7 ms·

The police report is now posted in the story (it wasn't there when this was posted a few weeks ago after the incident). It sounds like the cops told him to lea

The police report is now posted in the story (it wasn't there when this was posted a few weeks ago after the incident). It sounds like the cops told him to leave (aka cross the street) and he didn't, so they pushed him down and cuffed him for refusing to leave. Sounds like excessive force to me, and wtf @ arresting him and putting him in jail for that. But really, it sounds like the whole thing could have been avoided if he just walked a ways away from the scene and let everyone do their job. Why make a big deal out of being told to cross the street? That's the part that smells funny to me.

jjoonathan 13y ago
They made a (EDIT: seemingly) nonsensical request and used his confusion as an excuse to abuse their discretionary powers. Sounds like a strategy they use to bag naive bystanders. Power tripping / stats-boosting, plain and simple.
- MarkTee 13y ago
  What was nonsensical about their request?
  - bronson 13y ago
    Right. Anybody who's been a first responder will recognize the importance of the request.
    - jjoonathan 13y ago
      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.]"
      - pdonis 13y ago
        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".
        jjoonathan 13y ago
        Nope, I labeled them correctly. Your expectations of what would happen (which align with my own) have no bearing on what is right or wrong. Police officers have better things to do than "pandering to the ego of a bystander" (is that what they're calling politeness these days)? Then surely they have much better things to do than spending hours engaging in an egregious miscarriage of justice to flatter their own notions of self-importance (i.e. that they deserve unquestioning obedience even in non-urgent situations). Except that they clearly didn't. So what, exactly, are the "more important things" they have to think about?
        pdonis 13y ago
        Your expectations of what would happen (which align with my own) have no bearing on what is right or wrong. I wasn't talking about expectations about what would actually happen. I was talking about your claims about what was right or wrong, with which I disagree. See below. "pandering to the ego of a bystander" (is that what they're calling politeness these days)? In the particular context under discussion (a cop who has more important things to think about in the particular situation under discussion), yes. A cop who arrives at an accident scene is under no obligation to say "good job" to a bystander who called 911. Just saying "Move" to the bystander if he wants him out of the way is not impoliteness; it's prudence in a situation that, to the cop, is not yet under control. surely they have much better things to do than spending hours engaging in an egregious miscarriage of justice to flatter their own notions of self-importance But you weren't talking about that. You were talking specifically about the cop just saying "Move" to the bystander. The bystander not complying immediately escalates his status, in the cop's mind, from "bystander" to "potential threat". That's why the bystander got arrested. I certainly agree that the cops took things much too far after they arrested and cuffed the bystander. But again, you weren't talking about that; you were talking specifically about what happened before the arrest. Big difference. (i.e. that they deserve unquestioning obedience even in non-urgent situations) You were talking specifically about what happened at the accident scene. An accident scene is not a non-urgent situation.

jjoonathan 13y ago

They made a (EDIT: seemingly) nonsensical request and used his confusion as an excuse to abuse their discretionary powers. Sounds like a strategy they use to bag naive bystanders. Power tripping / stats-boosting, plain and simple.

MarkTee 13y ago
What was nonsensical about their request?
- bronson 13y ago
  Right. Anybody who's been a first responder will recognize the importance of the request.
  - jjoonathan 13y ago
    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.]"
    - pdonis 13y ago
      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".
      - jjoonathan 13y ago
        Nope, I labeled them correctly. Your expectations of what would happen (which align with my own) have no bearing on what is right or wrong. Police officers have better things to do than "pandering to the ego of a bystander" (is that what they're calling politeness these days)? Then surely they have much better things to do than spending hours engaging in an egregious miscarriage of justice to flatter their own notions of self-importance (i.e. that they deserve unquestioning obedience even in non-urgent situations). Except that they clearly didn't. So what, exactly, are the "more important things" they have to think about?
        pdonis 13y ago
        Your expectations of what would happen (which align with my own) have no bearing on what is right or wrong. I wasn't talking about expectations about what would actually happen. I was talking about your claims about what was right or wrong, with which I disagree. See below. "pandering to the ego of a bystander" (is that what they're calling politeness these days)? In the particular context under discussion (a cop who has more important things to think about in the particular situation under discussion), yes. A cop who arrives at an accident scene is under no obligation to say "good job" to a bystander who called 911. Just saying "Move" to the bystander if he wants him out of the way is not impoliteness; it's prudence in a situation that, to the cop, is not yet under control. surely they have much better things to do than spending hours engaging in an egregious miscarriage of justice to flatter their own notions of self-importance But you weren't talking about that. You were talking specifically about the cop just saying "Move" to the bystander. The bystander not complying immediately escalates his status, in the cop's mind, from "bystander" to "potential threat". That's why the bystander got arrested. I certainly agree that the cops took things much too far after they arrested and cuffed the bystander. But again, you weren't talking about that; you were talking specifically about what happened before the arrest. Big difference. (i.e. that they deserve unquestioning obedience even in non-urgent situations) You were talking specifically about what happened at the accident scene. An accident scene is not a non-urgent situation.