Hacker News Reader

Comment by newacct583 | Hacker News Reader

> the vast vast majority of shootings by police are unambiguously justified

Is that so? What counts as "unambiguously justified" to your eyes? I don't see how this squares. I mean... let's pick "the dead subject initiated lethal violence first" as a reasonable proxy for what you're talking about.

You're saying that in situations where someone attacks a police officer, the police are 1000/50 == twenty times more likely to win that deadly confrontation than lose? Really? They're well trained, they aren't that good shots.

I think the jury is very much out on that assertion. In this era of pervasive video, we're finally getting a look at a decent fraction of these confrontations, and a shocking number are not justified at all, much less "unambiguously". I don't see how you can reasonably assert that all the unmeasured ones must be...

View on HN

The Seattle police department releases bodycam footage of lethal encounters. I'd encourage you to watch some of the controversial ones and draw your own conclusions.

What's been interesting to me is that the narrative that develops between the event and the video release almost always survives the video even though the video challenges the narrative.

For example, somewhat recently spd killed a man that was brandishing a knife. Reports indicated he was shot in the back, causing an uproar. The video footage shows that the suspect was twisting and lunging towards them when shot.

To be clear: citing one episode in Seattle against the dozens and dozens of "less justified" killings isn't really making the case the "vast majority of police killings are justified".

FWIW: I'm in the region, follow these things, and don't remember that episode. I'd be curious to follow a link to that video if you have it.

Edit: I found it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8lebkOR_M4

You are deliberately misrepresenting that video! The shots are fired at 1:06, and the guy was, MAYBE in the process of stopping and turning toward the police. He was not facing them, at all. There is absolutely no "lunging" happening. His arms are tight to his sides, the knife isn't even visible, much less extended. And the shots are fired from WELL out of arms range, maybe 8-9 feet away. Hell, if you told me he was trying to surrender I'd half believe it. I'm looking at this and thinking... sorry, that killing was needless. He wasn't a threat. Or wasn't enough of a threat to make it worth killing him over.

After watching the video again I stand by the description. At that position in the video the man faces them and has his knife arm fully extended before the shots are fired. There is a second perspective following the first that shows this more clearly.

Given he yells "you're going to have to fucking kill me" seconds prior to being shot it's hard to interpret any of that as a surrender.

The other controversial killing in recent memory is a non compliant armed man. The body cam footage is inconclusive on this one to me. The man certainly doesn't seem like a threat because he's on the ground. However, he was struggling and armed with a pistol. They gave him many opportunities to surrender.

I just stepped through it again, and you're spinning like crazy. He doesn't extend that knife. He doesn't face the police until after he takes a bullet in his side. He never got within knife range. He never approached the police.

He did not have to be killed. You're really telling me that we can't ask for three more seconds to let him drop the knife or actually approach an officer with it?

And that's the problem with this logic. You want to allow absolute hair trigger aggression by police officers. And when you allow that, you get innocent people killed. Because the cops can't make that decision correctly every time, and if you train them to shoot first, they will.

This guy didn't have to die. I don't know what was in his head, but I know he didn't have to die.

There's a 21-feet distance supposedly required for a trained shooter to draw and fire a gun before a knife attacker can close in. Sure, they had guns drawn, but you still cannot "wait" until they approach.

And, frankly, this "didn't need to die" perspective is alien to me, and I bet most people. If it was my life on the line, I wouldn't even allow a 1% increase in risk - the guy readying to, and obviously willing to, attack someone with a knife deserves to die. Does he "need" to die? No. Maybe event if he's literally in the process of stabbing someone, it would be wonderful if we could freeze time and just take him to a mental ward. But is it acceptable for him to be killed? Without a shred of doubt, yes.

But.... they were pursuing him! They chose the distance! If they weren't able to safely stop him because they were too close and had to kill him if he stopped (because let's be honest here: they killed the guy because he stopped)...

Isn't that STILL a failure of policing? It's it STILL true that he didn't need to die? Why were the cops' "lives on the line" if they were the ones choosing to engage?

They were not the ones initially choosing to engage. I wouldn't expect them to have sound judgment or impartiality after they were attacked in the first place and fired at with a taser. Again, he absolutely didn't need to die, but he totally deserved it and the cops' reaction is understandable. If I ever attack a cop, wrestle his taser off of him, and fire at him as I run away, I'd like to, in advance, absolve the cop of all responsibility of shooting me in the back. I understand he wouldn't quote need unquote to do it, but it is totally acceptable if he does.

You don't have to be within "arms range" of a police officer for them to shoot you if you have a knife. It's generally accepted that someone with a knife is a deadly threat at about 20 feet or so away, as it takes a little over a second for them to cross that distance. In that video, the man who was shot clearly drew a large knife and turned towards the officers before they started firing.

"You're saying that in situations where someone attacks a police officer, the police are 1000/50"

Are you claiming that it would be "more fair" if this ratio was different? Should it be 50/50? I think not, I assume that at least some members of this 1000 were indeed dangerous criminals, not innocent citizens murdered by cruel police officers?

The question wasn't about "fair", it was about "justified". And... yeah? The police aren't assassins or solidiers. They aren't supposed to kill anyone at all. When it happens, it's a tragedy that is supposed to be avoided.

So when must it happen? Well, when they need to defend themselves, I guess. So yeah, I think that kill ratio becomes an important point of evidence as to how dire the need for defense was. If you come to me and tell me that the police are dying as fast as the criminals, then OK, fine, I'll buy that those are just shootouts. If it's 2:1 in favor of the police, then I guess I'd be OK with that and rationalize it as the police being better trained and more worth preserving. Four to one? Maybe.

TWENTY to one? Come on. That's not reasonable on its face.

They are supposed to kill every criminal that tries to kill them.

It would be better to capture those criminals and dismantle their networks.

No, they are supposed to arrest every criminal that tries to kill them. Sometimes they have no choice but to shoot (and maybe kill) someone to protect themselves or others, but that is not the goal.

The inverse is true though. They are not supposed to kill any person that doesn't try to kill them.

No they aren't. They are not mercenaries. They are supposed to arrest every suspected criminal and prevent those suspects from committing acts of violence. They are allowed to use violence to prevent loss of life, but they are not supposed to kill anyone.

The point is, if every one of those deaths were someone who presented a credible threat and were actually trying to kill an officer, why do so little of them succeed? If anything, they have the element of surprise on their side. Police are often only given little ammunition and training time every year, literally just a couple boxes of ammunition. Anyone just casually going to a gun range every couple of months for fun is going to have more experience than most law enforcement officers.

If they were only killing every criminal that actually attempted to kill them and had the means to, there's no chance the defenders in that situation are coming out successful 20 to 1.

Criminals using deadly force against police probably have intimidation/escape as their goal, not murder. But from the perspective of the police officer, you can't wait to find out. When a police officer starts to shoot, he has essentially made the decision to keep shooting until the threat ends.

Again, the set of actions that would drive a reasonable person to use deadly defensive force is much larger than those where the subject is actually (with perfect knowledge) trying to kill the officer. E.g. a suspect might shoot at cops in order to get away, not actually trying to kill the officers.

Shouldn't we hold police to a slightly higher standard than what random-sally-with-a-gun is expected to do? Isn't that the whole point of having police in the first place: that we trust them with powers we don't give to ourselves?

You're avoiding the point. "Reasonable officer" then. My point is that suspects aren't necessarily trying to kill when they give the police officer good reason to think that they are using unlawful force that that threatens someone's life.

And MY point is that you are applying the wrong standard. Law enforcement policy needs to be aimed at optimizing the net good to society and not making individual police officers feel safer. Because the standard you want leads to horrifying rates of false positives where people end up dying needlessly.

What from the perspective of the police officer is reasonable grounds to fear for his life, is going to be a larger number of situations than those where someone is actually, with perfect knowledge, making an attempt on his life. Or put another way, people do things with (e.g.) the intention of injuring/obstructing/etc. and escaping, but that a reasonable person would interpret as being an attack on their life. If you wave a gun in someone's face, they are in their rights to shoot you, even if you had no intention of ever firing it.

> If you wave a gun in someone's face, they are in their rights to shoot you, even if you had no intention of ever firing it.

That is absolutely not the case. If so, there would be a bunch of very justifiably dead 2A protesters and some cheering hippies. You would NEVER say that about a white man holding a 5.56mm and yelling at someone outside your local state house.

Where exactly did you get that logic? Brandishing a weapon is a crime. Bearing one is not. The difference is squishy, and in neither case are you reasonably allowed to kill someone.

The only reason that makes sense to you is because you have a preconceived notion of whether the person "waving" the gun has a life worth preserving or not.

You took one very strange interpretation of the word 'wave' and really ran with it into a very ungenerous interpretation and attack. I'm not going to engage with that.

I interpreted it, and explained so, as "brandishment", which is the legal term of art for exactly that act of displaying a weapon in a threatening way. I submit that if you meant something different, you're the one who needs to clarify.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com