<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>mcv</author><text>&amp;gt; &lt;i&gt;&amp;quot;American police are trained to prioritize their own safety and survival above the safety and survival of suspects or even innocent bystanders.&amp;quot;&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;But they&amp;#x27;re trained very badly at that. They&amp;#x27;re trained to escalate, which endangers everybody, including themselves.</text><parent_chain><item><author>MaxfordAndSons</author><text>That&amp;#x27;s great that German police are trained to react that way. But American police are not. American police are trained to prioritize their own safety and survival above the safety and survival of suspects or even innocent bystanders. There&amp;#x27;s no consideration of intention or what information people are acting on - if there&amp;#x27;s a potentially lethal threat to the policeman, it must be dominated and suppressed.&lt;p&gt;So yes, with a practical understanding of how American police train and operate, this outcome &lt;i&gt;is&lt;/i&gt; completely expected.</text></item><item><author>Grollicus</author><text>&amp;gt; Obviously nobody expects the police not to shoot back when fired upon&lt;p&gt;Well, I do. We had a case in Germany a few years back where the police served some kind of no-knock warrant, the guy (a Hells Angel) thought they were from a rival gang, shouted at them and then shot at them. A Policeman died, the guy dropped his gun immediately after police identified themselves. The Case made the news later because the guy got acquitted of all charges regarding the killing [1] but that&amp;#x27;s only secondarily relevant here.&lt;p&gt;For me the main take-away from this should be that there&amp;#x27;s a difference between shooting back at night against a home invasion and shooting at the police. Just because the police see a situation where someone shoots back in a home invasion-scenario does in no way mean they can expect an intention to shoot at cops. Shooting back at invaders is legal, and the police should not react until they have ruled that out.&lt;p&gt;[1] I suspect that&amp;#x27;s a german source, sorry. &lt;a href=&quot;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.spiegel.de&amp;#x2F;panorama&amp;#x2F;justiz&amp;#x2F;0,1518,795678,00.html#&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.spiegel.de&amp;#x2F;panorama&amp;#x2F;justiz&amp;#x2F;0,1518,795678,00.html#&lt;/a&gt;</text></item><item><author>rayiner</author><text>USA Today has the best coverage of this I’ve seen. The NYT coverage of this is awful: &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.nytimes.com&amp;#x2F;article&amp;#x2F;breonna-taylor-police.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.nytimes.com&amp;#x2F;article&amp;#x2F;breonna-taylor-police.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;A key fact is that the police shot Taylor after her boyfriend shot at the police, thinking they were intruders. While he was fully entitled to do that, the NYT doesn’t believe in gun rights so that’s a messy fact. To make the victim seem more sympathetic, the narrative under the heading “What Happened in Louisville?” doesn’t mention Taylor‘s boyfriend shooting first. Instead, you need to go down several paragraphs to learn that fact. Which leaves the whole article deeply confused: at first you think police just started shooting for no reason, and then later you learn they shot because they were fired upon. Which of course leaves the reader with little understanding of what police actually did wrong. Were they not supposed to shoot back when Taylor’s boyfriend shot at them? Is that the problem?&lt;p&gt;Obviously nobody expects the police not to shoot back when fired upon. What the police did wrong, instead, is failing to respect black peoples’ second and fourth amendment rights. This happened in Kentucky, where if you barge into someone’s house in the middle of the night you can expect to get shot. Police barging into people’s homes in the middle of the night unannounced is fundamentally incompatible with what the Constitution and Kentucky law gives homeowners the right to do: shoot at intruders in their home. And as such the practice of serving these no-knock warrants is an infringement of that right. It leads to tragic consequences under predictable circumstances where homeowners are just exercising their rights. And of course, it’s doubtful that officers display the same callousness to the possibility of armed homeowners when it comes to policing white neighborhoods. It’s another one in a long pattern of cases where black people are murdered for daring to exercise their second amendment rights.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Breonna Taylor case: Louisville police nearly blank incident report</title><url>https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/06/10/breonna-taylor-case-louisville-police-nearly-blank-incident-report/5335929002/</url></story>
<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>hef19898</author><text>In the above case, the killed officer was already dead. Returning fire would have killed the suspect and maybe more officers. Not to safe if you ask me. Identifying themselves as police was the prudent thing, having done so upfront would most likely have saved an officers live.</text><parent_chain><item><author>MaxfordAndSons</author><text>That&amp;#x27;s great that German police are trained to react that way. But American police are not. American police are trained to prioritize their own safety and survival above the safety and survival of suspects or even innocent bystanders. There&amp;#x27;s no consideration of intention or what information people are acting on - if there&amp;#x27;s a potentially lethal threat to the policeman, it must be dominated and suppressed.&lt;p&gt;So yes, with a practical understanding of how American police train and operate, this outcome &lt;i&gt;is&lt;/i&gt; completely expected.</text></item><item><author>Grollicus</author><text>&amp;gt; Obviously nobody expects the police not to shoot back when fired upon&lt;p&gt;Well, I do. We had a case in Germany a few years back where the police served some kind of no-knock warrant, the guy (a Hells Angel) thought they were from a rival gang, shouted at them and then shot at them. A Policeman died, the guy dropped his gun immediately after police identified themselves. The Case made the news later because the guy got acquitted of all charges regarding the killing [1] but that&amp;#x27;s only secondarily relevant here.&lt;p&gt;For me the main take-away from this should be that there&amp;#x27;s a difference between shooting back at night against a home invasion and shooting at the police. Just because the police see a situation where someone shoots back in a home invasion-scenario does in no way mean they can expect an intention to shoot at cops. Shooting back at invaders is legal, and the police should not react until they have ruled that out.&lt;p&gt;[1] I suspect that&amp;#x27;s a german source, sorry. &lt;a href=&quot;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.spiegel.de&amp;#x2F;panorama&amp;#x2F;justiz&amp;#x2F;0,1518,795678,00.html#&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.spiegel.de&amp;#x2F;panorama&amp;#x2F;justiz&amp;#x2F;0,1518,795678,00.html#&lt;/a&gt;</text></item><item><author>rayiner</author><text>USA Today has the best coverage of this I’ve seen. The NYT coverage of this is awful: &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.nytimes.com&amp;#x2F;article&amp;#x2F;breonna-taylor-police.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.nytimes.com&amp;#x2F;article&amp;#x2F;breonna-taylor-police.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;A key fact is that the police shot Taylor after her boyfriend shot at the police, thinking they were intruders. While he was fully entitled to do that, the NYT doesn’t believe in gun rights so that’s a messy fact. To make the victim seem more sympathetic, the narrative under the heading “What Happened in Louisville?” doesn’t mention Taylor‘s boyfriend shooting first. Instead, you need to go down several paragraphs to learn that fact. Which leaves the whole article deeply confused: at first you think police just started shooting for no reason, and then later you learn they shot because they were fired upon. Which of course leaves the reader with little understanding of what police actually did wrong. Were they not supposed to shoot back when Taylor’s boyfriend shot at them? Is that the problem?&lt;p&gt;Obviously nobody expects the police not to shoot back when fired upon. What the police did wrong, instead, is failing to respect black peoples’ second and fourth amendment rights. This happened in Kentucky, where if you barge into someone’s house in the middle of the night you can expect to get shot. Police barging into people’s homes in the middle of the night unannounced is fundamentally incompatible with what the Constitution and Kentucky law gives homeowners the right to do: shoot at intruders in their home. And as such the practice of serving these no-knock warrants is an infringement of that right. It leads to tragic consequences under predictable circumstances where homeowners are just exercising their rights. And of course, it’s doubtful that officers display the same callousness to the possibility of armed homeowners when it comes to policing white neighborhoods. It’s another one in a long pattern of cases where black people are murdered for daring to exercise their second amendment rights.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Breonna Taylor case: Louisville police nearly blank incident report</title><url>https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/06/10/breonna-taylor-case-louisville-police-nearly-blank-incident-report/5335929002/</url></story>