Hacker News Reader

Comment by pessimizer | Hacker News Reader

They don't have to murder people with no physical corroboration of the phone call at all. That's on them. What if it were a legitimate anonymous phone call with a transposition of the numbers of an address, or if the cops just accidentally went down the wrong street? Should people die then, or should we think that's a problem?

View on HN

The have only called 911 twice, once when a neighbor was waving a pistol around yelling at his wife (cops came, de-escalated things a little, then left - better than shooting someone clearly, if not exactly perfect). The other time I saw smoke pouring out from under the eaves of the house across the street - in that case, the firefighters roared up, jumped out, and busted in my front door (in spite of the fact there wasn't any smoke or flames) so I clearly see why people are worried about first responders charging in without understanding the situation.

I'm sorry but the mental image looking out your front door as a firefighter kicks it down, an ignored building happily in flames over their shoulder, is way too funny.

Reminds me of Captain Hindsight from South Park, where he flies over to the burning building and clarifies all the (in hindsight super obvious) structural flaws in the building leading to the fire and everyone being trapped in a burning building. Then flies away amidst they cheers of onlookers and trapped victims alike.

I called 911 when I found my ex after a suicide attempt.

One of the cops that responded tried to blame me.

Not sure why you're being downvoted. Your experience isn't unique, sadly.

The closest I've ever been to being arrested was when I had to call the cops because I got robbed while at work.

They had footage of another person entering the store and then sprinting out, but the 17 year old nerdy kid was a much easier target.

Never again.

Police don't just go in guns blazing with their eyes closed. It's a very high-pressure situation because police are running in fully expecting to get shot at. They don't know if they're going to end up in a situation like [1] or if this is just a prank.

In the end it's a really crappy situation for everyone. Police have to be super alert and are likely jumpy because they expect to be shot dead if they aren't the first to pull the trigger.

Personally I don't really blame the police. Rather I blame the phone industry for giving these callers way too much anonymity. It should be trivial to trace a 911 call to a real paying phone customer. That would make swatting a lot less attractive (assuming it carried a very heavy punishment too).

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ODn6wuuVsU

> Police don't just go in guns blazing with their eyes closed

In the Breonna Taylor incident [0], their eyes weren't closed, but they may as well have been:

> Police then fired 32 rounds into the apartment... Cosgrove fired 16 shots from the doorway area... Hankison fired 10 times from outside through a sliding glass door and bedroom window, both of which were covered by blinds or curtains... The officers' shots hit objects in the living room, dining room, kitchen, hallway, bathroom, and both bedrooms.

Now, granted that situation was out of the norm because an occupant of the apartment fired a shot first, since he thought they were being burgled and the police neglected to announce their presence. But that's exactly the kind of situation that could happen in a SWAT raid. Most victims of SWATTing don't expect police to show up to their door, so if they're someone who owns a firearm and they hear a loud bang at the door, they may quite rightfully fire a shot at it in self defense, just like happened in the Taylor residence.

The main lesson there is that it's up to police to properly announce themselves (no-knock raids should never be used in response to an emergency distress call such as the kind that triggers a SWATTing). But even if they announce themselves and receive fire in return, I'd argue they should at least make sure they've sighted a target before they pull the trigger, rather than indiscriminately shooting a volley of bullets through a window like they're some kind of gangster doing a drive by.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Breonna_Taylor#Shoo...

This reads an assasination attempt by a drug cartel. Which part of this is 'trained proffeshionals'? Which part is reasonable use of force, or restrain to make sure you don't kill rand9m innocent people nearby?

In this event, it wasn't the actual SWAT, the team in the police department assigned and trained to carry out this type of thing. Instead it was drug detectives who evidently wanted the chance to go out and play army. The whole thing was run with an appalling lack of common sense or adherence to their own written policies and it points to a breakdown of discipline within the department.

"likely jumpy because they expect to be shot dead if they aren't the first to pull the trigger."

Their job has risks, they can't just starting shooting first and asking questions because of fear.

How many police die on the job vs how many people they kill on the job?

Here's one answer: Police are 20.8 times more likely to kill than be killed (https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/aug/27/chris-lars...)

It seems like there's a point there somewhere but I don't get it. The recent Texas mall shooter was shot and killed by the police after he had shot 15 people. Based on the stats, the police would be infinitely more likely to kill than be killed. Was it then wrong to shot him? Did the police not risk his life by running towards the perpetrator? It's obvious that people try to make a point, but I don't get it.

I just found the answer. I haven't really formed any solid opinion on it. I have no idea what a good K/D ratio for police would be, or how useful that information even is. I'd rather have stats for things like the number of innocent people that were killed, or how many people were killed unnecessarily innocent or not, or the number killed while in custody or while being restrained, etc.

If the idea is to demonstrate that police work isn't as dangerous as many people think, the fact that police aren't killed on the job as often as grubhub drivers or crossing guards or garbage collectors should make that clear enough. For at least the first two years of the pandemic the number one killer of police was covid. Typically most police die on the job in car accidents. Police are called on to encounter dangerous or uncertain situations, but they are also (supposed to be) trained for exactly that. That's the job. Ideally, none of them would die on the job and they wouldn't kill anyone either.

It's a bit hard to get data about how many innocent people were killed.

The USA is the country that defines any adult male died in a drone strike as a terrorist. If the same criteria is applied to the police, the official number would have nothing to do with the real number.

> Police have to be super alert and are likely jumpy because they expect to be shot dead if they aren't the first to pull the trigger.

they are not even in the top 20 most dangerous jobs in america.

I'm pretty sure police are more likely to be shot than any other occupation. Logging is the most dangerous occupation of all, but I don't think any of them die from bullets. In contrast, police lives are at risk in brief high-stakes incidents that might require them to use a gun, or not use it, to save their own lives. All the other highly dangerous jobs involve pretty different risk models.

But that's why training of police is so important, and we as a society need to hold them to an incredibly high standard. But I think it's silly to tell police they shouldn't be jumpy because their occupation is safer than logging/fishing/piloting/roofing/etc.

> But that's why training of police is so important, and we as a society need to hold them to an incredibly high standard.

I agree they should be trained better and held to a high standard but they simply are not.

>I'm pretty sure police are more likely to be shot than any other occupation.

I'm pretty sure gangsters and drug dealers are the most likely to be shot than any other occupation in the US as they make up the bulk of firearm deaths after accounting for suicides.

And you would be wrong. Food service and retail workers are the most likely to be murdered on the job in the US. [1]

[1] https://neuhoffmediaspringfield.com/2021/03/24/study-jobs-yo...

There's no mention of the data being adjusted per capita?

Well then police officers don't even break no. 2 per capita[1] (they're no. 22)

[1] https://www.ishn.com/articles/112748-top-25-most-dangerous-j...

To your original point, from that link seems like fast food workers don’t even make the top 25 when it’s per capita. The fast food worker stat seems irrelevant but agree there’s many more dangerous occupations than police.

From a simple technical perspective, it seems like something like a more targeted amber alert would be feasible.

Is this one of those fabled edge compute use cases?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com