8 ms·

Alas, even in smoking gun cases, it takes decades of wrangling to put the dogs down, imprisoning them in hellhole prisons at enormous expense, fattening the law

Alas, even in smoking gun cases, it takes decades of wrangling to put the dogs down, imprisoning them in hellhole prisons at enormous expense, fattening the lawyers with endless rounds of appeals based on flimsy technicalities. I wonder if many cases of officer-involved shootings aren't a side-effect of this, a short-circuiting of the justice system. For instance, I find it nothing short of miraculous that the Tsarnaev brother was taken alive, rather than winding up with a few bullets "resisting arrest."

zimpenfish 7y ago
> I find it nothing short of miraculous that the Tsarnaev brother was taken alive I mean, there is an obvious reason.
- tyingq 7y ago
  Now I'm curious. They did shoot quite a lot of rounds[1] into the boat he was hiding in. I can't think of any reason other than luck. [1]https://pixel.nymag.com/imgs/daily/intelligencer/2013/04/22/22-watertown-boat.w700.h700.jpg https://pixel.nymag.com/imgs/daily/intelligencer/2013/04/22/...
  - credit_guy 7y ago
    To me the obvious reason is the null hypothesis: in the US law enforcement officers don't actually have the standard operating procedure of "putting a few bullets" in people for "resisting arrest". The alternative hypothesis is a double conspiracy theory, that they are generally cold blooded killers, but in this case for some whatever reasons, they didn't shoot the Boston bomber, but rather they kept him alive to make an example out of him? I don't know, this doesn't pass any type of smell test to me.
    - tyingq 7y ago
      "they didn't shoot the Boston bomber, but rather they kept him alive to make an example out of him" Yeah, doesn't pass the smell test for me either. 110+ bullets in that boat, and the guy wasn't far from dead when they brought him to the hospital.
  - imtringued 7y ago
    No the reason is basically that he didn't move. If SWAT is on your front lawn and you walk out the front door expect a swift death even if you are innocent and completely unarmed. Curl down and hide in a way that makes you completely defenseless? Well first of all they don't have 5 marksmen pointing their gun at you in anticipation because they have to find you first and second they actually have an opportunity to arrest you because you're not running away from them.
    - tyingq 7y ago
      I was citing "reason" as in "reason he was taken alive". I said luck, because not much beyond plain luck allows you to survive 110+ rounds fired into the relatively small fiberglass boat you are hiding in. Not moving might have helped, but there's still quite a but of luck there. He had at least three serious bullet wounds.
- umanwizard 7y ago
  Can you elaborate, instead of making other people guess at what you think is obvious?
  - dsfyu404ed 7y ago
    That reason is simply failure. They peppered a house trying to shoot him then shot up the boat he was in yet failed to actually shoot him. The reputation police have for poor marksmanship and giving zero fucks for what is behind their target (I can't stress enough how irresponsible this is for a civilian police force operating in urban environments) is well deserved.
    - stirfrykitty 7y ago
      My guess is that because the Russians actually warned of him and his family, yet the US failed to act upon that intel means that perhaps we wanted a favor in return or to use him for something else politically. Happens all the time.
    - dsfyu404ed 7y ago
      Very interesting to see that this was up-voted (+8) during the hours where only the east coast was online but now that the west coast (the other timezone with a bunch of HN users) is online it is down-voted. I guess the national news only covered the "we got'em boys" official statements.
- dsfyu404ed 7y ago
  >I mean, there is an obvious reason. That "obvious reason" is a level of marksmanship and organizational competency that makes cell phone video coming out of Syria look like a documentary about an elite fighting force. The previous time they tried to shoot him all they did was pepper a house in an upscale neighborhood. Then there was the friendly fire thing. They also peppered the boat pretty good. It's not like they didn't try. They tried to shoot him several times and they failed. And that's just the tip of the stupidity iceberg when it comes to the Boston bombing. The worst part is they basically proclaimed victory on something that was a textbook failure at every step and the people of MA are so devoid of critical thinking skills that they mostly bought it. Edit: replaced "brainwashed" with "devoid of critical thinking skills" because the former gives the government too much credit.
WAHa_06x36 7y ago
How many innocent people do you figure it is reasonable to execute, say, per year?
- peteretep 7y ago
  This needs qualifying with "vs subjecting to death row", where the average tenure is 15 years. I think I'd personally rather a speedy execution for a crime that I didn't do rather than 15 years on death row and then exoneration. In addition: 25% of death row prisoners die of natural causes (via Wikipedia). I think if I supported the death penalty, I think I'd be comfortable finding out that 5% of executions were of innocent people. If I was religious, I'd be willing to accept a much higher number.
  - rfrey 7y ago
    That position is appalling to me, but I’m impressed by your intellectual honesty and how you answer the question head on.
    - peteretep 7y ago
      I am always mildly surprised to find out how much my opinion on the sanctity of life (eg: a low regard for such) differs from other people's. Making someone suffer unnecessarily seems unconscionable to me, where being dead doesn't seem like a huge big deal.
      - imtringued 7y ago
        So you're saying if you torture someone until they hit the breaking point it is morally the right thing to kill them? Some people's tolerance level is much lower than torture. Would it be acceptable to kill rape victims? After all, being dead doesn't seem like a huge big deal.
        peteretep 7y ago
        I'm not sure I really follow your reasoning in any of those, sorry. What I will say is: I firmly believe the dead do not care that they're dead, are explicitly not suffering, and that we're all going to die. The suffering associated with death is the suffering associated with the survivors and the suffering in being told you're going to die.
nkrisc 7y ago
How smoking does the smoking gun have to be to justify extra-judicial execution? Do they just have to look mostly guilty? Do you at least get a chance to explain yourself?
- stirfrykitty 7y ago
  Let's be honest here for a moment. Look at the monsters like drug dealers. Everyone knows for a fact they are doing it. I'm talking crime boss types, not some thug on a street corner. Guys like Pablo Escobar. Colombia could have gotten him far sooner. Nothing like a few tier-one operators with knowledge of his comings and goings and they could take care of it. This is not extra-judicial in my mind. The state can sanction the taking of life without a court hearing for absolutely evil people. People like Pablo Escobar, and there are many like him just south of the US. They pay off the police to look the other way. Ditto judges. They terrorise their local authorities. Sanctioning the removal of these thugs is warranted.
  - pjc50 7y ago
    The problem here is that a state-sanctioned surprise execution squad is an incredibly dangerous thing to have around, and usually ends up being worse than the cartels. Tends to collapse into execution of political enemies and the establishment of a totalitarian state pretty quickly, a la Pinochet.
    - CompanionCuuube 7y ago
      How many of those which occur after a jury trial have "collapsed into execution of political enemies and the establishment of a totalitarian state"?
      - pjc50 7y ago
        Original comment said explicitly "The state can sanction the taking of life without a court hearing for absolutely evil people"
  - 7y ago

zimpenfish 7y ago

> I find it nothing short of miraculous that the Tsarnaev brother was taken alive I mean, there is an obvious reason.

tyingq 7y ago
Now I'm curious. They did shoot quite a lot of rounds[1] into the boat he was hiding in. I can't think of any reason other than luck. [1]https://pixel.nymag.com/imgs/daily/intelligencer/2013/04/22/22-watertown-boat.w700.h700.jpg https://pixel.nymag.com/imgs/daily/intelligencer/2013/04/22/...
- credit_guy 7y ago
  To me the obvious reason is the null hypothesis: in the US law enforcement officers don't actually have the standard operating procedure of "putting a few bullets" in people for "resisting arrest". The alternative hypothesis is a double conspiracy theory, that they are generally cold blooded killers, but in this case for some whatever reasons, they didn't shoot the Boston bomber, but rather they kept him alive to make an example out of him? I don't know, this doesn't pass any type of smell test to me.
  - tyingq 7y ago
    "they didn't shoot the Boston bomber, but rather they kept him alive to make an example out of him" Yeah, doesn't pass the smell test for me either. 110+ bullets in that boat, and the guy wasn't far from dead when they brought him to the hospital.
- imtringued 7y ago
  No the reason is basically that he didn't move. If SWAT is on your front lawn and you walk out the front door expect a swift death even if you are innocent and completely unarmed. Curl down and hide in a way that makes you completely defenseless? Well first of all they don't have 5 marksmen pointing their gun at you in anticipation because they have to find you first and second they actually have an opportunity to arrest you because you're not running away from them.
  - tyingq 7y ago
    I was citing "reason" as in "reason he was taken alive". I said luck, because not much beyond plain luck allows you to survive 110+ rounds fired into the relatively small fiberglass boat you are hiding in. Not moving might have helped, but there's still quite a but of luck there. He had at least three serious bullet wounds.
umanwizard 7y ago
Can you elaborate, instead of making other people guess at what you think is obvious?
- dsfyu404ed 7y ago
  That reason is simply failure. They peppered a house trying to shoot him then shot up the boat he was in yet failed to actually shoot him. The reputation police have for poor marksmanship and giving zero fucks for what is behind their target (I can't stress enough how irresponsible this is for a civilian police force operating in urban environments) is well deserved.
  - stirfrykitty 7y ago
    My guess is that because the Russians actually warned of him and his family, yet the US failed to act upon that intel means that perhaps we wanted a favor in return or to use him for something else politically. Happens all the time.
  - dsfyu404ed 7y ago
    Very interesting to see that this was up-voted (+8) during the hours where only the east coast was online but now that the west coast (the other timezone with a bunch of HN users) is online it is down-voted. I guess the national news only covered the "we got'em boys" official statements.
dsfyu404ed 7y ago
>I mean, there is an obvious reason. That "obvious reason" is a level of marksmanship and organizational competency that makes cell phone video coming out of Syria look like a documentary about an elite fighting force. The previous time they tried to shoot him all they did was pepper a house in an upscale neighborhood. Then there was the friendly fire thing. They also peppered the boat pretty good. It's not like they didn't try. They tried to shoot him several times and they failed. And that's just the tip of the stupidity iceberg when it comes to the Boston bombing. The worst part is they basically proclaimed victory on something that was a textbook failure at every step and the people of MA are so devoid of critical thinking skills that they mostly bought it. Edit: replaced "brainwashed" with "devoid of critical thinking skills" because the former gives the government too much credit.

WAHa_06x36 7y ago

How many innocent people do you figure it is reasonable to execute, say, per year?

peteretep 7y ago
This needs qualifying with "vs subjecting to death row", where the average tenure is 15 years. I think I'd personally rather a speedy execution for a crime that I didn't do rather than 15 years on death row and then exoneration. In addition: 25% of death row prisoners die of natural causes (via Wikipedia). I think if I supported the death penalty, I think I'd be comfortable finding out that 5% of executions were of innocent people. If I was religious, I'd be willing to accept a much higher number.
- rfrey 7y ago
  That position is appalling to me, but I’m impressed by your intellectual honesty and how you answer the question head on.
  - peteretep 7y ago
    I am always mildly surprised to find out how much my opinion on the sanctity of life (eg: a low regard for such) differs from other people's. Making someone suffer unnecessarily seems unconscionable to me, where being dead doesn't seem like a huge big deal.
    - imtringued 7y ago
      So you're saying if you torture someone until they hit the breaking point it is morally the right thing to kill them? Some people's tolerance level is much lower than torture. Would it be acceptable to kill rape victims? After all, being dead doesn't seem like a huge big deal.
      - peteretep 7y ago
        I'm not sure I really follow your reasoning in any of those, sorry. What I will say is: I firmly believe the dead do not care that they're dead, are explicitly not suffering, and that we're all going to die. The suffering associated with death is the suffering associated with the survivors and the suffering in being told you're going to die.

nkrisc 7y ago

How smoking does the smoking gun have to be to justify extra-judicial execution? Do they just have to look mostly guilty? Do you at least get a chance to explain yourself?

stirfrykitty 7y ago
Let's be honest here for a moment. Look at the monsters like drug dealers. Everyone knows for a fact they are doing it. I'm talking crime boss types, not some thug on a street corner. Guys like Pablo Escobar. Colombia could have gotten him far sooner. Nothing like a few tier-one operators with knowledge of his comings and goings and they could take care of it. This is not extra-judicial in my mind. The state can sanction the taking of life without a court hearing for absolutely evil people. People like Pablo Escobar, and there are many like him just south of the US. They pay off the police to look the other way. Ditto judges. They terrorise their local authorities. Sanctioning the removal of these thugs is warranted.
- pjc50 7y ago
  The problem here is that a state-sanctioned surprise execution squad is an incredibly dangerous thing to have around, and usually ends up being worse than the cartels. Tends to collapse into execution of political enemies and the establishment of a totalitarian state pretty quickly, a la Pinochet.
  - CompanionCuuube 7y ago
    How many of those which occur after a jury trial have "collapsed into execution of political enemies and the establishment of a totalitarian state"?
    - pjc50 7y ago
      Original comment said explicitly "The state can sanction the taking of life without a court hearing for absolutely evil people"
- 7y ago