4 ms·

I mean officer #2 even appears to have his finger on the trigger (officer #1 doesn't). There's a rule "never point a weapon at something you do not intend to de

by btilly 6y ago

I mean officer #2 even appears to have his finger on the trigger (officer #1 doesn't). There's a rule "never point a weapon at something you do not intend to destroy." That's horrible. And should be grounds for firing the cop. I'm not sure how many on HN have shot a gun. But if you've got a qualified instructor, before you are even allowed to TOUCH the gun, you need to memorize the 4 basic rules of gun safety. 1. Every gun is always loaded. 2. Never point a gun at anything you're not willing to destroy. 3. Keep your finger off the trigger until you're ready to fire. 4. Be sure of your target and what's behind it. The second cop failed the last 3 rules. Was he willing to destroy the children? Was he ready to shoot when he put his finger on the trigger? Was he sure of his target and what's behind it? Given that the answer is no, he shouldn't be allowed to handle that gun. He's a danger to the public, and a liability to the police department.

rascul 6y ago
In my opinion, police should be held to the highest standard. It seems like they're held to the lowest.
- heavyset_go 6y ago
  Police are often the highest paid employees on a government's payroll. They get to retire with a full pension after only 20 years of working, and they often make as much as, or more than, software engineers do. The strong-arm of the state needs to be held to a high standard.
  - btilly 6y ago
    On the flip side, I had a friend who was a homicide cop in NYC. By the time he retired, he was broken by the things he'd seen and dealt with that nobody should ever see or deal with. He got a nice pension, but he earned it.
    - seunosewa 6y ago
      What kind of things did he see? Can you give the two worst examples?
      - btilly 6y ago
        Here are a few. He once commented that ever since he helped investigate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_587 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_587, the smell of jet fuel has made him sick. Once there was an offhand comment about Soylent Green, and he said, "I've seen the stuff." It was in a bottle that the murderer kept in his fridge. If the police hadn't thought to do a DNA test on the liquid, they wouldn't have realized what it was. Every Spring NYC has "floaters". These are people who died and were thrown into the river. Often with weights attached. As the water warms slightly, the body starts decomposing and eventually bloat from the gas makes it buoyant so it comes to the surface. He once commented, "I don't think that there is a way that one human can kill another that I haven't seen." He then began giving a long list. Good enough?
    - neurostimulant 6y ago
      My grandfather was a detective. He never once talk about his day as a cop to us the grandchildren. He was very cynical and suspicious of other people too. I guess this is what happened when you had to deal with the worst of society on daily basis.
- webmaven 6y ago
  > In my opinion, police should be held to the highest standard. It seems like they're held to the lowest. That's a bit harsh. Standards (and holding to them) varies considerably by jurisdiction (and sometimes by precinct). And before anyone accuses me of making a "Not All Police" argument or anything similar, I'll point out that, generally speaking, poor enforcement of such standards (and harsher responses by officers) seem to be associated with communities that are poorer or have more minorities. There are also issues with 'problem officers' getting shuffled off to departments in other cities or states without adequate record keeping or sufficient scrutiny, which can result in them tending to collect or concentrate in certain places (and predictably, that makes it more likely that such officers will have like-minded colleagues that are willing to cover for them). This is definitely a "wicked problem".
- fenomas 6y ago
  "Police business is a hell of a problem. It’s a good deal like politics. It asks for the highest type of men, and there’s nothing in it to attract the highest type of men." (Raymond Chandler, 1943)
geofft 6y ago
If you fire this cop, they'll hire a new one, and put them through training that says that everyone might be armed and they're authorized to use force when they think they're in danger, and they'll continue sending cops out to raid people's houses for crimes where there's absolutely no evidence the suspect has ever even thought about being armed. This cop almost certainly was in fact willing to destroy whatever he pointed his gun at and whatever might be behind it, because that's how he was trained.
- godelski 6y ago
  This is strange logic. You're saying that they shouldn't fire the cop because any new hires are going to be incompetent? This doesn't make sense. You can both fire the cop and call for better training. Besides, if we're constantly firing cops for not following basic gun safety, either we solve the problem or it becomes cost prohibitive to not properly train. You can indeed have both.
  - geofft 6y ago
    One, I think this cop will argue he was following basic gun safety, that he was authorized to use deadly force against anyone or anything in the house. I don't think this cop was incompetent nor would his replacements be; I think he was doing what he was trained to do, and they'll train his replacements the same. You've got to make his actions fireable, first. You can't just wish they were. Second, we won't fire the cops who don't follow basic gun safety - we will at most fire the ones who get caught on video as part of a story of national importance. This cop isn't the one bad-trigger-discipline cop in that department, let alone the country. Fire him without figuring out how to systemically fire them all, and cops will dismiss it as politically-motivated persecution, have some protests about #BackTheBlue or maybe even a work stoppage, and then go back to business as usual, with the same trigger discipline. And the fired cop will get a job in another department. I agree you can have both. I just think you can't have one without the other.
    - BalinKing 6y ago
      The gun safety rule applies to things you actively intend to destroy, not things you're merely "authorized" to destroy. Furthermore, cops aren't authorized to use deadly force against anyone in the house a priori, only if there's sufficient danger (IANAL). (Not disagreeing with your overall point, just saying that it would be (IMO) laughable for a cop to try to make those arguments, even considering their training.)
sneak 6y ago
> That's horrible. And should be grounds for firing the cop. A common misunderstanding. The police in the USA are regarded as above the law; rules don't apply to them. You'll never find a prosecutor willing to address criminal behavior like this by police. If you want to fix this, do a five whys on that, not some idiot cop waving his gun around at children.
- btilly 6y ago
  What should be and what is are different. News at 11.

by btilly 6y ago

rascul 6y ago

In my opinion, police should be held to the highest standard. It seems like they're held to the lowest.

heavyset_go 6y ago
Police are often the highest paid employees on a government's payroll. They get to retire with a full pension after only 20 years of working, and they often make as much as, or more than, software engineers do. The strong-arm of the state needs to be held to a high standard.
- btilly 6y ago
  On the flip side, I had a friend who was a homicide cop in NYC. By the time he retired, he was broken by the things he'd seen and dealt with that nobody should ever see or deal with. He got a nice pension, but he earned it.
  - seunosewa 6y ago
    What kind of things did he see? Can you give the two worst examples?
    - btilly 6y ago
      Here are a few. He once commented that ever since he helped investigate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_587 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_587, the smell of jet fuel has made him sick. Once there was an offhand comment about Soylent Green, and he said, "I've seen the stuff." It was in a bottle that the murderer kept in his fridge. If the police hadn't thought to do a DNA test on the liquid, they wouldn't have realized what it was. Every Spring NYC has "floaters". These are people who died and were thrown into the river. Often with weights attached. As the water warms slightly, the body starts decomposing and eventually bloat from the gas makes it buoyant so it comes to the surface. He once commented, "I don't think that there is a way that one human can kill another that I haven't seen." He then began giving a long list. Good enough?
  - neurostimulant 6y ago
    My grandfather was a detective. He never once talk about his day as a cop to us the grandchildren. He was very cynical and suspicious of other people too. I guess this is what happened when you had to deal with the worst of society on daily basis.
webmaven 6y ago
> In my opinion, police should be held to the highest standard. It seems like they're held to the lowest. That's a bit harsh. Standards (and holding to them) varies considerably by jurisdiction (and sometimes by precinct). And before anyone accuses me of making a "Not All Police" argument or anything similar, I'll point out that, generally speaking, poor enforcement of such standards (and harsher responses by officers) seem to be associated with communities that are poorer or have more minorities. There are also issues with 'problem officers' getting shuffled off to departments in other cities or states without adequate record keeping or sufficient scrutiny, which can result in them tending to collect or concentrate in certain places (and predictably, that makes it more likely that such officers will have like-minded colleagues that are willing to cover for them). This is definitely a "wicked problem".
fenomas 6y ago
"Police business is a hell of a problem. It’s a good deal like politics. It asks for the highest type of men, and there’s nothing in it to attract the highest type of men." (Raymond Chandler, 1943)

geofft 6y ago

If you fire this cop, they'll hire a new one, and put them through training that says that everyone might be armed and they're authorized to use force when they think they're in danger, and they'll continue sending cops out to raid people's houses for crimes where there's absolutely no evidence the suspect has ever even thought about being armed. This cop almost certainly was in fact willing to destroy whatever he pointed his gun at and whatever might be behind it, because that's how he was trained.

godelski 6y ago
This is strange logic. You're saying that they shouldn't fire the cop because any new hires are going to be incompetent? This doesn't make sense. You can both fire the cop and call for better training. Besides, if we're constantly firing cops for not following basic gun safety, either we solve the problem or it becomes cost prohibitive to not properly train. You can indeed have both.
- geofft 6y ago
  One, I think this cop will argue he was following basic gun safety, that he was authorized to use deadly force against anyone or anything in the house. I don't think this cop was incompetent nor would his replacements be; I think he was doing what he was trained to do, and they'll train his replacements the same. You've got to make his actions fireable, first. You can't just wish they were. Second, we won't fire the cops who don't follow basic gun safety - we will at most fire the ones who get caught on video as part of a story of national importance. This cop isn't the one bad-trigger-discipline cop in that department, let alone the country. Fire him without figuring out how to systemically fire them all, and cops will dismiss it as politically-motivated persecution, have some protests about #BackTheBlue or maybe even a work stoppage, and then go back to business as usual, with the same trigger discipline. And the fired cop will get a job in another department. I agree you can have both. I just think you can't have one without the other.
  - BalinKing 6y ago
    The gun safety rule applies to things you actively intend to destroy, not things you're merely "authorized" to destroy. Furthermore, cops aren't authorized to use deadly force against anyone in the house a priori, only if there's sufficient danger (IANAL). (Not disagreeing with your overall point, just saying that it would be (IMO) laughable for a cop to try to make those arguments, even considering their training.)

sneak 6y ago

> That's horrible. And should be grounds for firing the cop. A common misunderstanding. The police in the USA are regarded as above the law; rules don't apply to them. You'll never find a prosecutor willing to address criminal behavior like this by police. If you want to fix this, do a five whys on that, not some idiot cop waving his gun around at children.

btilly 6y ago
What should be and what is are different. News at 11.