Hacker News Reader

Comment by cwkoss | Hacker News Reader

> Watch some episodes of actual police incidents.

It sounds like your perspective is formed form viewing the TV show "Cops". This is not representative of reality.

106 police officers died while on duty in 2018 (of all causes, not just violence from public - 55 officers were feloniously killed while 51 died accidentally). 986 citizens were fatally shot by police in the same year.

Situations where police are able to survive only because they were able to quickdraw and shoot a criminal first like some sort of cowboy are vanishingly rare and possibly purely fantasy. Is trading the lives of a few hundred citizens worth saving the 0-2 cops in these rare situations per year?

Call in the cavalry when needed, but most cops do not need to be armed all the time.

View on HN

"It sounds like your perspective is formed form viewing the TV show "Cops". This is not representative of reality."

That's a poor and unnecessary assumption. Just in the last handful of years there has been a proliferation of good quality bodycam footage that gives unprecedented insight into police encounters. It would be more charitable to ask where the commenter's perspective is coming from.

"Situations where police are able to survive only because they were able to quickdraw and shoot a criminal first like some sort of cowboy are vanishingly rare and possibly purely fantasy."

It sounds like you may be the one who needs some experience watching body cam footage and reading about incidents. Just off the top, here is a quick refutation of your "fantasy" statement (and there are many more like it):

https://www.bitchute.com/video/obyWX8Wojk6l/

No, I come from a family of first responders. Paramedics, firefighters and cops.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/12/27/police-deaths...

144 died in 2018. 96 already in 2020 and we're not half done.

https://www.odmp.org/search/year

986 citizens, of which 47 were un-armed. Twisting stats to feed your narrative won't change reality.

They're only vanishingly rare in the least dangerous neighborhoods, which incidentally need less policing than the most dangerous ones such as St. Louis, Memphis, and Baltimore.

Yes, armed people threatening innocent lives deserve to be shot and killed. You can't wait for the cavalry when someone is armed and dangerous. If you're police you are the cavalry.

> 986 citizens, of which 47 were un-armed. Twisting stats to feed your narrative won't change reality.

This argument baffles me. Do the Second and Fifth Amendments not exist? Possessing a firearm is not grounds for summary execution.

Come on, don't twist the facts. We can do better than that.

Today I received an email from Coursera advocating for a black transgender man who was "executed". Or, as it turned out, he killed a person and then pointed a gun at the police. Before that, he also posted his intentions on Facebook. Is that your hero?

Second amendment allows you to carry a weapon. You will be shot immediately when you point a gun at the police. Both statements are true and are not going to change. They do not contradict each other.

Which part of that do you disagree with?

You think that in every single one of the 939 remaining cases in which the victims were armed, they were using their weapons to threaten the police? I find it far more likely that in many of those cases, officers were unwilling to accept the risk that ostensibly comes with the job and simply opened fire when they realized the victim was armed. We know this happens; see for example Philando Castile.

By black trans man, I assume you’re referring to Tony McDade. The only account of his killing so far has come from the police themselves, who avoid accountability like the plague, so let’s begin by taking that with a massive shaker of salt.

But even if their account is true, the ideal outcome would have been for him to be arrested alive. Why is it too much to ask police to attempt to deescalate the situation before resorting to lethal force?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com