4 ms·
I agree. This may be because the title used suspect "suspect" to describe the man. Reading the article it's clear the man was committing a crime. He was howeve
by Forge36 10y ago
I agree. This may be because the title used suspect "suspect" to describe the man.
Reading the article it's clear the man was committing a crime. He was however not immediately threatening anyone was refusing to cooperate.
I think a question we should continue asking is at what point does Lethal force become acceptable?
- mikeash 10y agoI don't think that question really needs to be asked. We already have a perfectly good answer: lethal force is acceptable when there's an imminent threat to innocent lives. The problem isn't that we don't know when lethal force is acceptable, the problem is that people keep ignoring the answer.
- whamlastxmas 10y ago>when there's an imminent threat to innocent lives This is way too subjective.
- mikeash 10y agoWelcome to the world, where everything worthwhile is filled with ambiguity and subjectivity.
- angersock 10y agoIn the general sense, perhaps. This case though, with an armed suspect cornered during an active ambush who had been engaging in fire with the police, only a particularly obtuse person (or HN user) would deny the notion of "imminent threat".
- merpnderp 10y agoThe guy was holed up with a rifle and had just been using it to kill people. He was refusing to surrender. Why would the police think that no one was in imminent danger? At any moment he could have started firing at police again. And granted it was unlikely they would be hit before killing him, but should they have to take that risk? Most people would answer no, the police shouldn't have to take that risk.
- lovich 10y agoIf they had time for a bomb, why didn't they have time for tear gas though? I agree that something needed to be done, but the first answer shouldn't always be the lethal option
- merpnderp 10y agoI'm more interested in what kind of bombs they have and what's the policy on use.
- ceejayoz 10y agoTear gas obscures visibility. Given how little we know about the layout, it may be that that would've been far too much risk.
- Kephael 10y agoTear gas would just force a reaction, likely with the assailant leaving the gas and shooting at the police. He would have been killed in returning gunfire but also may have managed to shoot more people. The outcome would have been the same and was decided by his failure to surrender.