3 ms·

> What, this was so time-sensitive that we couldn't pick her up with a traffic stop when she was out of the house? It is standard operating procedure to catch

by yholio 6y ago

> What, this was so time-sensitive that we couldn't pick her up with a traffic stop when she was out of the house? It is standard operating procedure to catch online criminals in the act, with the computers booted, terminals unlocked and drives unencrypted. In general, your premise that police should avoid confrontations with (allegedly) very dangerous individuals, and leave them wiggle room to destroy evidence, is untenable. Clearly, this case is an outlier, but the fault lays with whomever ordered the raid without reason, not with police officers themselves, that performed the raid as any raid should be done in a trigger happy country.

XorNot 6y ago
That's garbage: almost no crime is so time-sensitive and so unique that this is a problem. Heck look at the take down of Silk Road for example of doing it right: they clearly took their time (despite the impact being obviously greater), and no one had to pull any weapons because the situation was executed in a known safe environment. Police deserve no leeway for this: the evidence points to repeatedly creating a dangerous situation (by them) and then shooting the person they've decided is dangerous (because they created a situation they thought was dangerous). If there is not immediate danger to other citizen's lives, it can wait. And most of the time, it should wait because amongst other thing that lets you actually make a plan. The only difference in this case is "could be dangerous" is being used as pathetically thin cover for ensuring the lives of a political opponent and their family were threatened.
- yholio 6y ago
  > the evidence points to repeatedly creating a dangerous situation (by them) What evidence is that? Have you gathered the data, performed a statistically significant analysis or can you point to one? Or perhaps you are inferring your conclusions from media anecdotes and select those cases that best fit your world view?
  - XorNot 6y ago
    Have you gathered data? Not seeing a lot of citations there, whereas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_police_violence_incidents_during_George_Floyd_protests https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_police_violence_incide... Which is obviously a limited sample, should I continue or are videos of actual incidents, leading to actual casualties, really just "anecdotes"? I mean we could go with just this: https://www.criminallegalnews.org/news/2018/jun/16/doj-police-shooting-family-dogs-has-become-epidemic/ https://www.criminallegalnews.org/news/2018/jun/16/doj-polic... and ask how the hell is this a thing since the starting point is "discharging a firearm in a populated area" and is reported by the DoJ itself as an incredible problem. But I suspect you can't point to anything. The null-hypothesis here is definitely not "police procedure is absolutely correct". You know, seeing how the literal subject of this comment chain is "police raid on data scientist's house where guns were pointed at her children as part of a politically motivated shakedown for a crime which is by definition non-violent".

by yholio 6y ago

XorNot 6y ago

That's garbage: almost no crime is so time-sensitive and so unique that this is a problem. Heck look at the take down of Silk Road for example of doing it right: they clearly took their time (despite the impact being obviously greater), and no one had to pull any weapons because the situation was executed in a known safe environment. Police deserve no leeway for this: the evidence points to repeatedly creating a dangerous situation (by them) and then shooting the person they've decided is dangerous (because they created a situation they thought was dangerous). If there is not immediate danger to other citizen's lives, it can wait. And most of the time, it should wait because amongst other thing that lets you actually make a plan. The only difference in this case is "could be dangerous" is being used as pathetically thin cover for ensuring the lives of a political opponent and their family were threatened.

yholio 6y ago
> the evidence points to repeatedly creating a dangerous situation (by them) What evidence is that? Have you gathered the data, performed a statistically significant analysis or can you point to one? Or perhaps you are inferring your conclusions from media anecdotes and select those cases that best fit your world view?
- XorNot 6y ago
  Have you gathered data? Not seeing a lot of citations there, whereas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_police_violence_incidents_during_George_Floyd_protests https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_police_violence_incide... Which is obviously a limited sample, should I continue or are videos of actual incidents, leading to actual casualties, really just "anecdotes"? I mean we could go with just this: https://www.criminallegalnews.org/news/2018/jun/16/doj-police-shooting-family-dogs-has-become-epidemic/ https://www.criminallegalnews.org/news/2018/jun/16/doj-polic... and ask how the hell is this a thing since the starting point is "discharging a firearm in a populated area" and is reported by the DoJ itself as an incredible problem. But I suspect you can't point to anything. The null-hypothesis here is definitely not "police procedure is absolutely correct". You know, seeing how the literal subject of this comment chain is "police raid on data scientist's house where guns were pointed at her children as part of a politically motivated shakedown for a crime which is by definition non-violent".