Hacker News Reader

Comment by hn_throwaway_99 | Hacker News Reader

> Recently Georgia police killed an environmental activist protesting the construction of Cop City:

I mean, thanks for the link I guess, but I'd say this sentence leaves out some very important details. Namely, that the cops are claiming that this person shot and seriously wounded a cop first.

To be clear, your linked article explains how it's not really clear yet what the sequence of events were, or if the person actually shot a cop. But I'd put it like this:

1. If the person did shoot the cop first, I have no problems with the other cops opening fire.

2. If the person did not shoot the cop first, then the cops should face severe legal charges.

Since the facts on the ground are not yet known, I'll withhold judgment.

View on HN

With the existence of qualified immunity, American cops are immune to #2. They should but they won’t.

I know what qualified immunity is, but your statement is easily provably false given that there are many instances where cops have been found guilty for assault, unlawful killing or excessive force.

I'm not arguing it's as easy as proving it for a civilian (after all, as part of their job cops are allowed to use force under particular circumstances), but these black-and-white statements like "They should but they won’t" just show to me how uninterested people are listening to anything that may change their opinion.

Many is relative to the amount of illegal police activity. Depending on your perspective, that is not nearly enough and so saying they won’t be charged is perfectly warranted.

That you posted this shows a lack of interest by you to look into the other perspective, and that you’d rather be pedantic and dismissive than acknowledge their viewpoint.

> That you posted this shows a lack of interest by you to look into the other perspective, and that you’d rather be pedantic and dismissive than acknowledge their viewpoint.

Sorry, not going to let that BS slide. I was referring to a comment that said "With the existence of qualified immunity, American cops are immune to #2. They should but they won’t." It's not "being pedantic" to point out that comment makes absolutely no sense, given (a) qualified immunity isn't even relevant in criminal cases, and (b) they are making a blanket statement with no concern for the actual facts of the situation.

No. Qualified immunity is about immunity from lawsuits for damages; it has nothing to do with criminal prosecution.

The thing preventing cops from being brought on charges is, the vast majority of the time, an uncooperative DA. qualified immunity is a complete red herring.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com