Hacker News Reader

Comment by snurk | Hacker News Reader

I don't see a problem; he was resisting and refused to comply. And he continued to resist and fight even when he was on the ground. The article's main complaint was that the police held him down.

There are an endless number of unbalanced and sociopathic people in the U.S. who believe they're entitled to [EDIT: resist] the police, wrestle with them, etc. You're not. And the solution to this so-called police "brutality" is to simply be respectful, stop talking, and follow directions.

For sure, perhaps the police could have employed a more clever psychological de-escalation technique. That'd be an interesting training issue to research and borrow from other location that deploy it successfully.

But here was a person who was resisting arrest and disobeying instructions.

View on HN

Uh, I hate to be a stickler here, but what about those tens of thousands of videos on youtube of the police threatening/beating/shooting/pepper spraying unarmed people for no real reason?

Like that guy who was recently choked to death for selling loose cigarettes, or the 12 year old who was shot, or the guy shot running away trying to pull his pants up, or the guy shot walking away slowly without any officer commands, or...?

Police brutality is a problem, and the attitude that cops are gods and have complete control over your physical autonomy is also part of the problem. Cops are just people-- frequently bullies or narcissistic people who have anger issues. Police are feared because they have a reputation for being powder kegs with a child's understanding of the world. It shouldn't be this way, and other countries are proof that it doesn't have to be this way.

Cops (as a result of their training and frequently inherent personality flaws) consider a wide range of behaviors "resisting", including not being 100% submissive to them in a conversation. If a cop's soap-bubble-tough ego is threatened in any way (something as trivial as not looking them in the eye 100% of the time, wringing your hands, or trying to say something to defend yourself is enough to violate this) or not stroked sufficiently enough (better call him sir and put on your best "yes massuh" attitude), you're gonna be in for a bad time. It's disgusting, and really we can't say we are free citizens if they can stop us without suspicion and demand our surrender of personal sovereignty.

Let's see you dance to that music after your leg is amputated.

They've had the training already.

Someone was sleeping on the days when descalation was covered. And they were probably on vacation during the in-service stuff, too. <rolling eyes ;-)>

I fully agree that the best policy is to comply with directions, but I can't see any reason for the number of responding officers.

I question why the SFPD allows those fos guys them to patrol without a supervisor.

Why is it that they couldn't calm the guy down? Arrogance? Apathy? Or were they all rookies? They couldn't holler for a detective or a supervisor?

Out-argued by a guy on crutches. What'd they think? He was going to somehow run away from them? Sprout wings?

> What'd they think?

A principle in law enforcement is that someone who fights with police will be just as aggressive, and more so, with non-police.

Not relevant. So what? Was that drunk capable of fleeing and attacking anyone? Not likely. Is it hard to pursue a person fleeing on crutches for a few yards until you can kick a crutch out from him? It's not rocket science.

Sure, he was a big damned nuisance and they couldn't let him get whacko. Playing dogpile on a UNARMED disabled guy isn't ever going to be the right answer.

They mishandled that situation.

> I can't see any reason for the number of responding officers.

That's also mentioned ad nauseum in the blog post. So what?

Was he being arrested? If not, he wasn't resisting arrest. Yet the cops decided to go hands on, even though he's got one leg and he's not going anywhere. It is very likely to have been a case of "disrespect of cop." If a cop has such a tiny dick that a one legged homeless man can ding his ego, perhaps a change of line of work is in order.

I understand he wasn't arrested. Is it still resisting arrest if you're not actually under arrest? I suspect that even in the US it's not yet technically a crime to choose to be about your lawful business rather than do whatever a police officer tells you when you're not under arrest.

There are an endless number of unbalanced and sociopathic people in the U.S. who believe they're entitled to argue with the police

There are also an endless number of balanced individuals who are entitled to argue. Everyone is entitled to argue. The police aren't magic. The police aren't gods. The police are (but should not be) above the law.

And the solution to this so-called police "brutality" is to simply be respectful, stop talking, and follow directions.

And the solution to being raped is to stay at home and never go outside? The solution to getting shot is to hide under your bed twenty four hours a day? Or is crime only acceptable from police officers?

> Everyone is entitled to argue.

I should have been more precise; I meant physically resist, which he was doing.

Resist what? A cop going hands-on gratuitously? After all the brutality was done, a dozen cops could not find a reason to arrest him. So it wasn't resisting arrest. He was assaulted by a cop.

> I understand he wasn't arrested. Is it still resisting arrest if you're not actually under arrest?

Actually, yes, it's called a Terry Stop. Whether he _ended up_ in a squad car and brought to jail isn't the issue.

A "Terry Stop" relies on reasonable suspicion. A patdown is permitted to check for weaponry.

If this was a Terry Stop, they went so far that they turned it into something else; pinning an unarmed one-legged man to the ground, stamping on his legs, is not a Terry Stop. Reminds me of the bullshit they pull where they pick someone up, mess him around, and then kick him back onto the street whenever they feel like it; because they can say "it wasn't actually an arrest" they get away with it.

If this was not a Terry Stop, then it's all just more bullshit from bullyboys in uniform.

You see the footage. Seriously, how do you perform the mental gymnastics to defend this blatantly unacceptable activity? They're not heroes. They're out of control bullies wearing uniforms, and the longer we let them get away with this sort of nonsense, the worse it's going to get.

> A "Terry Stop" relies on reasonable suspicion.

Which they had, because of the report and his behavior.

> A patdown is permitted to check for weaponry.

Which they tried to do, but then he resisted, which provided them with Probable Cause for any number of things.

This might not have held up in court, but definitely there's no getting out of the ride downtown once you physically resist.

Source: am a lawyer.

Are you kidding me? Did you watch the video? This man was not a threat.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com