Hacker News Reader

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.