Hacker News Reader

Comment by stult | Hacker News Reader

> Police helicopters don't have hellfire missiles as standard optional armament.

I mean, they could. And firefighting planes could be rerigged to disperse chemical weapons, doesn't mean there's anything wrong with them existing.

>Also police helicopters are operated by local/state forces. This is a federal agency which is way out of its jurisdiction.

I'm guessing it's on loan. It's hardly unusual or questionable for the feds to provide assistance to local police during periods of extraordinary crisis. However justified the people of Minneapolis may be in reacting this way to yet another police homicide, what else are the local police supposed to do now except try to restore order using whatever tools are available? Including drones that can provide immediate information about hotspots, crowds, fires, etc.

View on HN

Perhaps this is too political, but the only tool they actually needed was one they had the whole time. Charge the offices based upon the evidence and open a more detailed investigation. The military equipment was entirely unnecessary - but it's very availability makes opportunity for bad decisions.

In all probability, union rules stand in the way of making any quick arrests. Their hands are tied. It is better for them to appear slow and do things by the book than try to appease the irrational mob. They'll eventually get to where the mob wants to go rather than ending up with the cops "winning" in some way due violations of union rules and procedures.

It's hard to see why union rules would trump criminal procedure - if that were true the cops would really be a law above the law. You'd think the much delayed arrest was so that the suspects had time to scrub social media, get rid of Nazi paraphernalia, get their stories straight, that kind of thing. They can't get their fellow officers in trouble, that's part of their code.

Or, hear me out, the "delayed" arrests are so they don't make mistakes that would result in a mistrial because they don't want you to jump up and yell "they intentionally violated their rights so the judge would throw the case out".

There was more than enough probable cause for arrest, and after the perp has been arrested, prosecution has 72 hours to build a case and press charges. This is just more of the usual, also because the career of the prosecutor depends on the goodwill of the cops.

It is a government position. It requires training and interactions which may cause death. If a person were trained to restrain a person in a manner which has a high likelihood to cause death and not informed of the risks, should the incorrectly trained person really be held liable for the person's death?

As I sit here trying to imagine the manner it which someone could come to the same conclusion as you I find myself unequal to the task. I don't know how it is possible for a person to come to the same conclusion after watching the tape.

It took 8 minuted for him to die 3 minutes of which he was unresponsive while people warned the cop and asked him to stop. The victim informed the murderer of exactly how he was being murdered and asked him to stop. He called out for his mother then stopped speaking at all while he died in silence. The method he was being killed would have been completely obvious to anyone who possessed a pair of lungs or understood how breathing worked.

Nobody gives precisely one hot damn what manner of training he received. It was obvious he was murdering his victim to a human of ordinary capability. The logical conclusion is that he didn't care or wanted to murder him.

Why do yo you say "irrational mob"? Is this because irrational behavior has at times moved an entity to respond, rather than rational?

> union rules stand in the way of making any quick arrests

It's almost like it's some sort of systemic problem

I don't think union rules can prevent someone from being arrested. Rules definitely can't stop a warrant from being issued.

It is not just any union and any normal person. It is union for a government occupation which has protections for mistakes during duty. They have to be extra careful.

Let's just assume he was at some recent point trained to restrain in this manner and he can prove it. It is very unlikely he would be convicted since he was following his training and was unaware of the danger. If they were to try to convict him, I would imagine the union would be more than glad to back him up in a lawsuit which he would likely win.

Since he was charged, I'm assuming they've reviewed enough to be confident he was not acting within how he was trained.

When people around you told you that you were murdering and it took 8 minutes to kill your restrained victim 3 minutes of which the victim was unresponsive there is no plausible scenario in which you can claim that you didn't know you were killing him.

There is no cause to review how he was trained or how his actions comport with said training except to prevent it from happening again. There is no scenario which allows you to knowingly cause the death of your fellow citizen without just cause. A police officer is "a normal person" the same laws that apply to me apply to thee. If those whose job it is to enforce the law treat another officer differently it is corruption and cowardice. Cowardice is a character flaw not a justification.

“We have made men proud of most vices, but not of cowardice. Whenever we have almost succeeded in doing so, God permits a war or an earthquake or some other calamity, and at once courage becomes so obviously lovely and important even in human eyes that all our work is undone, and there is still at least one vice of which they feel genuine shame. The danger of inducing cowardice in our patients, therefore, is lest we produce real self-knowledge and self-loathing, with consequent repentance and humility.”

― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters

Gosh, at my next union meeting I should remember to ask for barriers to being arrested. That's a thing, right?

It is for cops. IA has to proceed with an investigation following specific rules. Like if the cop is questioned without a union rep that evidence might get tossed.

Isn’t that for firing them, not criminal charges?

No. Police have special dispensation during investigations.

If union rules delay the arrest of an accused officer for any amount of time longer than a civilian charged with the same offense and same facts, it seems reasonable that that union rule should be abolished.

I suspect it's not actually the case and there was some amount of calculation of the ex-officer's risk of flight, the likelihood that he would further offend, and the need to get some forensics, autopsy, and preliminary tox screen results.

In other words, if a civilian under the same set of facts would have also been arrested 4 days later, I'm fine with it. One criminal standard for everyone. Union rules don't have any place superseding criminal laws (and I haven't seen anyone presenting credible evidence that they do).

If me, and 3 buddies - all white took a white man behind a car, kneeled on him until dead while on-lookers video-taped it. How long before the cops show up?

Same scenario w/ a black guy. how long?

Same scenario w/ 3 Cops and a white guy?

Same scenario w/ 3 cops and a black guy?

I'm betting if you could do a study on all these scenarios of 'time to act/prosecute'... you'd find some major biases.

Would they need to do an autopsy or tox screen when there's video evidence from multiple viewpoints and the entire nation has seen the evidence and cops from other cities are calling for arrests? SEriously, this is clear cut. There is no ifs/buts.

3rd degree murder is also a joke, this is 1st degree, you don't kneel on someone's neck while paramedics and a doctor plead w/ you to stop because you're killing him without wanting to kill him, and not w/ someone you've known for 17 years.

TBH, based on my understanding, I think this is 2nd, not 1st degree. I concur it’s not -3. (There’s nothing that precludes a filing of another charge as the investigation develops, of course.)

When cops who choke a white person to death aren't charged, there's far less outrage. For example, David Glen Ward was killed by a police choke hold six months ago. The deputy responsible was fired, but no charges have been filed.

https://www.kqed.org/news/11818476/deputies-blunt-force-neck...

Not trying to justify the cops killing that guy, but it’s a pretty different scenario for at least a couple reasons:

1) The guy was armed and leading a high speed chase

2) I don’t think there is a long, long, documented history of cops murdering the unarmed white guys without any real consequence

> I don’t think there is a long, long, documented history of cops murdering the unarmed white guys without any real consequence

There is. Police disproportionately kill black men, but there is ALSO a long history of cops murdering unarmed white men.

So how about these?

https://twitter.com/MattWalshBlog/status/1266715217398030336

There does seem to be bias in media coverage and therefore society outrage or lack thereof.

I have a hard time rationalizing this. I get the impression that they don’t want to conduct an arrest or get anyone in trouble — In their eyes, it was a mistake in need of no justice.

That’s what the riots are about after all; I don’t think anyone needs it to move quickly, they just need acknowledgement justice is needed and will meaningfully move forward. There was previously no promise of that.

Contract with a union can’t come in conflict with criminal law.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com