Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Good Samaritan Backfire

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 137 posts

Re: Good Samaritan Backfire

#111

Post by wlesieutre »

syntheticnature wrote: post #108
wlesieutre wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

That's some random guy's Livejournal with no sources and amounts to "If the police tell you to hand over $20 because they want to order a pizza, the safest thing to do is comply and file a complaint later." Which is probably true, but I was talking about the legality of ignoring orders that the police don't have the authority to give. And I don't think I'm wrong.

Here's what the MD ACLU has to say [1]:

> The safest course of action is to obey the officer's directives. Not every order by a police officer is lawful, and police may not lawfully arrest you in Maryland for failing to obey an order unless the order is lawful, and aimed at averting some imminent illegal conduct. It is difficult to know at the scene whether the order is proper, and failing to obey may result in an arrest, even though the arrest may not be proper. You have the right to photograph and record police officers performing their job in public. Police may not order you to delete photographs or recordings on your camera or cell phone.

Assuming the system works properly, you could not be found guilty of refusing to give a police officer pizza money (to reuse my earlier example). It's not illegal. Photographing the police and observing a scene without interfering is in the same boat.

[1] http://www.aclu-md.org/your_rights/know_your_rights

Re: Good Samaritan Backfire

#112

Post by nemo »

jjoonathan wrote: post #74
nemo wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you walk in the street you might get hit by a car. I don't condone a driver hitting you, but reality is what it is. Cops have to constantly deal with the worst elements of society doing the worst things imaginable. It'd be great if they didn't get hardened, but the reality is they often do. Expecting cops to be polite and kind to the drug addicted guy beating his wife because she isn't turning enough tricks to sup…

> It'd be great if they didn't get hardened "Hardened" suggests the officers are immune to bullshit. The officers' behavior suggests the exact opposite.

Hardened has nothing to do with being immune to BS. It means that they adopt the mindset needed to do a job that involves potentially getting killed, potentially dealing with murders, murderers, rapists, and similar things that require hardening psychologically to handle working with. That mindset doesn't make them immune to BS, it makes them able to do their job. It also makes them the kind of person you don't want to have interactions with professionally, so if they tell you to leave an area, you leave the area and don't linger and piss them off pointlessly. Hanging out and obstructing/distracting them from their work is the kind of BS they have no tolerance for, which is what the guy in this article was doing out of mind-bogglingly profound ignorance.

Re: Good Samaritan Backfire

#113

Post by Kiro »

Kiro wrote: post #6

Does anyone have a summary?

Not sure why I'm getting downvoted. It was a fairly long article without any kind of TLDR. It could either be babble or really interesting and some kind of summary would help me know if I should invest the time or not. Apparently it hurts asking but thanks for the responses anyway.

Re: Good Samaritan Backfire

#114

Post by syntheticnature »

wlesieutre wrote: post #111
syntheticnature wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've posted this else-thread, but, basically: your assumption is incorrect. http://bradhicks.livejournal.com/316176.html

That's some random guy's Livejournal with no sources and amounts to "If the police tell you to hand over $20 because they want to order a pizza, the safest thing to do is comply and file a complaint later." Which is probably true, but I was talking about the legality of ignoring orders that the police don't have the authority to give. And I don't think I'm wrong. Here's what the MD ACLU has to say [1]: > The safest c…

The ACLU just agreed with the link, in your quotation no less: The safest course of action is to obey the officer's directives.

It is difficult to know at the scene whether the order is proper, and failing to obey may result in an arrest, even though the arrest may not be proper.

You can't be found guilty of refusing to give a police officer pizza money, but that's not what the question is: can you can be found guilty of refusing a lawful order? Worse yet, as the link points out, the dead do not make reports to Internal Affairs.

Of course, the ACLU link you give says much more. Here's a choice extract to remember: Remember: police misconduct cannot be challenged on the street.

Re: Good Samaritan Backfire

#115

Post by tankm0de »

this dude. by his own admission he, 1. had been drinking, was potentially drunk 2. disobeyed police officers at scene of accident 3. provoked the guards of the holding cell

police can be thug-ish but this guy is not exactly a posterchild for innocent bystander. I find his thinly veiled sense of entitlement ('I can't have done anything wrong... I work for a non-profit!') pretty obnoxious. There are many victims of police or prosecutorial misconduct out there far more deserving of attention or sympathy. sadly they don't blog.

https://www.aclu.org/donate/join-renew-give

Re: Good Samaritan Backfire

#116

Post by DanBC »

One thing to remember: do what they say, and complain later.

This helps give police departments something they can use against rogue officers. It keeps you safer - you are not as likely to get shot or crushed to death by police after writing a letter than after complaining about what they're telling you.

Yes, you shouldn't have to do this and no, police shouldn't feel that they can do what they like. But "don't talk to the police" applies strongly in the OP story.

Re: Good Samaritan Backfire

#117

Post by rayiner »

glenra wrote: post #106
stuaxo wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

From the point of view of the police, murders are a much bigger deal than robberies, because they are generally the result of organized violence.

Re: Good Samaritan Backfire

#118

Post by wlesieutre »

syntheticnature wrote: post #114
wlesieutre wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's some random guy's Livejournal with no sources and amounts to "If the police tell you to hand over $20 because they want to order a pizza, the safest thing to do is comply and file a complaint later." Which is probably true, but I was talking about the legality of ignoring orders that the police don't have the authority to give. And I don't think I'm wrong. Here's what the MD ACLU has to say [1]: > The safest c…

The ACLU just agreed with the link, in your quotation no less: The safest course of action is to obey the officer's directives. It is difficult to know at the scene whether the order is proper, and failing to obey may result in an arrest, even though the arrest may not be proper. You can't be found guilty of refusing to give a police officer pizza money, but that's not what the question is: can you can be found guilt…

The point I was making is that "Give me money for pizza" is not a lawful order and you're within your rights to refuse it. You can not be found guilty of refusing a lawful order if you did not give him the money.

The same is true for things like photography. It's been established that on duty officers have no expectation of privacy, and you have the right to watch and record them. If a police officer demands that you erase photos from your camera, you are under absolutely no obligation to comply with that order.

https://www.aclu.org/free-speech/know-your-rights-photograph...

Re: Good Samaritan Backfire

#119

Post by drpp »

EliRivers wrote: post #4
kbar13 wrote: post #2

repost, but looks like the article was fleshed out some more since I last saw it on HN. Included recording of 911 call, which I'm curious how he obtained.

They're recorded and they're covered by the California Public Records Act. You just have to ask for it; they can withhold for privacy reasons. In this case (and as with many others), no such withholding was made. Just ask.

I'm the OP. It takes some persistence with paperwork and followup, and a recording costs 30$, but here is the form: http://sfdem.org/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=1268

Re: Good Samaritan Backfire

#120

Post by tptacek »

ForHackernews wrote: post #65
rayiner wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

American cities are the most dangerous in the developed world, by a large margin.

Only certain parts of certain cities[0]. It's almost entirely a result of the War On Drugs. In areas where drugs and gangs are a problem, the homicide rate is very high. In wealthy/safe parts of town, violent crime is not dramatically higher than the rest of the developed world. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Chicago_violent_crime_map_...

Gang violence preceded the "war on drugs".
Post reply on HN