6 ms·

It's not exactly the same situation, but this happened before AI. At least the clarinet owner didn't get shot & killed like this guy: https://en.wikipedia.org

by rwmj 11mo ago

It's not exactly the same situation, but this happened before AI. At least the clarinet owner didn't get shot & killed like this guy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Harry_Stanley https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Harry_Stanley On 22 September 1999, Stanley was returning home from the Alexandra Pub in South Hackney carrying, in a plastic bag, a table leg that had been repaired by his brother earlier that day. Someone had phoned the police to report "an Irishman with a gun wrapped in a bag".[2]

ramon156 11mo ago
> the prosecution evidence is insufficient to rebut the officers' assertion that they were acting in self defence Awesome, they got away with unlawfully killing a man.
- justin66 11mo ago
  In protest at the suspensions, over 120 out of the 400 Metropolitan Police officers authorised to use firearms handed in their firearms authorisation cards, with Glen Smyth, a Police Federation spokesman saying, "The officers are very concerned that the tactics they are trained in, as a consequence of the verdict, are now in doubt."[10] The officers' suspensions were lifted shortly afterwards.[11] What a joke.
  - Anonbrit 11mo ago
    Many, many people think the tactics they're trained in are exactly the problem - a few hours at most training in deescalation, little to no training in recognising or dealing with the mentally unwell, hundreds of hours of training in putting a bullet inn somebody
- Ajedi32 11mo ago
  They got away with accidentally unlawfully killing a man while doing an inherently dangerous job by the book. You can blame the system for that certainly and propose changes, but I don't think it's fair to charge the officers with murder for acting in what they believed to be fully justified self defense in the normal course of their job.
  - foxyv 11mo ago
    > At the junction of Fremont Street and Victoria Park Road in South Hackney, close to his home, Inspector Neil Sharman and PC Kevin Fagan, the crew of a Metropolitan Police armed response vehicle challenged Stanley from behind. As he turned to face them, they shot him dead at a distance of 15 feet (5 m). While it may have been an accident, it was a negligent accident. If I accidentally killed someone with a gun I would go to prison. In addition they were found guilty by the jury. It was overturned due to political pressure. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Harry_Stanley https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Harry_Stanley
  - doph 11mo ago
    I think what's fair is to expect police officers to have as their top priority the protection the citizens they are serving. Too often they seem to have as a top priority the protection of themselves, which means as a consequence that they'd rather risk the lives of others than their own. What good are they to us then?
    - Ferret7446 11mo ago
      You can't afford police that give up their own safety. How much would your employer need to pay you for you to sacrifice your own safety for your job?
      - thunderfork 11mo ago
        I travel to work, and engaging with the outdoors, traffic, etc. involves sacrificing safety that I wouldn't have if I stayed at home. So, how much would my employer need to pay me? Not much, I guess? I definitely get paid less than the average cop in my city. There are plenty of jobs that involve sacrificing safety, but very few of them give you the opportunity to kill people because you "didn't want to give up your own safety".
      - Mawr 11mo ago
        Very weird question. What do you think most jobs entail? Driving, mining, warehousing, even office jobs all come with risks. Perhaps the most relevant example though is firefighting. Just like in policing, there is obvious risk you take on in exchange for early retirement etc. The last mindset I want policemen to have is to go into every situation assuming the worst because of a small chance their safety may be at risk. Which is exactly what it seems happened. You can't just shoot someone who's holding a bag with something in it just because some random person has judged it could be a firearm. “The officers had told the inquest that Mr. Stanley had turned around ‘in a slow, deliberate, fluid motion’ and pointed his wrapped-up table leg at PC Fagan, adopting a classic firing posture, which prompted Chief Insp. Sharman to open fire, hitting him in the head.” [1] Yeah right, that definitely happened. An innocent man is dead because some damn pig wanted to kill someone. That is all this is. "Times Online reports a “furious reaction from fellow police marksmen, who are threatening to lay down their weapons in a rebellion which could hamper security plans for the G8 summit of international leaders. Some members of the Yard’s elite SO19 firearms unit are already refusing to carry guns, saying that these arrests have shattered morale.”" [1] barf [1]: https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2005/06/stan-j07.html https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2005/06/stan-j07.html

by rwmj 11mo ago

ramon156 11mo ago

> the prosecution evidence is insufficient to rebut the officers' assertion that they were acting in self defence Awesome, they got away with unlawfully killing a man.

justin66 11mo ago
In protest at the suspensions, over 120 out of the 400 Metropolitan Police officers authorised to use firearms handed in their firearms authorisation cards, with Glen Smyth, a Police Federation spokesman saying, "The officers are very concerned that the tactics they are trained in, as a consequence of the verdict, are now in doubt."[10] The officers' suspensions were lifted shortly afterwards.[11] What a joke.
- Anonbrit 11mo ago
  Many, many people think the tactics they're trained in are exactly the problem - a few hours at most training in deescalation, little to no training in recognising or dealing with the mentally unwell, hundreds of hours of training in putting a bullet inn somebody
Ajedi32 11mo ago
They got away with accidentally unlawfully killing a man while doing an inherently dangerous job by the book. You can blame the system for that certainly and propose changes, but I don't think it's fair to charge the officers with murder for acting in what they believed to be fully justified self defense in the normal course of their job.
- foxyv 11mo ago
  > At the junction of Fremont Street and Victoria Park Road in South Hackney, close to his home, Inspector Neil Sharman and PC Kevin Fagan, the crew of a Metropolitan Police armed response vehicle challenged Stanley from behind. As he turned to face them, they shot him dead at a distance of 15 feet (5 m). While it may have been an accident, it was a negligent accident. If I accidentally killed someone with a gun I would go to prison. In addition they were found guilty by the jury. It was overturned due to political pressure. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Harry_Stanley https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Harry_Stanley
- doph 11mo ago
  I think what's fair is to expect police officers to have as their top priority the protection the citizens they are serving. Too often they seem to have as a top priority the protection of themselves, which means as a consequence that they'd rather risk the lives of others than their own. What good are they to us then?
  - Ferret7446 11mo ago
    You can't afford police that give up their own safety. How much would your employer need to pay you for you to sacrifice your own safety for your job?
    - thunderfork 11mo ago
      I travel to work, and engaging with the outdoors, traffic, etc. involves sacrificing safety that I wouldn't have if I stayed at home. So, how much would my employer need to pay me? Not much, I guess? I definitely get paid less than the average cop in my city. There are plenty of jobs that involve sacrificing safety, but very few of them give you the opportunity to kill people because you "didn't want to give up your own safety".
    - Mawr 11mo ago
      Very weird question. What do you think most jobs entail? Driving, mining, warehousing, even office jobs all come with risks. Perhaps the most relevant example though is firefighting. Just like in policing, there is obvious risk you take on in exchange for early retirement etc. The last mindset I want policemen to have is to go into every situation assuming the worst because of a small chance their safety may be at risk. Which is exactly what it seems happened. You can't just shoot someone who's holding a bag with something in it just because some random person has judged it could be a firearm. “The officers had told the inquest that Mr. Stanley had turned around ‘in a slow, deliberate, fluid motion’ and pointed his wrapped-up table leg at PC Fagan, adopting a classic firing posture, which prompted Chief Insp. Sharman to open fire, hitting him in the head.” [1] Yeah right, that definitely happened. An innocent man is dead because some damn pig wanted to kill someone. That is all this is. "Times Online reports a “furious reaction from fellow police marksmen, who are threatening to lay down their weapons in a rebellion which could hamper security plans for the G8 summit of international leaders. Some members of the Yard’s elite SO19 firearms unit are already refusing to carry guns, saying that these arrests have shattered morale.”" [1] barf [1]: https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2005/06/stan-j07.html https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2005/06/stan-j07.html