4 ms·
Maybe we should look at tightening up the rules around lethal force for police officers. The rules are there to protect the officer from harm but according to
by adrr 8y ago
Maybe we should look at tightening up the rules around lethal force for police officers. The rules are there to protect the officer from harm but according to the stats, they are of little risk of harm compared to other professions.
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/04/the-10-most-dangerous-jobs-for-men.html https://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/04/the-10-most-dangerous-jobs-f...
- sureaboutthis 8y agoAs long as we tighten up the rules for offenders. EDIT: I now noticed that the link provided claims the officers did not wake the criminal in the car but the video clearly shows his hands moving within the car.
- rhizome 8y agoRight, because the police always have to exact a price on society in exchange for oversight.
- sureaboutthis 8y agoI always find it interesting when people want to restrict the police but feel that restricting criminals is a bad thing.
- geofft 8y agoThat's kind of how freedom works. If you don't like it, maybe the way that police rights vs. individual liberty is handled in China or North Korea would be more to your liking.
- sureaboutthis 8y agoFreedom does not mean lack of policing and do whatever you want as a criminal.
- Judgmentality 8y agoIt seems to me focusing on eliminating corruption within the organization responsible for protecting us from crime (well, at least if you believe in "protect and serve" as a judge actually ruled police are not supposed to protect us https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2018/12/19/parkland-shooting-judge-school-cops-no-duty-protect-kids/2360683002/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2018/12/19/parkla...) is more important than being stricter on the criminals that don't happen to be wearing uniforms. Police getting away with murder is a much, much, much bigger problem than non-uniformed citizens getting away with murder. I'm not saying this to be belligerent, but because I want to better understand your perspective. I truly do not understand how you could feel that trying to curb police corruption and letting them get away with murder is a smaller problem than trying to go after more regular criminals (who are being pursued by the corrupt cops and justice system). What do you think is the hierarchy of issues and how should we approach these problems? Or to put it another way, how do you plan to enforce the law when the enforcers are criminals?
- geofft 8y ago> I now noticed that the link provided Not sure what link you're referring to, but from context I think you're talking about Willie McCoy, who was not mentioned in either the comment you're responding to or in OP's article. > claims the officers did not wake the criminal in the car He was a criminal? What crime did he commit, and when was he convicted? > but the video clearly shows his hands moving within the car. Do you not move around when you sleep? I thought most normal people do.
- sureaboutthis 8y agoMy edit pertained to the video posted about not waking the guy up in this thread. I guess I didn't post properly.
- geofft 8y agoYes, that is one of many serious gaps in your reasoning.
- sureaboutthis 8y agoJudging by your other posts, I can tell you are perfectly willing to let armed criminals roam the streets and let the police sit idly by.
- dang 8y agoYou've crossed into flamewar and incivility in this thread. If you do this again on HN, we will ban you again. We've already had to warn you multiple times with this account.
- CompanionCuuube 8y ago> He was a criminal? What crime did he commit, and when was he convicted? An officer can have a number of reasons to stops someone, and probable cause or observation of the crime are both reasons. There is also difference between having committed a criminal act and being convicted for it.
- TheCoelacanth 8y agoThe rules for offenders are: "don't do anything that seems even remotely threatening or get murdered". How much tighter can they get?