to a well known and broad job description -construction worker, the list being used for this top 10 number does not have a large number of occupations. and considering that you clearly undersdand that, your comment is pushing a false narrative using misinformation. and considering that this forum is not a place for calling people losers and purposely dense clowns, i won't.

Yeah, no joke. There are several hundred occupations in the original report: https://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/cftb0326.htm

They likely picked the most dangerous ones.

On the assumption that you are arguing in good faith (which is a core guideline of this site)...

> You've got a split second to decide whether the suspect is reaching for a gun or not.

What are your goal posts for this excuse?

For example: what would an officer have to do to you or your family to make you turn on the officer's actions and demand accountability? It's important to remember that officers frequently demand to see something from your wallet or phone (both of which are located around your belt, where you might have a gun stored).

Also ironic is that police are completely capable of restraining themselves when other officers have guns and when white men carry guns into a state capitol. It's not simply the presence of a gun that police are reacting to.

> make a mistake another way and we'll throw you in jail for two decades.

This is literally the law for civilians. I don't see how you can expect an officer to enforce a law that they, themselves, are not willing to be subject to.

Personally, I think the only question is how much good faith should we give officers in questionable cases of use of force.

> Who in their right mind would take that kind of a deal?

I think every public school teacher in America asks themselves that question every week, but it's still one of the most common professions. People weigh their personal values against the value of their job.

> And if nobody in their right mind would do, who's going to keep the tough guys from imposing their own rule at gun point?

Logical fallacy. The people that are currently officers wouldn't suddenly vanish from the face of the Earth. We would still have private security and parents and teachers and neighbors and business owners and good samaritans.

Police officers are generally very strong proponents of the 2A, whose lobbies love to repeat the mantra "When seconds count, the cops are just minutes away". Without police, the average person would step up and defend themselves more than they do now. Game theory.

I think the biggest problem with US policing in the US is that there are always people who post what you did. It's not a balanced evaluation of what would actually happen if there were more reasonable accountability on police actions but rather "do whatever police unions want because otherwise morale will fall and chaos will reign". Maybe you should consider the morale of the people who see police in their neighborhoods and houses as the same people who are "imposing their own rule at gun point".

You act as though due process doesn't exist. The rest of us have to depend on that so should cops. It's a blank check that we can't afford.

> you don't get that time you spent in a cell back

You also got fingerprinted (and probably DNA tested) and your mugshot was publicly distributed and those actions aren't undone.

I agree. An arrest on its own, even without a conviction or even any charges being laid, can have an enormous negative effect on one's life. Another example is that having been ever arrested, even if not charged or convicted, can bar you from entering the US without going through an expensive, difficult, discretionary process to get a waiver, that then needs to be periodically redone. And it follows you for the rest of your life, it does not expire for example 30 or 50 years after the arrest.

I’ve applied to companies who ask on their application whether you have ever been arrested, regardless of conviction—presumably as a way to disqualify you.

Some countries thats illegal, should be in US.

There are landlords in my area who put in the lease that you can be evicted for just being arrested

100%. It's crazy to act as though a fair trial (even if you can get one of those, which you probably can't if you're black) somehow provides recourse against arrest. Beyond the time in jail, you might have to spend thousands and thousands on lawyers in order to avoid being punished for a crime you're not guilty of.

[1] argues that a second degree murder charge would be more appropriate

[1] https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/05/31/opinion/minnesota-pro...

And we certainly could still end up with that charge, but my point is that the police committing a crime should act as an enhancement to force prosecutors to charge it more seriously. If a random person commits a crime that would be third-degree, the same crime committed by an on-duty police officer should be charged as second-degree or higher.

It's not a matter of proportionality, it's a matter of context.

You cannot say: "Here's a gun, go into that house, physically get that guy to come out, dead or alive, but - if you do it just a little bit wrong, and you kill him the wrong way, you're going to jail forever"

The laws absolutely have to be different for police because we (and that includes you) are compelling them into situations of possible extreme violence, and in some case, constant low level aggression and toxicity.

Officers have to be held to account, but that account is definitely a different.

The argument however, completely misses the point - what matters more is a) the extreme high level of baseline violence in communities which necessitates all sorts of precautions otherwise unnecessary b) guns everywhere and c) just a general attitude towards over-policing and obvious unfamiliarity with the exact nature of how people should be apprehended or not. For example, the fact that 3 officers were on camera while 1 of them was kneeling on someone's neck AND they were knowingly being filmed, means that 'de-facto' it was allowed, ie they felt there would be no repercussions, in which case, the police chief should be out to dry first.

The problem is mass violence, pervasive weaponry and over-aggressive policing - most other things are secondary, if you solve the core problems, much if it goes away.

Surely in most other jurisdictions, like Canada, UK, Germany, Japan etc. the police are treated differently under the law and somehow it works out.

Holding them "to a higher standard" is verbal masterbation; feels good, conclusion is a climax of moral splooge, you even get to nap after, but it sets no defined goals and says nothing anyone hasn't already heard.

Police have immunity because many cops come from military backgrounds, have operated in chaotic urban and rural environments and know how fragile life is, so they formed a union to protect their interests and skins from the legislative, judicial, executive branches and the public, all of whom from time to time looks for the easiest party to scapegoat; the police.

The public, and you especially, need to understand cops are not gun-wielding process-following soldier robots, they are human beings. If the milwaukee cop saved 100 lives in his career and takes one by accident and there are riots, that's one hell of a double standard to set. The first step to a root cause analysis is taking the officer to a padded room for a thorough psych evaluation.

When you end up with a SWAT Raid of someone's house that goes wrong and their chihwuawua gets shot, that's half the story. A lot of the time the reason you only hear half of the story is to protect someone. A lot of the story is, the population is not as intelligent or well-to-do as the hackernews demographic; to a military strategist, shows of force are an essential mechanism for gaining compliance, and they are probably right about that to an extent.

You have a demographic that is not doing themselves any favors; rioting, assaulting people, looting businesses, burning buildings. This is not a civil way to handle the situation. What I find very interesting this time around is the willingness of the public, especially young kids, to take up arms and defend their neighbors businesses and back up the police. That there is the start of something.

It is precisely because cops are human beings that we cannot allow them to operate in an effectively consequences-free environment.

Also; the idea that any cop would have "saved 100 lives in his career" is ludicrous. But even if it were true, it would not justify allowing them to murder without consequence.

In actuality, the pattern we see with Derek Chauvin is more common; 18 complaints on his official record, involvement with 3 police shootings, and never any consequences beyond a reprimand. Until he just casually crushes a dude to death, and people like you are _still_ arguing there shouldn't be consequences.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com