6 ms·

> - The officer in the training exercise that killed Officer Tipping has the same name as the officer in Tipping’s report, but they are not sure if it is the sa

> - The officer in the training exercise that killed Officer Tipping has the same name as the officer in Tipping’s report, but they are not sure if it is the same person. It appears you did not finish reading TFA. There was an investigation that confirmed the same officer was at the training: "Gage could not confirm that the officer accused of rape was the officer directly engaged in the training exercise with Tipping. But he said 'our investigation indicates that yes, it was.' " And frankly, if you don't think it's suspicious that an officer who investigated four LAPD officers raping a woman later getting killed in a freak bicycle training accident isn't suspicious, you may need to reset your baseline for what is "speculation and innuendo." What happened here was extremely suspicious. Even before considering that one of those officers charged was at the training. (One may even wonder why a police officer accused of rape was not only still on duty, but even training other officers.)

tomcam 4y ago
> And frankly, if you don't think it's suspicious What? Mind reading. GP was mostly stating facts, not commenting about their own state of mind My personal thoughts are very closely aligned with yours, btw
- pessimizer 4y ago
  "If" is a conditional. When I say "If you are happy about that..." I'm not reading your mind.
jstarfish 4y ago
> One may even wonder why a police officer accused of rape was not only still on duty, but even training other officers. Because accusations are cheap enough to be weaponizable as a denial-of-service attack. The penalty for false accusations is something pathetic, like 1 year.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- ipaddr 4y ago
  Have you spent any time behind bars? A year of your life is not so laughable as to be pathetic.
  - jstarfish 4y ago
    Who actually serves a one-year sentence?
- Fatnino 4y ago
  Ancient cultures from 2000 years ago had the solution to this already. Make a false accusation, get the punishment you were trying to pin on someone. Simple as that. Even capital offences. This doesn't mean that if a jury can't convict, the prosecution gets the punishment. Still need to be legally proven to have made false accusations.
- uoaei 4y ago
  Police officers are not held accountable commensurate to the incredible amount of power and influence they enjoy. They should be held to much much higher standards if they want to carry a monopoly on violence (including a loaded gun) wherever they stand.
  - _-david-_ 4y ago
    They don't carry a monopoly on violence though? In the US, at least, you have the right to defend yourself which can include killing or detaining a person inflicting harm on you or others. This is the same thing cops can do.
    - notch656a 4y ago
      It's a fair point, but they do have a unique form of monopoly on violence. They can "legitimately" initiate violence. Initiate the violence. Don't pay your property taxes, and ignore summons, etc? Eventually someone will show up at your door to toss you out of your house. If you just sit on your couch and say "nuh huh" eventually they will violently throw you out. If you use self defense to stop the violence, they'll simply kill you or incapacitate you. Grow a funny plant in the wrong state? Eventually, if they find out, men with guns will bust into your house. They won't be 'self-defending' you into your custody, they will be initiating the violence against you to take you. While self defense is 'violence' I think a lot of us just almost "don't count it." Self defense is more like stopping the violence, IMO.
      - _-david-_ 4y ago
        Self defense can include stopping somebody from taking your property (maybe not every state?) This is comparable to not paying taxes. The taxes are legitimately owed to the government and so you have "stolen" from the government. Similar to stealing from an individual (in a sense). You may not be a fan of killing over stolen property, but depending on the situation and state it is completely allowed. I think some states even allow you to kill a person who stole something from you while they are running away. This means the initiation of physical violence can be initiated by you as well and be considered just. Laws regarding weed are more nuanced, but it doesn't change that individuals can under certain circumstances initiate physical violence towards somebody legitimately.
onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago
> And frankly, if you don't think it's suspicious It's definitely suspicious. But it needs to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
- woodruffw 4y ago
  Of course it does. But this is an article on an online news source, not a court.
- naikrovek 4y ago
  why? it's an article on a webpage. why should cops get to profile us if we can't profile them when they "fit the description"?
- dantheman 4y ago
  Not really, reasonable doubt should apply here. We should be holding our public servants to a much higher standard.
Hnrobert42 4y ago
First, my very point is that when you have only suspicion, you must be extra skeptical of speculation and innuendo, not less. Second, it is against the HN guidelines to accuse others of not reading the article. Because, third, I did read that your quoted paragraph. I took it to mean, they believe but are not sure. As in “[he] could not confirm…” Sadly, I struggle with your other points as they as suffer the same issues as the article. E.g., again, this was not a bicycle training, have the officers been formally charged? was the accused officer the trainer or a participant?
- newaccount74 4y ago
  If you just look at the facts quoted from the coroners report, without looking at the circumstances, it sure sounds like this person was beaten to death. It does not sound like a training accident.
  - braingenious 4y ago
    You’ll notice that on HN it is pretty common to see people pop into the comments about anything police-related with “Well actually there is no empirical logical reason to disbelieve the notion that the police are the arbiters of truth. You sir are doing a fallacy of the most egregious degree! In fact you are violating the very covenant of the guidelines upon which this very website is founded by arguing in such a noxious manner! I know this because my herculean intellect tells me so, as I do not even have opinions but only the zen mastery of Truth Itself!” I haven’t quite figured out why there are so many staunchly pro-police people on a site where a lot of posters seem to lean kind of libertarian, but it’s an interesting and kind of amusing phenomenon.
    - fknorangesite 4y ago
      > I haven’t quite figured out why there are so many staunchly pro-police people on a site where a lot of posters seem to lean kind of libertarian An old joke: a libertarian is just a conservative who likes to smoke weed.
    - rendall 4y ago
ChoGGi 4y ago
> There was an investigation that "confirmed" the same officer was at the training: > But he said 'our investigation "indicates" that yes, it was.' "

tomcam 4y ago

> And frankly, if you don't think it's suspicious What? Mind reading. GP was mostly stating facts, not commenting about their own state of mind My personal thoughts are very closely aligned with yours, btw

pessimizer 4y ago
"If" is a conditional. When I say "If you are happy about that..." I'm not reading your mind.

jstarfish 4y ago

> One may even wonder why a police officer accused of rape was not only still on duty, but even training other officers. Because accusations are cheap enough to be weaponizable as a denial-of-service attack. The penalty for false accusations is something pathetic, like 1 year.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
ipaddr 4y ago
Have you spent any time behind bars? A year of your life is not so laughable as to be pathetic.
- jstarfish 4y ago
  Who actually serves a one-year sentence?
Fatnino 4y ago
Ancient cultures from 2000 years ago had the solution to this already. Make a false accusation, get the punishment you were trying to pin on someone. Simple as that. Even capital offences. This doesn't mean that if a jury can't convict, the prosecution gets the punishment. Still need to be legally proven to have made false accusations.
uoaei 4y ago
Police officers are not held accountable commensurate to the incredible amount of power and influence they enjoy. They should be held to much much higher standards if they want to carry a monopoly on violence (including a loaded gun) wherever they stand.
- _-david-_ 4y ago
  They don't carry a monopoly on violence though? In the US, at least, you have the right to defend yourself which can include killing or detaining a person inflicting harm on you or others. This is the same thing cops can do.
  - notch656a 4y ago
    It's a fair point, but they do have a unique form of monopoly on violence. They can "legitimately" initiate violence. Initiate the violence. Don't pay your property taxes, and ignore summons, etc? Eventually someone will show up at your door to toss you out of your house. If you just sit on your couch and say "nuh huh" eventually they will violently throw you out. If you use self defense to stop the violence, they'll simply kill you or incapacitate you. Grow a funny plant in the wrong state? Eventually, if they find out, men with guns will bust into your house. They won't be 'self-defending' you into your custody, they will be initiating the violence against you to take you. While self defense is 'violence' I think a lot of us just almost "don't count it." Self defense is more like stopping the violence, IMO.
    - _-david-_ 4y ago
      Self defense can include stopping somebody from taking your property (maybe not every state?) This is comparable to not paying taxes. The taxes are legitimately owed to the government and so you have "stolen" from the government. Similar to stealing from an individual (in a sense). You may not be a fan of killing over stolen property, but depending on the situation and state it is completely allowed. I think some states even allow you to kill a person who stole something from you while they are running away. This means the initiation of physical violence can be initiated by you as well and be considered just. Laws regarding weed are more nuanced, but it doesn't change that individuals can under certain circumstances initiate physical violence towards somebody legitimately.

onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago

> And frankly, if you don't think it's suspicious It's definitely suspicious. But it needs to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

woodruffw 4y ago
Of course it does. But this is an article on an online news source, not a court.
naikrovek 4y ago
why? it's an article on a webpage. why should cops get to profile us if we can't profile them when they "fit the description"?
dantheman 4y ago
Not really, reasonable doubt should apply here. We should be holding our public servants to a much higher standard.

Hnrobert42 4y ago

First, my very point is that when you have only suspicion, you must be extra skeptical of speculation and innuendo, not less. Second, it is against the HN guidelines to accuse others of not reading the article. Because, third, I did read that your quoted paragraph. I took it to mean, they believe but are not sure. As in “[he] could not confirm…” Sadly, I struggle with your other points as they as suffer the same issues as the article. E.g., again, this was not a bicycle training, have the officers been formally charged? was the accused officer the trainer or a participant?

newaccount74 4y ago
If you just look at the facts quoted from the coroners report, without looking at the circumstances, it sure sounds like this person was beaten to death. It does not sound like a training accident.
- braingenious 4y ago
  You’ll notice that on HN it is pretty common to see people pop into the comments about anything police-related with “Well actually there is no empirical logical reason to disbelieve the notion that the police are the arbiters of truth. You sir are doing a fallacy of the most egregious degree! In fact you are violating the very covenant of the guidelines upon which this very website is founded by arguing in such a noxious manner! I know this because my herculean intellect tells me so, as I do not even have opinions but only the zen mastery of Truth Itself!” I haven’t quite figured out why there are so many staunchly pro-police people on a site where a lot of posters seem to lean kind of libertarian, but it’s an interesting and kind of amusing phenomenon.
  - fknorangesite 4y ago
    > I haven’t quite figured out why there are so many staunchly pro-police people on a site where a lot of posters seem to lean kind of libertarian An old joke: a libertarian is just a conservative who likes to smoke weed.
  - rendall 4y ago

ChoGGi 4y ago

> There was an investigation that "confirmed" the same officer was at the training: > But he said 'our investigation "indicates" that yes, it was.' "