
Good Samaritan Backfire - blearyeyed
https://medium.com/human-parts/9f53ef6a1c10
======
rburhum
Sadly, I have many friends with similar stories from police departments in
different places. I attribute the officer's behavior to constantly being
surrounded by violence. If everyday, most people around you are violent
unreasonable delinquents that want to hurt you, then you start developing
personality characteristics to compensate and survive that environment. Add to
this the types of personalities that are attracted to this line of work, and
things start getting a bit more clear.

I am not trying to justify or even imply that it is correct behavior from the
police or that "all police officers are [x] or [y]", but from direct and
indirect experience this story doesn't fully surprise me ( I don't think it is
right though).

I don't think the conclusions at the end of the blog post are correct though.
Not calling 911 or even using lyft to go to the hospital seems like bad rules
that are imposed to avoid interacting with the police. A better rule of thumb
is to just minimize your dialogue with the police to the bare minimum and keep
any intellectual/ironic/satirical comment to yourself. All my friends that
have experienced something like this is because they made a smart ass comment
in an situation prior to them knowing how fast these things can go downhill.

~~~
danielweber
> attribute the officer's behavior to constantly being surrounded by violence.
> If everyday, most people around you are violent unreasonable delinquents
> that want to hurt you, then you start developing personality characteristics
> to compensate and survive that environment

As I get older I wonder if there are certain jobs that everyone in society
should cycle though, because they can be soul-crushing to do them long term.

~~~
derefr
I find it interesting that the Ancient Greeks thought that "decision-maker"
was one of these jobs. Their lottery-based election system wasn't intended to
be representative of the whims of the people, but rather to protect their
decision-makers from the inevitable "moral fatigue" that comes with being made
to choose with no clear best option, while being lobbied at by groups that are
willing to pay you to say this or that option is best.

I wonder about this in the modern day: if everyone who ran a country was made
to step down _before_ their idealism was shattered--and if they didn't have to
play politics to get there in the first place[1]--what kind of structures and
rules would result?

Or: what would a software company be like if every "journeyman"-level team
member took rotation as the team's manager, and knew that whatever pain they
put on the shoulders of others, those others would inevitably get their turn
to be in charge?

\---

[1] I think the "not having to play politics to get there" bit might actually
be what the neoreactionaries are talking about when they say monarchies work
better that democracies: inheriting the throne by divine right means you don't
have to lose your faith in humanity to get there. The Greek lottery system is
basically the same thing, but with an artificial "line of succession"
controlled by time rather than death.

------
wtvanhest
Police brutality is terrible and should be eliminated from our society.
Hopefully the proliferation of officer mounted, always-on cameras can help
minimize it. We should continued to do what we can to minimize it and should
pay attention to stories like this one.

This story invokes emotion but even after he released all the documents it
still doesn't ring true. Part of it is the language used and the overly
cautious structure about his thoughts and actions. The following paragraph
just didn't seem like a true representation of his thought process:

"Rich SOMA, poor SOMA. My instinct was to make this distinction go away, to
show them I know our neighborhood is more complicated than that. To connect on
human terms. I told them that it was an early stage startup; I’m doing this
because I feel it’s a way to make the world around me better, to bring people
joy through better food. I live here, right on this block, in a loving home
with 16 roommates. I love this community. I asked them where they lived. And
they responded in unison: “Far away! We can’t afford to live here.”"

~~~
ForHackernews
Yeah, this guy comes off as really smug and obnoxious _in his own words_. I
have no doubt the police overreacted and acted unjustly, but I also think
there's more to this story than we're getting.

Is there a lawsuit pending? What's the cops' account of these events?

~~~
tensafefrogs
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
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
What was nonsensical about their request?

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

~~~
jjoonathan
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
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
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
_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
> 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.

~~~
bronson
> ... [if] the bystander is interfering so egregiously with the EMTs that the
> extra second poses a plausible risk to the patient

Dude, you need to take a CPR class or something. Emergency response is HARD.
If you're the EMT, you don't know if the patient has a ruptured soft organ,
low blood pressure, or clotting problems, ICP, arrhythmia, etc etc etc. In
five seconds they can go from lucid to passed out and then what seemed like a
routine stop gets deadly serious and you're in trouble.

You need to work fast but you need to work ultra smart. One missed sign or
wrong move could ruin a patient's life.

The whole time you're working you're trying to keep tons small bits of
information in your head (ask about allergies, ask about illness, ask about
prescriptions, ask about family history, any Battle's sign, how was cap
reflow? Any heart problems? is the patient losing orientation? more neck
soreness, did I miss a C-spine hairline? I need to move her shoulders but it
might cripple her. if I could just get some friggin ROOM here. Can I ignore
the bruise on the thigh? Did I hear wheezing? ... etc ).

Now do this when you have drunk people milling about, talking back to the
police right over you.

My point, because you don't seem to get it: every accident scene is an urgent
situation until the patient has been transported. Every interference is
egregious. Every. last. one.

You seem to think that cops and EMTs have superhuman abilities to diagnose
patients, psychoanalyze bystanders, and predict the future, all while while
chatting amiably and stroking egos. It's bizarre.

(I did ski patrol for a few years so I got a taste of what EMTs do every day.
I am in awe.)

~~~
pdonis
_I need to move her shoulders but it might cripple her._

This brings up another point that struck me about the situation as described
in the article. The author's friend was "supporting the back" of the injured
woman: why? Why not just let her lie still, with something soft under her
head, and something else under her feet to keep them elevated, until the EMTs
got there? The fact that one bystander was holding the woman up might in
itself have struck the cops (and the firemen) as unusual, not to mention a
possible cause of damage to the patient.

------
incision
This was posted previously and drew a mountain (793) of comments [0],
including mine [1].

0:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7233730](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7233730)

1:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7235079](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7235079)

~~~
Namrog84
Does hacker news not flag/block duplicate posts urls. Especially when first
one was clearly recognized?

~~~
ColinWright
The URLs are different:

7233730 :
[https://medium.com/p/9f53ef6a1c10/](https://medium.com/p/9f53ef6a1c10/) [0]

7496137 : [https://medium.com/human-
parts/9f53ef6a1c10](https://medium.com/human-parts/9f53ef6a1c10) [1]

HN's dup detector is crude and simplistic. Suggestions over the years to help
fix it have been ignored, and efforts to help cross-link items have been
lauded by some, and vilified by others who somehow seem to see the repetition
as a feature. I guess that since it's documented (many times over, again,
discussions repeated _ad nauseam_ ) it's definitely a feature rather than a
bug.

Largely, I've given up. Let the discussions repeat the same points over and
over - most don't care, others don't even notice. An engineer at heart, I find
it almost physically painful to see such inefficiencies and loss of
opportunity.

[0]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7233730](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7233730)

[1]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7496137](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7496137)

~~~
dredmorbius
Not all duplication is bad. If you live to be long enough, you'll typically
spot a cycle of stories carried in the mainstream media: local media's
recycling of "places to visit" and "quaint historical anecdotes" items (new to
me in my youth, somewhat less so in my dotage), the very, very predictable
seasonal trend, particularly in consumer business stories around holidays,
election cycles, etc.

In the case of HN, there are submissions I've seen which have gone down with
no appreciable comment which, one or two or four years later, may well deserve
a re-hearing. At the same time, you'll get iterations on a specific theme (a
recent instance being 2^11 stories) which, while different in source, are
often largely similar in content and significance. HN penalizes the former
while passing on the latter. I'd prefer that reversed.

I've grown increasingly impressed with reddit's "related" link giving access
to other discussions on a particular URL or topic. Actually, I've been growing
increasingly impressed with reddit in general.

------
diminoten
> 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
biased account, he mentions being told to back away by the officers. What are
they supposed to do when you ignore them?

~~~
Karunamon
> _" 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.

> _What are they supposed to do when you ignore them?_

If they're breaking this minute of a law? I don't know, issue a fucking
citation? If they're not breaking a law, leave them alone? You know.. sane,
professional, calm behavior that police SHOULD aspire to?

By the way - I find it interesting that people are referring to the police
report as if it were the gospel where the author's article is just some random
nut's view. Do you _really_ think a police force that has no problem with
brutality and unjust imprisonment really has any moral issue with filing an
untrue/misleading report that makes them look better?

~~~
agrona
>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 peace officer[...] in uniform [...] or to refuse
> to submit to a lawful inspection pursuant to this code.

CAL. VEH. CODE § 2800

[http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/VEH/1/d2/4/1/s2800](http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/VEH/1/d2/4/1/s2800)

~~~
wlesieutre
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.

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

[http://bradhicks.livejournal.com/316176.html](http://bradhicks.livejournal.com/316176.html)

~~~
wlesieutre
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](http://www.aclu-
md.org/your_rights/know_your_rights)

~~~
syntheticnature
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._

~~~
wlesieutre
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...](https://www.aclu.org/free-speech/know-your-rights-
photographers)

------
jrochkind1
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?

------
ollysb
The HN lens has certainly been showing the US police force in a bad light over
the last year or so. What are the origins of this strange behaviour? Why is
force regularly used against people that verbally query the police? Even the
army is trained to use dialogue where possible. It does sound like cameras
will help but surely good and regular training programs should encourage good
engagement with citizens.

~~~
ForHackernews
"What are the origins of this strange behaviour?"

It's not strange behavior. It's just that wealthy, white people are
discovering what poor people and minorities have known for a long time: the
police are not their friend, are not accountable to them, and are prone to
violent overreaction.

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc)

~~~
ollysb
>> are prone to violent overreaction.

That's not true of every country though, it's certainly not the case in the
UK. Here the police do act as your friends, they make a lot of effort to talk
to the general public, both on the beat and at events. Certainly every
encounter I've had with the police has been positive, even when I've been in
the wrong (speeding or whatever). Police can be your friend, they can be
accountable and they certainly don't need to be prone to violent outbursts.

~~~
Dale1
Stephen Lawrence would probably disagree with you.

The basic upshot of this story is to keep your contact with the Police brief,
friendly and say no more than you need to.

The Police have been doing this to black people, gay people and other
minorities for years, it's actually quite ironic that the Stonewall riots
happened in San Fran too.

All that's happened this time is a well off, straight, white chap has realised
just how hard life gets when you're treated as a minority.

I hope he gets his day in court and if the story is true they will sort the
copper out and pay some compensation to him.

------
mikemac
Previous discussion:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7233730](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7233730)

------
norswap
Interestingly, the same kind of stuff lead to a few scandals in China, where
injured people where ignored by a host of bystander, apparently by fear of
legal pursuits (which is something that had happened earlier to some people
helping traffic victims).

------
mscarborough
This is obnoxious. Dude did not need to be put in solitary, but he also didn't
need to stay 15 feet from an accident scene that involved police and EMTs, how
is he helping anything? He hurt his elbow recently so he had to stay involved
at 1 AM?

And for real, what do you expect riding on handlebars in the city at 12:30?
Sounds like a great, sober idea!

------
kbar13
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.

~~~
EliRivers
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.

~~~
drpp
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](http://sfdem.org/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=1268)

------
pdonis
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 are fewer than you think". Is he claiming that this particular
situation was, or wasn't, one of the exceptions? If it was, then how does this
situation support the rule? If it wasn't, he's taking on a lot more
responsibility; sure, maybe calling Lyft "worked fine" for him when he broke
his elbow, but was that because he showed good judgment or because he got
lucky? Would it have "worked fine" for the people who got hurt in this
scenario?

~~~
glenra
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.

~~~
pdonis
_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.

------
jcabala
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.

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

------
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.

------
cordite
How does "Hello Sir," imply that "Oh yeah, he’s going to be a problem."?

~~~
michaelt
When cop 1 says to cop 2 "I think he's going to be a problem" cop 2 probably
says "oh yeah, he's going to be a problem" regardless of what the suspect
says.

~~~
Namrog84
If a cop says that about you and you are able to walk away without issues.
That should be the moment you shut up and go home. Or at least cross the
street down a block away from them...

~~~
danielweber
He was in the back of caged van at that point. No walking away.

------
subpixel
Officer Kaur, should you read this: thank you for doing your job, for
regularly exposing yourself to great risk in the line of duty, and for
carrying on in spite of interactions you must endure with all manner of bozos
(including, as we are now aware, over-privileged, self-righteous, know-it-
alls).

------
Kiro
Does anyone have a summary?

~~~
michaelt
TLDR: Guy calls 911 to report someone else's bicycle accident. When the cops
turned up they decide to rough him up and stick him in solitary confinement
over night. He reports doing nothing that could reasonably justify this.

~~~
jjoonathan
He reports doing plenty that would unreasonably "justify" the response he
received. The causal void that you object to (which would shed doubt on his
story) simply doesn't exist.

~~~
Karunamon
>He reports doing plenty

I'm not sure how essentially "hanging around" justifies violent treatment,
solitary confinement, etc. Perhaps you could explain?

~~~
PeterisP
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:

a) you comply voluntarily;

b) you get made to comply;

c) there is no option c. (a) and (b) are both reasonable options, allowing to
not comply is not a reasonable option.

~~~
Karunamon
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 limitations are mostly invalid. Police can order you to
do whatever and if you decline, knowing that they have no right to say such a
thing, you'll just get hassled and imprisoned anyways.

~~~
foobarian
They probably take things safe as a matter of policy. Imagine that the
bystander was actually a murderer who got interrupted. If they let him hang
around and he managed to finish the job there would be lawsuits to kingdom
come and the cops would be vilified. There is just no way to tell in a
situation under pressure, so the prudent thing is to do the safe thing and
remove the unknowns.

~~~
blisterpeanuts
I think there's a good point here. The police don't _know_ what happened, only
what some complete stranger told them. For all they know, Partensky is the one
who knocked the bike down, and then terrorized the victims into keeping quiet
about it.

I don't condone the behavior of the police in this situation; what looked like
a bike accident in all likelihood _was_ simply a bike accident.

The fact that Partensky did not comply with the order to move away from the
scene is disturbing and I don't remember it being part of the previous,
heavily HN-commented version of the story.

However, as others say, he probably didn't merit arrest, solitary confinement,
strip to underwear, and all that lunacy. Surely the police have more important
things to do than go after some goofy slightly inebriated nerd who calls in an
accident.

Actually I'm more likely to believe that they were anti-gay. He apparently is
gay, and came out of a "gay leather bar". You'd think in SF of all places this
wouldn't ever happen, but who knows; perhaps there's some bad blood between
the SFPD and the gay community that I'm not aware of.

