Hacker News Reader

Can you back up your assertion for not acting with legislation in response to a tragedy?

In pretty much any other aspect of life, from business to personal, people will react then.

Especially since this isn't a one-time tragedy, but one that plays out continually. We need to act now before we let this happen again. I'm going to need to see a citation on your numbers, but 40 since 1980 is once a year! By your criteria of not responding after a tragedy, you are actually arguing that we should never act at all.

My brief googling lead me to Wikipedia, which sources most of its statistics from the new York times, but I also read some stuff from the ACLU and other left-leaning news orgs. There's very little good data out there is my biggest takeaway.

Which brings me to my point, the reactions are emotional, not logical. If we're creating policy based on feelings that aren't backed by data or actually run counter to data, that's bad policy. Many areas do regular no-knock raid and many areas have banned them entirely. I expect organizations with strong opinions on this subject can investigate the effects and do better than the New York Times throwing 80 links to local news websites into a csv file on GitHub and then linking to it like it's an actual source.

My main question is why we should not react speedily. The desire to not act speedily seems be a desire that is an emotional one, not a logical one. There is a clear logical need to act quickly to prevent future abuses of power.

While 20,000 is a hell of a number per year, it's worth noting that we're not 100% sure it's only 40 innocent bystanders- for example, in this case it wouldn't have been deemed as such if the boyfriend hadn't survived.

What I'd be interested in, is how many no-knock warrants result in any shooting or casualties whatsoever. If that's still a really low number, this may not be as warranted.

> “The wake of a tragedy isn't usually the best time to pass legislation, or even form a coherent opinion.”

When they happen frequently enough, you’re always in the wake of a tragedy, and this becomes an excuse to perpetually do nothing. It’s like after every US school shooting it’s always “too soon to talk about legislation.”

Who knows how many other victims are out there? This case highlights it because the killed woman was a medical technician in the middle of the pandemic.

Normally her death might not have made the national press.

Your logic is not sound at all. You are saying no knock warrants are needed because the only alternative puts everyone in danger. We see in this very case, the opposite being true.

The justification in this case and in general isn't about the person being dangerous it's justified under the auspices that they might destroy evidence.

It isn't obvious to me that the risk of confusing people about what is going on and causing a situation where they think they need to fight back against home invaders outweighs the 20 seconds of warning a "dangerous" person might get because the cops don't knock.

Respectfully disagree. I don't think there's anything that could be done with a be knock that could be done without.