Good Samaritan Backfire • Hacker News Board

Re: Good Samaritan Backfire

#101

Post by PeterisP » Sun, Mar 30, 2014, 6:58 PM UTC

Karunamon wrote: post #53

PeterisP wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, the guy definitely doesn't deserve all the followup treatment that he's rightly complaining about, but about that particular single episode it is quite clear - if you're given a lawful order to not hang around i.e., cross the street; for whatever technically valid reason (and not disturbing 911 ops == not hanging around == not only a technicaly valid, but a very very valid reason) - then there are two options:…

Except when the order is not lawful because the person is not "interfering" in any meaningful way, that is. Police absolutely do not have carte blanche to dictate what someone must or must not do outside of specific, limited circumstances. Not that it matters, because the behavior demonstrated here and the current climate of the justice system (i.e. he-said-she-said vs a cop, you always lose) means that those limitat…

If the police order you to do something (that doesn't harm you) that you believe they shouldn't order you - then you shouldn't decline - come on, you should comply anyway and then dispute the supposed rights violation afterwards to find out which of you actually was right, given the details of law and the particular circumstances.

Re: Good Samaritan Backfire

#102

Post by jrochkind1 » Sun, Mar 30, 2014, 7:06 PM UTC

So of course he should not have been treated that way, and he has my sympathy.

But nowhere in his account is any recognition that this happens to lots and lots of people all the time, it's not special.

The cops are surprised that he's expecting to be treated with dignity and respect, because they aren't used to treating people with dignity and respect, it's not what they do. It's just that usually this isn't directed at well-off white people.

So there are two ways your reaction can go, when you're a well off white person who gets caught in that crap. 1) _I_ don't deserve to be treated this way, because I'm different, and I demand justice. 2) _Nobody_ deserves to be treated this way, and those people who normally get treated this way are _no different_ than me and don't deserve to be either, and I'm going to use what I've got to try and make it so.

The OP is full of me, me, I, I, and what makes him such a person that didn't deserve to be treated like this. Nope, he didn't, neither does _anyone else ever_, and _most_ people who are treated like that are not like him, and it's not a one-time thing either, and frequently has worse consequences than a night in jail. You think the officer would have agreed that he "never should have been there" if he had looked like most of the other people in those cells?

Re: Good Samaritan Backfire

#103

Post by glenra » Sun, Mar 30, 2014, 7:14 PM UTC

pdonis wrote: post #79

There is some bad advice at the end of this: recommending Lyft as an alternative to calling 911. First of all, Lyft doesn't exist in most places; not everybody lives in San Francisco. Second, moving people who have had an accident without proper medical knowledge and procedures and equipment can often make their condition worse. The author does say there are exceptions to his "don't call 911" rule, but he says "they…

Clearly in this case for him calling 911 was a mistake, because it made him more likely to be mildly beaten up, arrested, and thrown in jail. The outcome of this particular situation revealed that calling 911 has a bigger potential downside than he had previously fully considered; it's a public service to share that information.

Calling lyft, uber, or any other cab-type service probably would have worked fine in this scenario too. Because cops have a known tendency to be violent idiots who make situations worse by their presence, the fact that calling 911 automatically brings cops along with EMTs is a problem.

Perhaps what we need is to find or set up some sort of emergency number that just brings EMTs but doesn't also bring cops, and program that number into our phones. You might still want to call 911 for a freeway accident where cops are needed to redirect traffic, but not for something like this.

Re: Good Samaritan Backfire

#104

Post by jcabala » Sun, Mar 30, 2014, 7:16 PM UTC

I had a law professor who told our class, "If a police officer throws me on the ground and tells me to eat dirt. I get on the ground and eat dirt." Point being that it doesn't matter if the law is on your side at that moment or not, that is not the time to argue. Take it up in court later.

Re: Good Samaritan Backfire

#105

Post by pdonis » Sun, Mar 30, 2014, 7:20 PM UTC

jjoonathan wrote: post #66

bronson wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right. Anybody who's been a first responder will recognize the importance of the request.

I see where you're coming from. Perhaps I should have said "seemingly nonsensical" (I'm sure the bystanders think they're being helpful). The point doesn't change in the slightest. Correct response: "You've done good, but it's time to let the EMTs take things from here." Incorrect response: "Move to the other side of the street. [Arrest for hesitation.]"

You labeled the responses wrong. The one you labeled "Correct" should have been labeled "Would be nice to see but totally unreasonable to expect"; the one you labeled "Incorrect" should have been labeled "Abrupt but to be expected from a cop who has more important things to think about than pandering to the ego of a bystander".

Re: Good Samaritan Backfire

#106

Post by glenra » Sun, Mar 30, 2014, 7:21 PM UTC

stuaxo wrote: post #93

glenra wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> American cities are the most dangerous in the developed world, by a large margin. Um, can you give a source on that? I rather doubt it's true, but probably depends on what you mean by "most dangerous". (And also perhaps "developed"). Here's an article titled "Violent crime worse in Britain than in US": http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-25671/Violent-crime-... Or here's PolitiFact: > For England and Wales, we…

The Daily Mail is not a good source for, well anything. Already you can see that adding up those categories doesn't make sense as some will overlap (in particular violence and the other two).

Sure, there's some overlap between assault, rape, and robbery. But the underlying point is sound. What makes a city dangerous includes one's overall chance of being victimized, not just the chance of being murdered. And if you look at those other categories you'll find the US is not leading the pack.

Re: Good Samaritan Backfire

#107

Post by syntheticnature » Sun, Mar 30, 2014, 7:22 PM UTC

Karunamon wrote: post #28

diminoten wrote: post #19

> She turned to me and abruptly said that I was not needed as a witness and should leave immediately. "I then walked home." should have been the next line, and I'm fairly sure the author knows it. That doesn't excuse what the officers did, but it's not "being a good Samaritan" that backfired. Being nosy is the part that didn't end well. I'm not even sure the use of force wasn't justified - even in this immensely bias…

> "I then walked home." should have been the next line Unless it's against some kind of law for someone to observe police, you should know better than that. And seeing the way these animals acted, I'd say being concerned for the welfare of the downed biker is a perfectly legitimate reaction. > Being nosy is the part that didn't end well. Not illegal, and certainly not worth violent treatment and solitary confinement.…

You need to understand that doing anything an officer might class as "Disobeying a Lawful Order" can get you killed.

This bit, written by an individual with Aspergers, explaims the situation more clearly -- and why the awful nature of it isn't going anywhere. http://bradhicks.livejournal.com/316176.html

If you don't feel like reading it, this line will substitute somewhat: > "[...] If you don't think he should have given that order, you can file a complaint later, but you can't complain to Internal Affairs if you're dead."

(The reason why it is necessary -- and yes, this is arguable, but this is not new -- follows not long after that sentence.)

Re: Good Samaritan Backfire

#108

Post by syntheticnature » Sun, Mar 30, 2014, 7:23 PM UTC

wlesieutre wrote: post #99

agrona wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Unless it's against some kind of law for someone to observe police, you should know better than that. What isn't against the law? This probably doesn't apply exactly, but there are plenty of laws about "disobeying lawful orders of a peace officer". Here's an example (it may not apply in these case, I dunno, IANAL): > It is unlawful to willfully fail or refuse to comply with a lawful order, signal, or direction of a…

While I'm not a lawyer, I would assume that "lawful order" has a specific legal definition and that "pursuant to this code" means that it's restricted to orders for enforcing the laws. There are certainly laws against interfering with police, but the right to observe them if you're not in the way is pretty well established.

I've posted this else-thread, but, basically: your assumption is incorrect.

http://bradhicks.livejournal.com/316176.html

Re: Good Samaritan Backfire

#109

Post by pdonis » Sun, Mar 30, 2014, 7:25 PM UTC

glenra wrote: post #103

pdonis wrote: post #79

There is some bad advice at the end of this: recommending Lyft as an alternative to calling 911. First of all, Lyft doesn't exist in most places; not everybody lives in San Francisco. Second, moving people who have had an accident without proper medical knowledge and procedures and equipment can often make their condition worse. The author does say there are exceptions to his "don't call 911" rule, but he says "they…

Clearly in this case for him calling 911 was a mistake, because it made him more likely to be mildly beaten up, arrested, and thrown in jail. The outcome of this particular situation revealed that calling 911 has a bigger potential downside than he had previously fully considered; it's a public service to share that information. Calling lyft, uber, or any other cab-type service probably would have worked fine in this…

it made him more likely to be mildly beaten up, arrested, and thrown in jail.

What caused that wasn't his calling 911, it was his failing to go away when the cop told him to.

calling 911 has a bigger potential downside than he had previously fully considered

No, continuing to pester cops when they've told you to go away has a bigger potential downside than he had previously fully considered. By blaming it all on his calling 911, he's not only giving bad advice to others, he's failing to properly adjust his own behavior.

Calling lyft, uber, or any other cab-type service probably would have worked fine in this scenario too.

And if that was the option the injured person had chosen, that would be fine. But she asked him to call 911. If he had called Lyft instead, that would have been a huge mistake.

Perhaps what we need is to find or set up some sort of emergency number that just brings EMTs but doesn't also bring cops

That would be nice, but I suspect it would end up being misused enough (EMTs being called to a scene that should have had cops summoned as well) that it would end up working the same as the 911 we have now.

Re: Good Samaritan Backfire

#110

Post by watwut » Sun, Mar 30, 2014, 7:32 PM UTC

mcphilip wrote: post #90

bostik wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, in effect the correct response for seeing someone you happen to know get hurt in the US is "don't give a toss" . As if caring for someone was a crime in itself? I am left speechless.

No, the correct response is to help in an appropriate way, assisting until emergency response arrives, and then walk away.

Cops here are imperfect, corrupt and what not. That being said, I'm very happy I live in a place where I would not be arrested in these circumstances. It is kind of cool that I do not have choice between clearing the place immediately when cops come in and being arrested.

Cops here seem to be used that people stop on streets to watch what is going on. They also seem to be able to make people leave (when they jam the place) without arresting them for first slight tiny hint of possible disobedience.