6 ms·

The officer who shot him has had no official consequences.

by ameister14 8y ago

sixothree 8y ago
The officer who killed an innocent man....
- maccio92 8y ago
  The officers were acting under the impression the man they saw was an unhinged person who just shot their own father. In this case if you saw them reaching for what could possibly be a firearm many people would likely react in a similar manner. Our survival instincts are incredibly strong.
  - sixothree 8y ago
    They were wrong and caused the death of an innocent person. And to answer your question, I do believe I have more regard for human life than these people. Reaching for something unknown is not a reason to kill anyone. They had multiple guns trained on him ready to shoot at the sight of a threat, which did not exist.
  - guessmyname 8y ago
    > The officers were acting under the impression the man they saw was an unhinged person who just shot their own father. In this case if you saw them reaching for what could possibly be a firearm many people would likely react in a similar manner. Our survival instincts are incredibly strong. Wow! That’s scary, I thought SWAT was trained to assess the situation to be able to react accordingly. Now I’m afraid to visit the US in fear that the police will kill me just because I look suspicious. I didn’t know they were so afraid to the point of firing their guns in fear of being hurt.
    - maccio92 8y ago
      Did you not read the context of the article? The "swatter" called the police and told them he had killed "his" father and was armed and dangerous. They were showing up to the scene with that context... It's not remotely the same as you being a random visitor in the country. Don't be ridiculous.
      - smileysteve 8y ago
        > It's not remotely the same as you being a random visitor Only if op stays in a residence (AirBnb, vrbo, friend's house) that could be confused with somebody playing a video game. > Don't be ridiculous. Unless some other person who may or may not even be in the country (U.S. caller id authentication and e911 systems are lacking) can provide a fiction that would wind up with the poster in the middle. That the police trust a system with such flaws to an extent that they are willing to kill for it is troublesome. Importantly, the man killed was not the intended target; The swatter effectively pressed pandora's button. In a non swatting situation, this happened to a family staying in Georgia. An informant fingered a house for a drug dealer, and the police shot a flash-bang through the AirBnb's window right into a baby's crib, causing severe burns and other health concerns. https://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/attorney-child-hurt-swat-raid-looks-us-attorney-in/137264875 https://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/attorney-child-hurt-swat-ra...
    - dang 8y ago
      Please don't troll here or take threads further into flamewar. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
      - guessmyname 8y ago
        Thank you Dang, I’ve read the Hacker News Guidelines multiple times in all these years I’ve been visiting this website. As a non-native English speaker, I’m not sure what exactly in my comment above is considered “trolling” or “flamewar”. I’m legitimately scared that if I visit the US I will be a target and SWAT will not be careful enough to assess the situation, and instead will decide to kill me based on false information. You have commented —many times— that repetitive comments like this in the website will get a user’s account banned, so from now on I will be extra careful with my comments as to not offend someone that may end up affecting my presence in the community. Thank you for the advice.
        dang 8y ago
        Moderation is pattern-matching. Your comments, to my reading, matched the style of a particular kind of ultra-sincere-sounding concern troll. If I got that wrong, that was a bad guess and I'm very sorry. In case it helps, I took a quick look and your other recent comments seem fine.
  - ameister14 8y ago
    The problem is that violations of the Rules of Engagement in combat are treated more strictly than police killing innocent people. That's a pretty low bar in civilian life, and so shouldn't be the case.
  - scarface74 8y ago
    Cops are suppose to be better trained. He signed up to put his life in danger. The innocent civilian didn’t.
    - BenjiWiebe 8y ago
      Aren't cops trained that their own safety is number one? Or am i making things up?
      - drdeca 8y ago
        From what I've heard, I think that they are. I also don't think they should be.
      - scarface74 8y ago
        Yes the whole “I’d rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6”.
      - soraminazuki 8y ago
        I was under the impression that the number one duty of the police is to protect its citizens. I may have been proven wrong, as you suggest.
        scarface74 8y ago
        It is their duty, but as a minority, I’m really hesitant about trusting police. It’s to a point where if I had to call police to my house if it was broken into, I would let them know in advance that my I’m Black since I live in a mostly White neighborhood and I wouldn’t want them coming in guns blazing thinking that I’m breaking into my own house. EDIT: This was just posted on HN https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/mar/29/willie-mccoy-police-shooting-video-vallejo https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/mar/29/willie-mccoy...
        thelasthuman 8y ago
        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columb...
  - nickfromseattle 8y ago
    The officer was 20m away behind a squad car, shining blindingly bright lights while having a rifle pointed at the suspect. The risk of officer being shot is relatively low. Could have waited until he confirmed he saw a weapon.
guessmyname 8y ago
> The officer who shot him has had no official consequences. As someone who’s foreign to the US judicial system, why? (genuinely asking)
- nutjob2 8y ago
  Because he was deemed to be acting reasonably. That reflects more on societal issues than the policeman himself.
- 3JPLW 8y ago
  The people who would be responsible for prosecuting the officers are the same people who prosecute everyone else in that jurisdiction. Through all those other prosecutions, they tend to develop a strong working relationship with the police force and are typically on the "same side." It's also very rare for police to testify against their colleagues — as you might imagine. That's not the only reason, nor is it always the case, but it's one of the big ones.
- Lazare 8y ago
  The US police system has, and expects, a high degree of police militarisation. It's simple expected that, in the case of a report of violence, weapons, or drugs, that the police department will dispatch a large group of very heavily armed people many (or all) of whom will not be wearing obvious police uniforms, who will proceed to storm the building, often at night, using battering rams, sometimes flash bangs, and at least the threat of overwhelming force. There will usually be some yelling about them being police, but since then happens as the doors are being knocked down, and often while the targets are asleep, this can be easily missed. These tactics were chosen to make it likely that the targets cannot flee, cannot dispose of or hide evidence, and that those who want to resist the police (standoffs, hostage situations, setting up ambushes, etc.) cannot do so effectively. These tactics are also intended, at least, to reduce the risk of police officers being injured or killed. They were chosen despite the knowledge that it will cause people who would not want to resist the police to do so anyhow out of confusion, and that it will lead to the death or injury of targets, bystanders, and pets. So in the above story, the SWAT did what the team is designed to do. Why would there be consequences? The point of these units is to respond to reports of violence swiftly and with overwhelming force, which they did. That causes deaths, usually of the targets (or their pets, of their families) but sometimes (as here) of people entirely unrelated to the target. This is accepted by the courts (and more importantly, society) as perfectly fine. There will be no penalties unless they go way over the bounds of what's accepted. If it comes out the police themselves faked the call, or planted evidence, then that will likely have penalties. But in most cases, mere violence will not. See, for example, this story: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/01/13/indiana-court-overturns-drug-conviction-after-swat-team-detonates-stun-grenade-near-a-baby/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.9c080d12ff20 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/01/13/india... Here a SWAT member tossed a flash bang into a room without even looking, it turned out it landed next to a 9 month old infant. That wasn't enough to get him disciplined or anything, but it did get the conviction of the targets quashed, and even that was really unusual and surprising. After all, there was a report of cocaine and a handgun, so obviously a military assault was needed, right?

The officer who shot him has had no official consequences.

sixothree 8y ago

The officer who killed an innocent man....

maccio92 8y ago
The officers were acting under the impression the man they saw was an unhinged person who just shot their own father. In this case if you saw them reaching for what could possibly be a firearm many people would likely react in a similar manner. Our survival instincts are incredibly strong.
- sixothree 8y ago
  They were wrong and caused the death of an innocent person. And to answer your question, I do believe I have more regard for human life than these people. Reaching for something unknown is not a reason to kill anyone. They had multiple guns trained on him ready to shoot at the sight of a threat, which did not exist.
- guessmyname 8y ago
  > The officers were acting under the impression the man they saw was an unhinged person who just shot their own father. In this case if you saw them reaching for what could possibly be a firearm many people would likely react in a similar manner. Our survival instincts are incredibly strong. Wow! That’s scary, I thought SWAT was trained to assess the situation to be able to react accordingly. Now I’m afraid to visit the US in fear that the police will kill me just because I look suspicious. I didn’t know they were so afraid to the point of firing their guns in fear of being hurt.
  - maccio92 8y ago
    Did you not read the context of the article? The "swatter" called the police and told them he had killed "his" father and was armed and dangerous. They were showing up to the scene with that context... It's not remotely the same as you being a random visitor in the country. Don't be ridiculous.
    - smileysteve 8y ago
      > It's not remotely the same as you being a random visitor Only if op stays in a residence (AirBnb, vrbo, friend's house) that could be confused with somebody playing a video game. > Don't be ridiculous. Unless some other person who may or may not even be in the country (U.S. caller id authentication and e911 systems are lacking) can provide a fiction that would wind up with the poster in the middle. That the police trust a system with such flaws to an extent that they are willing to kill for it is troublesome. Importantly, the man killed was not the intended target; The swatter effectively pressed pandora's button. In a non swatting situation, this happened to a family staying in Georgia. An informant fingered a house for a drug dealer, and the police shot a flash-bang through the AirBnb's window right into a baby's crib, causing severe burns and other health concerns. https://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/attorney-child-hurt-swat-raid-looks-us-attorney-in/137264875 https://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/attorney-child-hurt-swat-ra...
  - dang 8y ago
    Please don't troll here or take threads further into flamewar. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - guessmyname 8y ago
      Thank you Dang, I’ve read the Hacker News Guidelines multiple times in all these years I’ve been visiting this website. As a non-native English speaker, I’m not sure what exactly in my comment above is considered “trolling” or “flamewar”. I’m legitimately scared that if I visit the US I will be a target and SWAT will not be careful enough to assess the situation, and instead will decide to kill me based on false information. You have commented —many times— that repetitive comments like this in the website will get a user’s account banned, so from now on I will be extra careful with my comments as to not offend someone that may end up affecting my presence in the community. Thank you for the advice.
      - dang 8y ago
        Moderation is pattern-matching. Your comments, to my reading, matched the style of a particular kind of ultra-sincere-sounding concern troll. If I got that wrong, that was a bad guess and I'm very sorry. In case it helps, I took a quick look and your other recent comments seem fine.
- ameister14 8y ago
  The problem is that violations of the Rules of Engagement in combat are treated more strictly than police killing innocent people. That's a pretty low bar in civilian life, and so shouldn't be the case.
- scarface74 8y ago
  Cops are suppose to be better trained. He signed up to put his life in danger. The innocent civilian didn’t.
  - BenjiWiebe 8y ago
    Aren't cops trained that their own safety is number one? Or am i making things up?
    - drdeca 8y ago
      From what I've heard, I think that they are. I also don't think they should be.
    - scarface74 8y ago
      Yes the whole “I’d rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6”.
    - soraminazuki 8y ago
      I was under the impression that the number one duty of the police is to protect its citizens. I may have been proven wrong, as you suggest.
      - scarface74 8y ago
        It is their duty, but as a minority, I’m really hesitant about trusting police. It’s to a point where if I had to call police to my house if it was broken into, I would let them know in advance that my I’m Black since I live in a mostly White neighborhood and I wouldn’t want them coming in guns blazing thinking that I’m breaking into my own house. EDIT: This was just posted on HN https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/mar/29/willie-mccoy-police-shooting-video-vallejo https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/mar/29/willie-mccoy...
      - thelasthuman 8y ago
        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columb...
- nickfromseattle 8y ago
  The officer was 20m away behind a squad car, shining blindingly bright lights while having a rifle pointed at the suspect. The risk of officer being shot is relatively low. Could have waited until he confirmed he saw a weapon.

guessmyname 8y ago

> The officer who shot him has had no official consequences. As someone who’s foreign to the US judicial system, why? (genuinely asking)

nutjob2 8y ago
Because he was deemed to be acting reasonably. That reflects more on societal issues than the policeman himself.
3JPLW 8y ago
The people who would be responsible for prosecuting the officers are the same people who prosecute everyone else in that jurisdiction. Through all those other prosecutions, they tend to develop a strong working relationship with the police force and are typically on the "same side." It's also very rare for police to testify against their colleagues — as you might imagine. That's not the only reason, nor is it always the case, but it's one of the big ones.
Lazare 8y ago
The US police system has, and expects, a high degree of police militarisation. It's simple expected that, in the case of a report of violence, weapons, or drugs, that the police department will dispatch a large group of very heavily armed people many (or all) of whom will not be wearing obvious police uniforms, who will proceed to storm the building, often at night, using battering rams, sometimes flash bangs, and at least the threat of overwhelming force. There will usually be some yelling about them being police, but since then happens as the doors are being knocked down, and often while the targets are asleep, this can be easily missed. These tactics were chosen to make it likely that the targets cannot flee, cannot dispose of or hide evidence, and that those who want to resist the police (standoffs, hostage situations, setting up ambushes, etc.) cannot do so effectively. These tactics are also intended, at least, to reduce the risk of police officers being injured or killed. They were chosen despite the knowledge that it will cause people who would not want to resist the police to do so anyhow out of confusion, and that it will lead to the death or injury of targets, bystanders, and pets. So in the above story, the SWAT did what the team is designed to do. Why would there be consequences? The point of these units is to respond to reports of violence swiftly and with overwhelming force, which they did. That causes deaths, usually of the targets (or their pets, of their families) but sometimes (as here) of people entirely unrelated to the target. This is accepted by the courts (and more importantly, society) as perfectly fine. There will be no penalties unless they go way over the bounds of what's accepted. If it comes out the police themselves faked the call, or planted evidence, then that will likely have penalties. But in most cases, mere violence will not. See, for example, this story: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/01/13/indiana-court-overturns-drug-conviction-after-swat-team-detonates-stun-grenade-near-a-baby/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.9c080d12ff20 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/01/13/india... Here a SWAT member tossed a flash bang into a room without even looking, it turned out it landed next to a 9 month old infant. That wasn't enough to get him disciplined or anything, but it did get the conviction of the targets quashed, and even that was really unusual and surprising. After all, there was a report of cocaine and a handgun, so obviously a military assault was needed, right?