3 ms·

At what point does the average citizen look at "SWAT death as an option for what could happen to me today" and think, 'well .. this is okay'? I'm not trying to

by mmjaa 9y ago

At what point does the average citizen look at "SWAT death as an option for what could happen to me today" and think, 'well .. this is okay'? I'm not trying to be inflammatory, but there has to be real moment of respect for the fact that Americans are living in a "dial-a-death" state of existence. This is something that many, many social commentators have warned us of, over the decades: the signs of a Police State. Sure, American. Most likely you are aware of the nature of law enforcement. But for those of us observing things from places where such actions as this are a real, honest, facet of the past history: this shit is scary. Like, come on. A rational society allows this? Please fork, reboot, and continuously deploy these notions of freedom under the protection of violent force. This is a paradox which is delivering injustice, broad and wide, instead of narrow and thin. A moment of disgrace.

melling 9y ago
In what kind of society does someone call 911, pretending to be homocidal, telling them they are pointing a gun at their wife and child, that they poured gasoline throughout the house, and are going to burn it down? The fact is there are people that really do this and someone needs to respond. The other fact is that other people think it’s funny, or a good way to get revenge on someone, by calling in a police force to invade their home.
- mmjaa 9y ago
  I think there are plenty of societies which would not have responded to this incident with violent force, and would have checked themselves before they wrecked themselves as a consequence of normal, functioning, day-to-day job responsibilities. The officers failed because the event horizon for each and every one of them was set way, way too high. Before you assume the caller was right, you verify. This thing of "arming for the absolute worst that could happen" is a direct consequence of the rest of society, being allowed to actually procure and apply the weapons of mayhem and crime, to other "innocent citizens". A kid died tonight. It was because there was a tool of violence in the hands of another kid.
- tacomonstrous 9y ago
  Every society has assholes, monsters and others with perverted senses of humor. One very simple objective of a civilized society is to ensure that such people cannot exploit state sponsored violence to hurt people they don't like. The problem here is that the US system is seriously flawed.
masklinn 9y ago
> At what point does the average citizen look at "SWAT death as an option for what could happen to me today" and think, 'well .. this is okay'? The average citizen saw 20 1st-graders being shot 5 years and 2 weeks ago and decided it was OK with that. Citizens weaponising police (I have a hard time calling that law enforcement) against other citizens barely even ranks.
- mmjaa 9y ago
  So you are saying the event horizon for police brutality is closer than that of the citizens willingness to move the goalpost for how violent things should/could/can be? Yeah, the point is, we are really, really beyond the point where something legitimately real, and not just apathetic, should be done about this shit. Citizens need to start asking for disarmament: of themselves, and others. We do not need a society which puts the implements of death and destruction above .. well .. themselves. Nothing we can do on HN will change this. But wouldn't it be an interesting thought experiment to find some real, rational, applicable means of reducing these kinds of incidents? To me, as a technologist, this is a problem that can be solved, "can" being the key word.
  - masklinn 9y ago
    > So you are saying the event horizon for police brutality is closer than that of the citizens willingness to move the goalpost for how violent things should/could/can be? I would say so yes, if you mean that I put the "police brutality" bar lower than the "citizen on citizen" brutality (assuming levels go up). > To me, as a technologist, this is a problem that can be solved, "can" being the key word. Of course it can, other countries have done so in the past, the issue has never been about ability, always will. And in the US specifically, the ability to shoot other people has always been a privilege, only to be relinquished if the "wrong" people move towards accessing it. Every time that subject comes up, I wonder whether the fastest way to get nationwide gun buyback & control in the US would be to have a program massively train and (legally) arm black communities. After all, that's pretty much how gun control passed in Cali, authored by a republican, with support of the NRA, signed by a republican governor who stated > no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons and that guns were a > ridiculous way to solve problems that have to be solved among people of good will.
paulcole 9y ago
>At what point does the average citizen look at "SWAT death as an option for what could happen to me today" and think, 'well .. this is okay'? The same way we get into cars and say, >death as an option for what could happen to me today" and think, 'well .. this is okay'? Something like 30x as many people are killed in car accidents as are killed by police. But the average person worries about neither. Can't worry about everything. Have to get through the day somehow.

by mmjaa 9y ago

melling 9y ago

In what kind of society does someone call 911, pretending to be homocidal, telling them they are pointing a gun at their wife and child, that they poured gasoline throughout the house, and are going to burn it down? The fact is there are people that really do this and someone needs to respond. The other fact is that other people think it’s funny, or a good way to get revenge on someone, by calling in a police force to invade their home.

mmjaa 9y ago
I think there are plenty of societies which would not have responded to this incident with violent force, and would have checked themselves before they wrecked themselves as a consequence of normal, functioning, day-to-day job responsibilities. The officers failed because the event horizon for each and every one of them was set way, way too high. Before you assume the caller was right, you verify. This thing of "arming for the absolute worst that could happen" is a direct consequence of the rest of society, being allowed to actually procure and apply the weapons of mayhem and crime, to other "innocent citizens". A kid died tonight. It was because there was a tool of violence in the hands of another kid.
tacomonstrous 9y ago
Every society has assholes, monsters and others with perverted senses of humor. One very simple objective of a civilized society is to ensure that such people cannot exploit state sponsored violence to hurt people they don't like. The problem here is that the US system is seriously flawed.

masklinn 9y ago

> At what point does the average citizen look at "SWAT death as an option for what could happen to me today" and think, 'well .. this is okay'? The average citizen saw 20 1st-graders being shot 5 years and 2 weeks ago and decided it was OK with that. Citizens weaponising police (I have a hard time calling that law enforcement) against other citizens barely even ranks.

mmjaa 9y ago
So you are saying the event horizon for police brutality is closer than that of the citizens willingness to move the goalpost for how violent things should/could/can be? Yeah, the point is, we are really, really beyond the point where something legitimately real, and not just apathetic, should be done about this shit. Citizens need to start asking for disarmament: of themselves, and others. We do not need a society which puts the implements of death and destruction above .. well .. themselves. Nothing we can do on HN will change this. But wouldn't it be an interesting thought experiment to find some real, rational, applicable means of reducing these kinds of incidents? To me, as a technologist, this is a problem that can be solved, "can" being the key word.
- masklinn 9y ago
  > So you are saying the event horizon for police brutality is closer than that of the citizens willingness to move the goalpost for how violent things should/could/can be? I would say so yes, if you mean that I put the "police brutality" bar lower than the "citizen on citizen" brutality (assuming levels go up). > To me, as a technologist, this is a problem that can be solved, "can" being the key word. Of course it can, other countries have done so in the past, the issue has never been about ability, always will. And in the US specifically, the ability to shoot other people has always been a privilege, only to be relinquished if the "wrong" people move towards accessing it. Every time that subject comes up, I wonder whether the fastest way to get nationwide gun buyback & control in the US would be to have a program massively train and (legally) arm black communities. After all, that's pretty much how gun control passed in Cali, authored by a republican, with support of the NRA, signed by a republican governor who stated > no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons and that guns were a > ridiculous way to solve problems that have to be solved among people of good will.

paulcole 9y ago

>At what point does the average citizen look at "SWAT death as an option for what could happen to me today" and think, 'well .. this is okay'? The same way we get into cars and say, >death as an option for what could happen to me today" and think, 'well .. this is okay'? Something like 30x as many people are killed in car accidents as are killed by police. But the average person worries about neither. Can't worry about everything. Have to get through the day somehow.