Hacker News Reader

Comment by failwhaleshark | Hacker News Reader

Why is this such a rarity these days?

My grandfather was an AP (MP) for decades and never shot at anyone, despite handling uncountable hairy/critical situations with individuals trained in killing.

Shoot first and ask questions never? Deescalation and self-control should be job #1 along with verbal/social skills to solve problems before jumping to the nuclear option out of fear.

View on HN

I'm not sure about entire departments, but for individual officers, it's not rare. Many if not most police officers never fire their weapon on duty for their entire careers.

For some perspective, there are around a million police officers in the US (https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=dcdetail&iid=249).

A lot of police shooting incidents have made the national news in recent years, but I can think of tens of such incidents over a decade.

Police kill about 1000-1200 people per year in the U.S., depending on who's counting. See for example the Washington Post data. So it's not just tens over a decade.

First, that means ~99.9% of police officers in the US don't shoot someone, so that isn't rare, as the post I responded to suggested.

Second, I didn't say the police only kill tens of people over a decade, I said tens of incidents have made the national news. Only the noteworthy cases make the national news, which is kind of the point here. People's opinions are shaped by the most extreme incidents.

I think we should try to reform how policing is done to improve these issues. But I also don't think it's the crisis that our society has made it out to be recently.

> I think we should try to reform how policing is done to improve these issues. But I also don't think it's the crisis that our society has made it out to be recently.

Perhaps because you don't see yourself as being affected by said perceived crisis. For affected groups, it is very much the crisis it has been made out to be. Besides, shooting statistics are often symptoms of deeper issues that need addressing.

One thing is that the murderers are not punished. They are instead rewarded with paid leaves, pensions etc. The other thing is that police brutality isn't only about murder. There is assault, including sexual assualt. Most are not punished. Even if one gets sentenced, they might get out soon like this fellow.

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/watchdog/story/202...

It's not the deaths, per se. It's the entire structure around it that enables those deaths to happen, and prevents consequences for the killers.

IIRC, isn't the CDC forbidden by law from investigating all types of deaths by firearms?

The CDC WISQARS database contains fatal and non-fatal injuries for many different mechanisms, including firearms. The law you are thinking of is the "Dickey Amendment" which forbade the CDC from spending its budget advocating for gun control. It was named after Republican and galactic asshat Jay Dickey of Arkansas, who thankfully has been removed from influence over national politics by his much-awaited death in 2017. His idiotic law passed out of effect in 2018. Just before he died, in a meaningless act which did not redeem his evil life even slightly, he recanted and called for government funding of research into gun violence.

How would the CDC be allowed to advocate political positions contrary to the constitution, and without congressional approval? As far as I know, it's at least looked down upon when federal agencies advocate that sort of thing, even in roundabout ways.

Different training. Different level of accountability/liability/etc. Cops are not trained to deescalate, their are taught to have commanding control and respond aggressively. And they are trained to shoot to kill. They are also taught to fear a lot, the emphasis is on danger they are in.

And plus, this behavior is rewarded with promotions. And courts progressively removed legal obstacles to the above.

>...trained to shoot to kil.

There’s really not another option. Shoot to wound isn’t an option. You don’t shoot to kill, you shoot to neutralize the threat.

https://www.ajc.com/news/national/here-why-police-don-shoot-...

https://www.forcescience.org/2006/03/why-shooting-to-wound-d...

Shoot to wound is not an option in USA. Elsewhere it is literally trained and seen as option. And I am saying that cause I personally know non-American cop that has it as regular part of training.

There are also such options as shoot as warning, not shoot at all and generally use tactic that is less likely to create situation on which you have to shoot.

Shooting to warn is highly dangerous, you can't just discharge firearms in random, non-targeted directions.

Because criminals have alot of guns

That seems oversimplified. Do you have any data about the trends of gun possession by criminals or gun crime related to attacks on police?

There are also a lot of innocent people being shot too, or the visibility of it has increased.

Edit: also, could it be police are less trained or more fearful than in the past?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com