Hacker News Reader

Comment by ImPostingOnHN | Hacker News Reader

I'm sure that is often the case, and often not the case, judging by the glorification of violence and killing common with police today.

It's important to differentiate being brave enough to put yourself in harm's way vs. glorifying violence. Policing requires the first one, not the second. Unfortunately, while the latter is seen often in officers, Uvalde showed us that the former may not be.

and speaking for myself, yes, very much so, that domestic drone killing was a dark day for the country and a harbinger of things to come

View on HN

So it would be better for, say, another 5 cops to be killed trying to breach his hideout, rather than blowing him up with a robot - after he has already killed 5 cops and injured many more?

I'll admit I can't really understand that logic.

I'd rather the US would impose gun control & prioritize mental healthcare. But since the US seems to have decided that guns are toys that everyone should own, part of the consequences is getting shot by people with guns.

yes, 100%, it's better for cops to be brave and risk their lives to do their job when it's necessary (e.g. Uvalde, Micah), like they signed up to do

given that Micah was cornered, they could have also waited, perhaps even negotiated (they did, after all, trick him by saying their suicide drone was actually carrying a phone to negotiate), but neither of those options makes a big cool boom or sates bloodlust

anyways, any bully can pick up a gun and boss around non-threats while being paid handsomely and enjoying legal immunity for nearly anything they do

it is far better for cops to do their jobs, even if they're scared, even if they die, than to set a precedent of extrajudicial domestic drone killing of suspects. that's why they get paid more than burger flippers.

I honestly can't understand the opposite logic: that precedent is horrible

> risk their lives to do their job when it's necessary

It wasn't necessary, because they had an alternative way to accomplish the goal.

> like they signed up to do

Cops don't sign up to risk their lives. They sign up to help police their community. They are sometimes called upon to risk their lives, but that doesn't mean they should risk their lives when alternatives are available.

It's not an extrajudicial killing if the dude is actively murdering people from a window. Police, or really any random person, are well with the rule of law to kill that person without getting the okay from a judge.

> It wasn't necessary, because they had an alternative way to accomplish the goal

having an alternative way to accomplish the goal is not good enough if the result is the precedent set of extrajudicial drone killings of suspects by police

put simply, the ends don't justify the means

> Cops don't sign up to risk their lives

yes, they do. It's part of the job, and part of why they get paid so much, and part of why they expect to be viewed as heroes, despite the litany of lower-paid, more-dangerous professions which are not

you don't sign up for the secret service if you won't jump in front of a bullet for the president, and you don't sign up for the police if you won't jump in front of a bullet for a child in a school shooting (hence why the Uvalde police have been shamed)

> It's not an extrajudicial killing if the dude is actively murdering people from a window.

he was cornered, unable to shoot anybody, as was previously mentioned, when the police sent their suicide bomber bot in, so yes, extrajudicial killing.

was it because the police liked explosions? was it because they wanted blood for someone who killed another officer? was it because they were too lazy to negotiate? was it because they were too impatient to besiege him? was it because they were too cowardly to confront him? ultimately it doesn't matter, it was an extrajudicial killing, and a terrible precedent

Reply on news.ycombinator.com