
I’m a cop. If you don’t want to get hurt, don’t challenge me - chuckharmston
http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/08/19/im-a-cop-if-you-dont-want-to-get-hurt-dont-challenge-me/
======
dang
This post was killed by user flags.

~~~
jebblue
So cops aren't afforded free speech by the liberal HN loons. No surprise there
really.

~~~
ameister14
I don't think it's about that; I simply have no idea what this has to do with
entrepreneurship, startups, or technology.

This is an opinion piece about something in the news involving politics.

Plus, this doesn't portray police in a particularly positive light. In it he
says basically: 'Don't want to get shot? Do what I say when I say it, because
I have the power to kill you and you don't know if I've been having a bad day
today or not.' That's is totally absurd; so I don't think flagging it is
denying cops freedom of speech.

~~~
dang
It's important to remember that HN has always been about more than
entrepreneurship, startups, and technology. Maps of the Roman Empire are more
than welcome to hang out here [1]. The mandate is: anything of intellectual
interest.

Inflammatory posts on hot issues excite a different kind of interest, which is
why stories like the OP are mostly off-topic here.

1\.
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8198481](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8198481)

------
bediger4000
Worth a read, but quite infuriating: "Most field stops are complete in
minutes. How difficult is it to cooperate for that long?"

I sincerely hope that the vast majority of law enforcement DOES NOT HOLD an
authoritarian view like that. That's just "If you have nothing to hide, you
have nothing to fear" from dragnet surveillance, DUI checkpoints, and stop-
and-frisk, but phrased slightly differently. In short, it's a distinctly un-
American and anti-Constitutional viewpoint. "Cooperate with me, I have a gun"
\- distinctly not a rule-of-law ethos, but more of a might-makes-right ethos,
and ethos that should be consigned to the dustbin of history.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
Did you read the whole article? I realize that the two sentences you quote are
in there, and taken by themselves, they can be viewed as infuriating. But his
overall point is quite different.

What he's saying is more like "You're not going to win the physical
confrontation, so don't try to start one, and don't act like you're going to."
That's pretty good advice. And he advocates going ahead and suing the police
if they are in the wrong, and videotaping them, and and and... He's not just
holding an authoritarian view.

~~~
bediger4000
I did the entire article. I realize that he wrote sentences that contradict
with "Do what I say because I have a gun", but they seemed tangential, almost
as if edited in later. So no, despite your interpretation, which I agree with
(not going to win the physical confrontation), I think his basic viewpoint is
very un-American, and demands a subservience that would only rest well on a
subject, but not a citizen.

There's a huge systematic bias in favor of law enforcement in the US justice
system. I can't count on suing later and getting any relief. Therefore, I
believe it's dangerous to me to have most or all law enforcement holding a
viewpoint like this.

------
dkyc
_" If you don’t want to get shot, tased, pepper-sprayed, struck with a baton
or thrown to the ground, just do what I tell you. Don’t argue with me, don’t
call me names, don’t tell me that I can’t stop you, don’t say I’m a racist
pig, don’t threaten that you’ll sue me and take away my badge. Don’t scream at
me that you pay my salary, and don’t even think of aggressively walking
towards me."_

I don't think any of those actions except the last one could be considered a
legitimate reason to "shoot, taser or pepper-spray" somebody. Isn't that
exactly what this whole controversy is about?

~~~
31reasons
I think the best strategy for us civilians to be safe is to act dead just like
when you see a wild bear.

------
jacquesm
If there is one thing police is scared about it is an out of control mob.
Egypt is an example of what the possible outcomes are in situations like that.
Any amount of weaponry can be overcome by sheer numbers once the citizens get
pushed beyond caring if they live or not. Police the world over should _never_
forget who their ultimate masters are, this guy even refers to that 'Don't
scream at me that you pay my salary'. But they do, and as such police is
ultimately accountable for keeping the peace and enforcing the law, for
protection of people first and assets second.

As soon as that part is lost 'to protect and serve' (or whatever the local
variation is) becomes a hollow slogan.

When I was a kid I was taught that police were to be respected at all times
because they have dangerous jobs and are first responders when _you_ need
them. Nowadays I'm not so sure that I should trust police, respect them often
enough much less (my few interactions with police have been with a few
exceptions quite the little displays of 'we have power over you and you'll
know it'). I've seen first hand corruption, bribe solicitation, abuse of power
and a refusal to actually do the work they were hired for in the first place.
I wished I could re-gain my childhood respect for the police forces of the
world but they're going to have to work really hard to get that.

------
debt
People seem to forget that most of our tax dollars goes towards defense.
Governments(particularly ours(USA)) are exceedingly good at defense and
murder.

I understand we're "taking care of the bad guys", but we're still murdering
them when we drop a 500 lbs pound, laser-guided bomb on them. You can call it
defense or protection or whatever you want, we still have to murder them(in
the most extreme cases) to achieve the goal.

We have entire apparatus set up to accomplish that end goal. We call them
departments or agencies or branches. Department of Defense, National Security
Agency, Marines, Army, National Guard, etc.

All to murder people. So the idea that somehow you as a protestor are going to
overcome all that apparatus by throwing a molotov cocktail at a police
officer(again, the terminus in a very large murder apparatus) is so
appallingly _stupid_ that I can't help but side with apparatus itself.

Governments have a monopoly on violence, you will lose. _You need to find a
different way to communicate your anger._

So if a cop says "I'm a cop. If you don't want to get hurt, don't challenge
me." he's right. Not morally, but logically.

Also lest you forget, "Never talk to police":
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc)

~~~
ibebrett
I mean the definition of "murder" is unlawful killing. If someone kills
someone in legal self defense, it is not murder.

~~~
scarmig
Just because you legally killed someone doesn't mean it's not murder. Did
Hitler murder lots of Jews? Did Stalin murder enemies of the people? Did
Anglo-settlers in the USA murder countless slaves and native peoples?

~~~
ibebrett
"Murder is the unlawful killing, with malice aforethought, of another human,
and generally this premeditated state of mind distinguishes murder from other
forms of unlawful homicide (such as manslaughter)." \-- wikipedia

The question of whether a set of laws is legitimate is another question.

------
VikingCoder
"Do what the officer tells you to and it will end safely for both of you."

If you do what the officer tells you to, 100% of the time without question,
you will self-incriminate. You will surrender your rights. You will answer
questions without an attorney. You will NOT answer questions, without verbally
exercising your right to remain silent - and shockingly, that can be used
against you as evidence. You can't answer some questions and not answer others
- there is no such thing as selectively exercising your right to remain
silent. (Other than your name, and probably address, etc.) If you answer some
questions, and don't answer others, that can be used against you.

The jobs that cops do is impossibly hard. I mean that, impossible. It is not
possible to always defend the rights of people, and always collect evidence to
prosecute. Those are competing goals.

But the advice, "do what the officer tells you," is not good advice.

I am not a lawyer, and your results may vary.

~~~
WettowelReactor
You are right that it in that

>>It is not possible to always defend the rights of people, >>and always
collect evidence to prosecute.

but the US system was designed to weight the scales in favor of defending the
rights of individuals when these goals come at odds.

"innocent until proven guilty".

~~~
VikingCoder
IN COURT.

On the streets, I don't think it's worked out that way.

Cops certainly don't treat people like they're innocent.

------
mabbo
"Finally, cops are legally prohibited from using excessive force: The moment a
suspect submits and stops resisting, the officers must cease use of force."

And as we all know, this rule has never been violated before.

------
frenchman_in_ny
Counterpoint -- "Who Should Resist Arrest", at
[http://nyti.ms/1t2fnXB](http://nyti.ms/1t2fnXB)

------
shmerl
_> No officer goes out in the field wishing to shoot anyone, armed or
unarmed._

Not convincing. Can he argue that no people with sadistic tendencies work in
police just because it offers them a "lawful" way express their cruelty?

~~~
jaxytee
Came here for this comment. Anyone who's ever hung around cops knows there are
definitely cops who want to shoot "bad guys."

~~~
jebblue
We can only hope you're right.

------
keerthiko
This article twanged of what we tell women in India (and implicitly tell women
everywhere in the world) -- if you don't want to get raped, don't wear skimpy
clothes, go out alone at night, try to stand up for yourself, or go about your
life how you see fit. If you do any of those things and get raped, you had it
coming for you.

Bullshit.

------
usingpond
"...if you don’t want to get shot, tased, pepper-sprayed, struck with a baton
or thrown to the ground, just do what I tell you."

Is this satire? How can anybody hold this viewpoint and not think of
themselves as human garbage.

------
afs35mm
"Don’t argue with me, don’t call me names, don’t tell me that I can’t stop
you, don’t say I’m a racist pig, don’t threaten that you’ll sue me and take
away my badge. Don’t scream at me that you pay my salary, and don’t even think
of aggressively walking towards me."

Maybe it's the rebellious spirit still lingering, but there is only one hard
cold fact in there. We DO pay their salary! The rest of the things I wouldn't
say to my worst enemy. However I find it funny that when talking about law
enforcement stating that specific fact turns into a threat...

------
lazyant
We need cops to record video of their interactions with the public, for
everybody's protection.

Also, it's not true that if you cooperate cops won't be violent with you, just
see some episodes of the tv show "cops", if that's what they do on camera,
what do they do off camera?

(from what I remember: hitting and laughing at a drunk while he was already in
the cell, bringing down a guy because he had priors, hitting a guy because he
looked back when he was told not to etc)

------
jeffdavis
Let's separate morality from causation here. Causation is fairly simple:
aggression of any kind, even just yelling, causes (statistically) you to get
hurt by police. That's just a fact.

Therefore, the author reasonably concludes that it's wise to cooperate or at
least remain calm.

There's are separate moral and policy questions, of course, that can hopefully
reduce violence in police encounters. Technology plays a role here, too.

------
vonklaus
A lot of this makes sense, but it has at least, on pretty fatal flaw. While I
agree, that regularly cooperating within reason with the police is helpful to
both parties, he takes for granted that this is a lawful stop, or not
otherwise a reasonable request the officer is making. Obviously, your choice
is to comply with a questionable request or go to jail, or otherwise be
molested by the officer (molested being non-sexual in this use).

So unfortunately, electing not to speak with the cops (I suggest this in most
cases after volunteering basic information) or otherwise challenging them,
enrages the human inside them, and not the lawful civic steward they are
acting in the capacity of. Further, complaining to them about them, is
impossible.

So in essence, submitting to a cop could be reasonable, however, the vast
majority of these viral incidents occur when a cop is possibly over-reaching
in his authority and is a single officer on the scene. This is not really
addressed.

------
Sambdala
"Regardless of what happened with Mike Brown, in the overwhelming majority of
cases it is not the cops, but the people they stop, who can prevent detentions
from turning into tragedies."

...

"Even though it might sound harsh and impolitic, here is the bottom line: if
you don’t want to get shot, tased, pepper-sprayed, struck with a baton or
thrown to the ground, just do what I tell you."

Even though I'd recommend not antagonizing cops just from a personal safety
standpoint, this really rubs me the wrong way.

Most of the times this topic is broached from the point of view of the cops,
it seems like there's shockingly little empathy for those on the receiving end
of police violence, and that the justification for such violence is they were
asking for it.

------
HarryHirsch
That statement shows everything that wrong with accountability. It's the last
stop, after common purpose, culture and sense of duty have all failed. Good
luck getting accountability from Ferguson Police.

------
Sloveni4n
This is assuming you have supreme power over the people, which you do not.
America is 'We The People', not 'The State'. You are human and subject to the
same laws you enforce. In fact, as a public servant, you work for the people,
not the state. Remember that.

You too make mistakes:
[http://arts.nationalpost.com/2014/04/11/tosh-0-producer-
acci...](http://arts.nationalpost.com/2014/04/11/tosh-0-producer-accidentally-
shot-dead-by-los-angeles-police-who-mistook-him-for/)

------
gaius
The internationally accepted solution, it seems, when The People are facing
down state security apparatus, is for the international community to arm them.
Calling Vladimir Putin!

------
bdcravens
tl;dr - Whether you're right or wrong, challenging being detained will likely
turn out poorly; your recourse comes after you've been detained, not during.

~~~
frenchman_in_ny
It might turn out poorly, but even if you have "recourse [...] after you've
been detained", you're put at a significant disadvantage for the rest of your
life, just because of an arrest record.

See my post here --
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8199524](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8199524)

------
amirmc
> " _Every person stopped by a cop should feel safe instead of feeling that
> their wellbeing is in jeopardy. Shouldn’t the community members extend the
> same courtesy to their officers and project that the officer’s safety is not
> threatened by their actions?_ "

That only works if people actually believe the first sentence represents
reality. Given the number of don't-talk-to-cops posts I've come across I doubt
that it is.

------
jMyles
An easier solution, it seems to me, is to just not have cops.

~~~
cracell
And replace them with what? Pitch forked crowds? Security guards? Private
police forces?

All of the alternatives I know of are worst. There are many police forces they
don't abuse their power. We just need better checks and balances to prevent
abuses and to reverse the trend of militarization of police. Also in the US
the Justice system needs to start making an example out of police officers who
abuse their positions.

~~~
jMyles
I surmise that the reason that a viable alternative hasn't arisen is that the
technology hasn't sufficiently developed.

And I don't think it's reasonable to expect that the "justice" system of the
hegemonic, dominator-culture world power is going to reign in its armed
enforcers.

~~~
joshdance
Technology is not a magic want. Technology is run by humans. So if you are
saying cops are bad (which they are not), soon you get advanced technology...
run by the same type of people.

------
marrone12
Anyone who says "verbal judo" loses respect from me.

------
2close4comfort
You just have to make sure they see the camera first.

------
lazylizard
is he a cop or a robber? what, don't do anything to antagnise them, call the
cops later?

