Hacker News Reader

Comment by Spooky23 | Hacker News Reader

You wait it out and de-escalate. The heavy handed response is dangerous for all parties.

When I was growing up, the Sheriff initiated a big chase and SWAT response for some dumbass kid who rode an ATV on the road. The end result was an accident that killed the kid and severely injured a deputy (who IIRC wasn’t even involved in the incident response), who was unable to work again.

All that tragedy, for what?

View on HN

I don't think the two situations are comparable at all. In the ATV case, it was the police who escalated, inappropriately, in pursuit of someone who was mainly a danger to himself. In the destroyed home case, it was the suspect who escalated (repeatedly), from shoplifting to entering a home to shooting at people.

I don’t think you can argue that the police response with armoured cars, explosive charges and house demolition was ‘proportionate’. This sort of policing isn’t routine in most places.

So if this became prevalent, society should just accept losing your house is the cost of having police?

The police shouldn’t have any obligation to arrest a perp on the perp’s schedule. They have to be able to go in and attack him if need be. The shoplifter could have de-escalated.

Saying that police should consider and bear some responsibility for the consequences of a fast and aggressive response and accordingly sometimes avoid it is very different from police "having an obligation to arrest a perp on the perp's schedule".

If it’s totally gross and nonsensical, like blowing up a house to catch a guy armed with a bullwhip, sure. But somebody firing his gun at people after getting chased for shoplifting? That’s a cold-blooded killer with bad aim. You don’t just sit around and hope he listens to the voice of reason. Or maybe you do. We’ve got lots of Monday morning quarterbacks here.

I too support the death penalty for the crime of (checks notes) four wheeling on a public road.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com