8 ms·

What was nonsensical about their request?

by MarkTee 13y ago

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
        > 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. > [reordered to address two points at once] An accident scene is not a non-urgent situation. There is a conceivable circumstance under which taking a second to explain/pander would be the less prudent road: the bystander is interfering so egregiously with the EMTs that the extra second poses a plausible risk to the patient. Of course, in this situation the correct response is a shove, followed by a placating explanation. Under no circumstance was a single order to "move" followed by an arrest the fastest or most probably successful method of addressing the situation. There's a reason why most cops are polite, professional, and (comparatively) slow to escalate: it's the best way to encourage in-kind behavior. It's pragmatic. > But you weren't talking about [the later arrest, you were talking about saying "Move"] I didn't switch subjects. I used the officers' later jerk-off behavior to refute the excuse you were trying to make (they had more important things to think about). If they had more important things to think about, they wouldn't have gone and picked a fight.

What was nonsensical about their request?

by 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
        > 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. > [reordered to address two points at once] An accident scene is not a non-urgent situation. There is a conceivable circumstance under which taking a second to explain/pander would be the less prudent road: the bystander is interfering so egregiously with the EMTs that the extra second poses a plausible risk to the patient. Of course, in this situation the correct response is a shove, followed by a placating explanation. Under no circumstance was a single order to "move" followed by an arrest the fastest or most probably successful method of addressing the situation. There's a reason why most cops are polite, professional, and (comparatively) slow to escalate: it's the best way to encourage in-kind behavior. It's pragmatic. > But you weren't talking about [the later arrest, you were talking about saying "Move"] I didn't switch subjects. I used the officers' later jerk-off behavior to refute the excuse you were trying to make (they had more important things to think about). If they had more important things to think about, they wouldn't have gone and picked a fight.