Re:Infosec implications of the US Capitol physical breach
by 8note on Thursday January 07, 2021 @02:06AM
(#25668108)
Their duty is not to protect to serve though, it's to enforce. Get the bad guy as long as you don't put yourself in danger; collateral damage is fine
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Infosec implications of the US Capitol physical breach
by guscost on Thursday January 07, 2021 @02:18AM
(#25668181)
What I’m saying is that they almost certainly would not have been able to “get the bad guys” without being shot themselves, unless the tactic was machine-gun emplacements turning everyone into hamburger, with the side effect of starting a shooting war nationwide.
Re:Infosec implications of the US Capitol physical breach
by DarkWiiPlayer on Thursday January 07, 2021 @04:43AM
(#25669169)
I think you have a very weird and wrong idea of what "collateral damage" means. Actually, the police should avoid collateral damage at all cost, even if it means not catching the bad guys.
Re:Infosec implications of the US Capitol physical breach
by modo_mario on Thursday January 07, 2021 @09:32AM
(#25671421)
I think he refers to the fact that there's been (supreme)court cases about this that generally rule in the polices favour saying they're under no obligation to protect, etc.
And repeated examples of disregard for collateral damage and proportionality during enforcement like: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/ups-driver...
Protocol changes are made like ones with regards to high speed chases but often only after a lot of hubris in which police and/or bystanders die