Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Here's the police chief's statement:

https://www.facebook.com/Texascitypd/posts/pfbid0hYERpcvXS26...

Here's the GoFundMe campaign for the guy's civil rights case:

https://www.gofundme.com/f/lawsuit-expense-fund-for-civil-ri...

The popular YouTube channel Audit the Audit did a legal analysis of this case a couple of weeks ago, where it pointed out all the ways the officer violated the law and the constitution during this interaction:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhU7PbvOKaI

The sad thing is that if the officer had not made a few key missteps (like explicitly indicating that he was retaliating against the man because he thought he might submit a complaint) he might have covered his bases well enough to avoid consequences.

Even so, he may be protected by Qualified Immunity, the legal principle that protects officers from being personally sued except under the most egregious circumstances.




The sunk cost fallacy is a cognitive bias that occurs when someone makes a decision based on previously invested time, effort, or money.

If you're an American police officer, you probably don't continue arresting a person because you previously invested so much time and effort in beating the shit out of him.

You continue arresting him to teach him a lesson, or because you think he's a dirtbag, or to fabricate a crime to deter him from filing a complaint against you.

You continue arresting him because you hope to cover up your own crimes. This is not an example of the sunk cost fallacy.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: