To the 4 white male policemen who beat me for checking the health of [detainee] | Hacker News Reader

To the 4 white male policemen who beat me for checking the health of [detainee]

medium.com

163 pointseternalban136 comments

This shit has been happening to poor black and Hispanic people for a long time. In a sick way, it's a good thing that it's happening to doctors now. It's easy for comfortable suburbanites to vote pro-police, but now that the cancer has spread and police are brazenly abusing everyone else, it won't be so easy to ignore.

We need a system of collective punishment for such conduct. "Good" police officers should fear losing their livelihoods for helping cover up the abuses of "bad" ones. For example, lawyers are subject to professional discipline for failing to rat out the misconduct of other lawyers. Liability also flows up to supervisors from reports. It creates a healthy culture of paranoia. There is no reason police should be held to a lesser standard.

> "Good" police officers should fear losing their livelihoods for helping cover up the abuses of "bad" ones.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/16/baltimore-joe-cryst...

There are good cops out there, no doubt about it.

Maybe, but the few "bad apples" have spoilt the bunch.

I wouldn't know if it is "few" or "most" or whatever.

The implied point of citing officer Crystal's ordeals -- and he was basically given a mild form of the Mafia treatment by his "fraternal" brethren -- was that the society-at-large should step up and go to bat for the "good" cops. I'm not sure if we are doing that.

> "Good" police officers should fear losing their livelihoods for helping cover up the abuses of "bad" ones.

Good police officers do fear losing their lives and their livelihoods for not looking the other way.

I'm a strong advocate for hotlines specifically for police officers to report other officers, backed by civilian investigative authorities with no loyalties or connections to the police force, but with the ability to investigate and a primary mandate to protect the reporting officer. Plenty of police officers are disgusted by a lot of the people they work with. I've met them.

I also think that policemen involved in cover-ups of police shootings should generally be punished more than the shooters. For the shooter, this was a usually spontaneous act spurred by fear and rage, and happened in an instant. The same cannot be said for the cover-up. The cover-ups create an environment of impunity that make future shootings more likely.

We really need to develop a parallel prosecutorial system which is only directed towards the police. So the only way to advance within it is to find and punish bad cops. The current incentives are all out of whack.

completely agree. I'd further add that the call should be taken well outside of their local districts (I'd say state lines, but this might be logistically difficult). This is just so there is even less chance that the folks will be connected to each other.

I'm also completely for much better initial and continued training for police that includes interpersonal interaction and ways to avoid conflict and disperse anger.

Poor Black and Hispanic people have been driving past crime scenes parking there cars and trying to interfere with Police in the midst of an arrest?

I seriously doubt that. But I have no doubt that anyone of any color that pulls over at a crime scene and tries to approach the suspect is going to be arrested. More then likely you will also be incapacitated in some way. That is what they are trained to do and rightly so. There is no way to judge your intentions. An officer can be dead in a split second in that situation and many have.

You do not pull over at a crime scene to 'help'.

How do you un-rot a barrel of apples?

Better yet: any instances where this has actually happened?

>“He is resisting arrest!”

>They were running this weird fake dialog in the background.

it seems to be a pattern how they run plausible deniability and can do whatever they want - one policeman may "see" something, like a gun, and announce it thus providing the other with full legal reason to act, i.e. shoot in the case of gun. If that "seeing" by the first happens to be just a mistake, such mistake can never be punished until proven that it was intentional, i.e. never. Such pattern is even completely resistant to body cameras.

Yes they are trained (whether explicitly or informally between each other) to do this. It will continue so long as it works.

I'd like to ask you for a hypothetical. Say you are a police officer and one of your coworkers shouts "GUN" and you don't directly see one. You see your coworker freaking out, you see them drawing, and you see the other suspect moving.

What do you do? Do you draw your gun/taser? I'd do that just going off of what my coworker has said. It's entirely reasonable to suspect there to be a gun.

Now I'd like to run through two things that can happen from this point. The suspect either has a gun or does not. If I draw my gun, point it at the suspect, and wait till I see a gun (what the officers of the law are trained to do) is that not a reasonable reaction?

What happens if I say "Oh I don't see it so I'm going to stand here and watch"? My partner and some innocent by-standards might very well get hurt because now I have to wait for my senses to catch up with what's going on before I react.

I don't think it's unreasonable for cops to be allowed to go off what other cops are saying. If it can be proved that a cop has lied then that's another story. They should be punished to the full extent of the law for lying. Sadly though it's not illegal for them to lie to or about us, it's only illegal for us to lie to them.

Of course it isn't unreasonable to work together. But the officers in the article were colluding to cover their asses for breaking the law, not cooperating to ensure mutual safety. And indeed, this is a pattern I read and hear about often, unfortunately.

Oh cool, I didn't know you could read minds and see into the past! You should do me next!

Honestly though, we will never objectively know what the officers are thinking in that situation nor know exactly what happened. If they were colluding or if they did think that the person was resisting arrest. Given all the information I have, it's not unreasonable that the officers did what they did. Someone walks up, tries to go towards a suspect, and is confrontational when asked for ID. That is a bit of a hint that something is off.

The question here isn't their actions. It's their motives.

There's a South Park sketch where the kids are out camping with the local gun nut, and he explains that they're not allowed to hunt most these animals - but they can act in self-defense. So he teaches them to shout "it's coming right for us!" before firing. ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nt6kKhlX8vU )

So what the grandparent is alluding to, isn't whether it's correct to act appropriately if "it's coming right for us!". It's the culture of "stop resisting" used as robotically as your Miranda rights to later justify an escalation of violence.

No-one's saying an officer shouldn't be allowed to respond to threats appropriately. We are saying we should be able to trust officers not to imagine threats for the sole purpose of justifying such an escalation (which, if taken at face value, is what the OP article describes).

And yes, you're right; other than taking the protagonist's word for it, it is exceptionally difficult to prove one from the other. That's what makes the prospect so troubling.

It's clear that the policeman responding to the shout of the other one is acting correctly.

The issue is only with the one who cries 'WOLF!' without actually spotting one, and no, he will not be punished to the full extent of the law, or to any extent for that matter. That's the entire point of this discussion.

It isn't a problem trusting each other when working together.

But honestly, the bigger issue is the reaction. Is freaking out part of the procedure? Is there nothing folks are trained to do except shoot? I'd much rather a dude get away - and no one getting hurt - than to have a shootout start from either side. I'm gonna guess it is more likely that the person would just run away than start shooting up innocent folks.

I'm also completely comfortable with police not carrying weapons without calling it in, actually, because the result is citizens less afraid of cops and cops that think ahead slightly more - and treat people better.

Santa Clara city has some racist cops. I was pulled over, accused of DUI, arrested, illegally searched my car, brought back to the station for a blood test. Blood test came back with zero alcohol in my body. They treated me like I was criminal, finger printed, mugshotted. After being held for two hours, I had to pay $300 to retrieve my car from the impound. I guess we still have a lot of bad cops in the Silicon Valley then we thought.

when i had to pay a ticket at the santa clara court house the cops there are a bunch of smart asses. Except for that black cop who was at the door, he was very helpful.

Agree, officers of color are usually nicer. The Asian cop who helped me retrieve the impound release paperwork was nice to me. Even waived the $100 paper work fee.

But I'm still pissed about the whole situation. Wasted three hours and $300 because of some cop decided to arrest a sober person to kill time rather than patrolling the street and catching the real criminals.

Edit: had to change colored to officers of color to be more PC.

What a complete waste of time, impound lots are even worse, i assume they did not give you an opportunity to call someone to get your car.

No breathalyzer on spot?

I'm sure you didn't intend any offense, but for future reference, "colored" is considered archaic and borderline racial-epithet in the U.S. (I realize it's quite normal and non-offensive elsewhere.)

I didn't mean to offend. What word is more appropriate to describe cops who are not white?

Person of Color or POC. You might say, "Cops who are People of Color."

"Officers of color" is more palatable.

I only learned English after 11 year old. What a confusing language... I thought you guys might know some fancy word, but you only switched the words around.

If someone had made up a fancy word, would that have been better for you? Just accept what people want to be called. Calling black people in the US colored is fraught with problems; I'm sure you wouldn't go to Northern Ireland and call people Fenians.

Race relations are complicated in the US (and in most of the world). A term that wouldn't seem problematic can become problematic because of its historical context. That's the case with many racial epithets in English...words that seemingly have no negative connotation can take on negative connotation when used for a period of time to insult or separate people based on their race, religion, origin, gender, sexual or gender identity, etc.

No one blames you for not knowing; all you're responsible for is how you respond and correcting future usage. The appropriate response is something along the lines of, "I didn't know. I will say X in the future. Thanks for the heads up." And, if you haven't been told what a better option is, you can generally ask without causing upset.

English is really confusing as a second language. To make it even more complicated, words with racial or other 'insults' change from place to place. Not only that, but the English that is standard through Europe (outside of the UK) is slightly different altogether - folks will be able to talk to other Europeans, but yet get lost when going to an English speaking country.

But no worries, honestly, except for this minor slip, you seem to be doing well.

i knew what you were saying. no harm intended <3

How is it at all legal for the government to demand payment for something when you are not convicted of a crime? It's effectively a 100% discriminatory, corrupt, and unaccountable tax. Completely reprehensible.

This isn't even the most absurd part about citizen/cop cash transactions: under civil forfeiture, they can take up to (iirc) $10,000 of your cash no justification or remediation path. Really, all they need is a traffic stop or a (suspect) smell of cannabis in the air.

There is no such limit, in most jurisdictions, as far as I know...and, if you happen to be carrying a lot of cash, it is viewed as evidence of wrongdoing.

Hell, Oklahoma has begun using a device that allows them to take money from debit cards, as well.

My position on police has evolved over the years to the point where I don't even really believe in "good cops", anymore. The entire system seems built to excise honest cops and reward bullies; I can't name a single whistle-blower cop who has kept their job, while the crimes they documented have generally gone entirely unpunished and the perpetrators often remain on the police force.

The only reasonable path forward I see is tearing the whole damned system down and starting over, with a focus on prevention, rehabilitation over punishment, restitution when plausible, de-escalation rather than military style raids, and overall a lot better training in psychology and community policing and less training in how to kill and maim people.

I didn't pay the cop. I had to pay the towing company. The cop told the towing company to impound my car.

That makes no difference in the end. The police caused you financial harm, with no restitution. They should be held liable for that under civil law.

Forgot to say that they also took away my driver license for a whole month. I wish I knew how I can get the tow fee reimbursed.

Small claims court might be worth a look. I'm not sure if you can sue a city there, though.

In my country we have a Small Claims Court for situations like this (under USD$2500), where you get to go before a judge and plead your case.

There are no lawyers involved and it costs nothing if you handle the entire case yourself or a small amount of money (that you can add to your claim) if you want to pay a bailiff to serve the papers to the defendant for you.

Don't forget that the average victim of such a tax can ill afford it, and is the least likely to be able to make their voice heard.

...Which is why the system works the way it does in the first place.

This is why I teach my children never to speak to police officers, to avoid them as much as possible, and to leave the area should they become visibly present.

And I live in Canada; when I travel to the USA on business I stay in the hotel or the venue and restrict my traveling as much as possible. I don't fear the citizens, I fear the police.

Thats interesting,

I'm not sure which part of Canada you are from, but here in Edmonton the police are very friendly and as far as I know that is the majority opinion. Personally, and even amongst my friends (which ranges from Tim Horton's Employees to CS Professors) the opinion is the same. In general, especially in parts of downtown, I feel safer with the police around.

I don't, however, have the same feeling in the States.

AFAICT it really depends on which Canadian city you're in, the VPD and TPS are not the RCMP after all, and whether or not you appear to be native, black, or a prostitute. Still, you don't want to catch the attention of an officer; they are an agent of state force capable of incredible violence.

But I agree that, in general, Canadian police forces are nowhere near as bad as major metropolitan forces in the USA.

Not trying to nit pick here, as my experiences with Edmonton police have been similar, but my fiancee, who's black, has had different experiences with Edmonton police.

Nothing as negative as this, but experiences that left her disheartened (police saying: well what should do you expect us to do? when she was jumped by a number of gang members at WEM).

I also suspect that if you were to speak to Aboriginal Edmontonians, they'd have different opinions. Consider the way that the RCMP has treated indigenous individuals in the past.

I remember a long time ago, I think it was in Saskatchewan, where the RCMP would pick up drunk indians, drive them way out of the city and drop them off. In the middle of winter. Keep in mind this is Saskatchewan where it's typically -30C at night in the winter.

Several of them froze to death.

http://www.cbc.ca/news2/background/aboriginals/starlighttour... as well as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlight_tours and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saskatoon_freezing_deaths .

That's always made me sad. My ex was American - when we moved to Ireland, I made a habit of routinely (once a week or so) asking random policemen for directions to places, just to teach her that they're entirely approachable here.

The closest thing we had to a bad experience, was one chap who took it upon himself to walk with us until we could see our destination, just to make sure we found it. I'd only wanted to waste a moment of their time, not a few minutes.

In some rural communities this is how the police behave in the US. I've seen police changing tires for people near my house countless times for example.

I lived in rural Michigan for a few years. I knew every city cop by first name (very small city. like "how on earth to do you call that a city" small), and it'd generally fit that description. But the sheriff, state police and tribal police .. wide berth.

Obviously anecdotal so I can't disagree with you. Just that my experience of rural police was a mixed bag. Black uniform good. Blue uniform bad. Brown uniform really bad.

I'm from Pennsylvania, I think it was the Quakers[0] who framed it originally like this but police here do more community policing as opposed to broken windows policing. In my experience, most police mainly use the law as a tool to keep the peace and don't really care what you do as long as it doesn't bother anyone else. Sure there must be some bad ones out there, but it goes to show you that a different mindset can have a measurable effect on the outcome.

[0]https://www.quakercloud.org/cloud/chicago-friends-meeting/an... (looks like they are still at it 400 years later)

In some rural communities police are on a huge power trip because they're some of the most powerful people in the small town. Some are good, some are bad, just like everywhere else.

It's still good advice in general.

I grew up in a small rural community. I'm sure the cops here occasionally do things like changing tires for people.

They're also bullies who like to go on power trips. If they feel disrespected at all, they will beat you senseless (and have).

Police across the US are almost universally bullies on power trips. The job of police offer is every bully's biggest dream: they can get paid to go around and abuse people while demanding respect from everyone.

Weird, it seems counterproductive. Why doesn't the US police in bigger cities try to integrate with the citizens?

Is the violence risk so big or are there legal reasons?

The history of policing in the US is a bad one, rife with torture and abuses that are heard about for decades until various notorious cases force the public to demand change. You also have generations of people who were legally allowed to be abused by police because of their race, or economic status.

That shapes the character of a country's police, and the people's response to them.

US cities are an order of magnitude more violent than cities in other countries, and there is major racial conflict (until fairly recently, police forces in majority black cities like DC were mostly white).

They should. The phenomenon of heavily-armed police spending most of their working hours either in a squad car or actively handling a disturbance, rather than walking a beat, is a modern one. It's something Peter Moskos laments in Cop In The Hood, which is a pretty decent book on the practices of modern police forces written by a sociologist who served for a year as an experiment.

Beat policing is not one of the most dangerous occupations in the US, and a lot of the danger police face is self-generated: readiness to escalate conflict alters the calculus of offenders as well.

The big issue we have with current police forces is cultural, and it probably can't be fixed by fiat. We'll have to do it at the organization level, through attrition. It's simple. For simplicity of discussion, rename all current patrol officers "assault officers"; they're the heavily armed ones that spend their day in cars or in confrontation. Now: stop hiring new assault officers. Instead, for every assault officer headcount you'd hire, bring in 1.5-3 new "compliance officers" who can walk beats, help people, de-escalate simple criminal incidents, and very quickly summon assault officers.

(I also think that most police officers should simply be disarmed. They should have ready access to long guns, perhaps in the trunk of their squad car, but they shouldn't be 5 seconds from killing someone else at all times during their work day.)

"they're the heavily armed ones that spend their day in cars or in confrontation"

This is simplifying quite a bit. Right now, most LEO are not in positions that require being heavily armed or in confrontation. The vast majority of LEO currently are in positions where being armed is not a benefit, if not a outright detriment, but their training and regulation require them to carry weapons unsafely (see for instance court security police who must carry weapons, except when they are in the courts where they actually work and where they must not carry weapons, leading to them all walking around with empty holsters all day).

The other side of this is of course corrections officers, who have objectively the most dangerous jobs in LEO but receive the least training, the least pay, and the least equipment.

It turns out this is quite simply a cultural problem. The culture of law enforcement in the United States right now is quite simply dangerous and irrational. Without fixing that culture, renaming titles isn't going to go very far.

Renaming the titles isn't the point. The point is freezing new hires into that culture, and creating a new culture to run in parallel to it.

There already exists a separate culture without weapons (corrections officers). Its universally less paid, less equipped, less respected and more dangerous.

So we create a third culture, beat cops who aren't gun slingers.

In sum, you and others seem to describe the present situation as a result of a more violent historical past? And maybe it could be more like an European model?

Thanks, that answers my question.

(Regarding the equal number of up/down votes on my previous comment: Save the emotional energy. :-) I'm a curious European without a clue about the related political discussion. I'm sorry if I stepped on any toes; for the record, my home country is probably more dysfunctional than USA, but in different ways.)

I was under the impression it is everywhere like this. The police would be the first I would approach when having a question.

They should be, and usually are. But there's two problems.

One, is that if even 1% aren't, those 1% can cause untold damage to your life. We're usually pretty bad at judging risk, so many people won't accept "a very low chance of a very big problem" for the same reason many people will accept "a very low chance of a very big reward" and play the lottery.

The second is more disconcerting to me; all too frequently I see people assume that when someone had a bad interaction with the police, they must have done 'something wrong' to be interacting with them in the first place. Either we believe police are eminently approachable, or we believe that someone interacting with the police "must have done something to deserve it". We can't have it both ways.

I'm American and moved to Norway - and it has taken some time for me to get used to the idea as well.

The oddest experience for me: Border control. I took a trip to Amsterdam, and upon arriving back in town my things (and the person sitting next to me) were searched. I understand.

But... the dude was nice. Polite. Didn't have an angry look on his face. Sure, he asked about drugs more than once (I was in amsterdam, so understandable).

I've not lost my mistrust for police, but it is slowly fading, for sure.

Frankly, you've allowed yourself to fall prey to US election year propaganda. If you look at the numbers you're very safe travelling in the US, and to the extent you're in danger it's from criminals and not police.

The problem as I see it is that while 99% of police officers are not only law abiding and do their job with integrity, the 1% out there can and do destroy innocent lives. It is like walking into a mine field. You could very well walk out unscathed but one 'routine' brush with the wrong police officer and your life may never recover. So are you willing to take such a small but catastrophic chance? An intelligent person would do all they can to minimize the risk.

Yes, but the point is the risk is so small you're off into lightning strike territory. Do you worry about brain eating amoebas when you swim? Do you refuse to fly because the plane might crash?

I do take cover during storms.

And the risk is much higher if you happen to not be white.

My position is in-line with the advice of lawyers[0][1][2][...] and police[3]. And as a foreigner I have virtually no rights while on American soil.

0: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UezKO4TnaHs

2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKe-NC30obg

3: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Y_l3sa-iJQ

>And as a foreigner I have virtually no rights while on American soil.

That's simply false. In criminal matters you have exactly the same rights as a US citizen, even if you're in the country illegally. Though it is true you don't want to say anything to cops if they've taken some kind of official notice of you, that's not the same thing as asking for directions or reporting a crime.

You will get the same advice about answering questions in Canada, by the way, and for the same reason:

>Never voluntarily subject yourself to a police interrogation where it is apparent you are a suspect or accused. If you are approached as a witness you can ask the police, on videotape, to confirm that you are being questioned only as a witness and that you are not in legal jeopardy. After an arrest, there is an enormous power imbalance. The police -- hopeful of obtaining a confession, or damaging admission -- will take advantage of your vulnerability, at least to the limits of the law. Your best choice is always to consult a lawyer and you have a right to free consultation with duty counsel.

http://www.cbc.ca/thenational/blog/2012/06/what-to-do-when-t...

The reason people hammer home the idea you shouldn't talk to cops in the US is (like Canada) remaining silent isn't prejudicial during a trial. You have nothing to gain and can only hurt yourself.

By the letter of the law and international agreements, foreigners have rights.

In practice? Enjoy jail and a swift deportation because you happened to say the wrong thing to an officer or otherwise incur their disgust. What an embarrassing, and costly, end to a business trip that would be.

Have you ever actually been to the US? For something like that to happen you'd have to be breaking the law. Saying the wrong thing to a cop won't do it - local police don't have the power to deport you. The most they can do is refer you to CIS, and if there's no crime CIS will say "Why are you bothering us?"

It should be common sense you don't go to a foreign country and break the laws, no matter where you're from or where you're going.

Ha, right. Police only ever beat you down and jail you when you've broken the law; what a laughable myth.

Did you even read the original article?

Yes, and I noted the lack of independent verification. All we have here is an accusation.

That sounds ridiculous to me.

Do you use a paper towel so that you don't have to touch the door handle on your way out of the bathroom, too?

Yes, I do. I've seen too many men piss, zip and walk out without washing.

Are you exaggerating or are you seriously concerned that the police will harm you? No matter what your race/gender/color/face/etc., citizens are far more dangerous. There's simply tons of them. Even in the US, this whole police-violence thing is a bit of a red herring. Yes, it's terrible, police need to be checked more, etc. But no, it's not a "massacre" or remotely the top reason someone will be killed.

If I am assaulted and mugged I get some bruises and lose my wallet.

Those are relatively minor outcomes compared to the enormous court expenses and years or a lifetime of damage that an officer can do. Hell, as per the article, the $300 to get my car out of impound would be a lot more than the pocket change I stand to lose in a mugging.

Most well-fed sharks won't attack a human, but I'm not about to dive into the tank.

Bruises and a lost wallet are also minor compared to a transit accident. Yet I'm guessing you get around? They're less than the damage from choking to death, but I'm guessing you eat more than liquid food?

I don't think you're actually calculating the risk here.

Actually, I refuse to commute by car because of the risk of accident and the health impact of the stress of driving and the sedentary lifestyle.

The best advice I ever got regarding police came from my mother years ago, who got out of defense law the moment she laid eyes on the system. "At the end of the day, a cop is just someone with a gun, and if no one else is there to contradict them, their story will be believed."

Now of course we know that even with video evidence, there's little hope.

I had a conversation a little like that when I was a teenager, without the beating part:

ME: Am I being arrested?

COP: No, you're being detained. Get in the car.

ME: And if I don't?

COP: Then I'll arrest you.

ME: For what?

COP: For resisting.

ME: Resisting what?

COP: ?!?!? Just get in the damned car.

From Felipe Hoffa's twitter feed [0]:

"Ali is a manager at Google. Ali is a doctor. Ali knows his rights. @aliafshar was brutally attacked by the police."

Related tweets hint that the incident may have taken place in Santa Clara, California..

[0] https://twitter.com/felipehoffa/status/776131486437081088?la...

Article says El Camino, California (perhaps an update?)

El Camino is a street. It runs from San Jose nearly to San Francisco.

Heh. It runs from San Diego to the North Bay.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Camino_Real_(California)

Consider it from the cops' point of view. A random person shows up and wants to "check the health" of their suspect. When asked for id, he wants to debate "why". Does he seriously think they'll let some unknown person who refuses to provide id interfere with their arrest? Would any cop in any country allow this?

What he should have done is opened with "I am a licensed physician, here's my license and id. May I check the person's health, he appears to be having a seizure?"

It does appear the cops overreacted, but how could he expect anything but a negative reaction from the way he approached it?

Maybe. Are we also breaking people's fingers for a bit of a harried response when they see that someone may be having a fit or a seizure?

How is that at all relevant?

He could have shown up and started cussing at them and they wouldn't have justification to beat him up and arrest him.

Cops are supposed to serve us, not the other way around. We shouldn't have to be afraid of them or treat them like volatile, emotional dictators (though that's exactly what they are).

A crime scene and an arrest in progress are not an informal gathering of a bunch of people you can happily join in.

By interfering for any reason with a crime scene in progress you are putting the Officers lives in jeopardy and possibly your own if you you make the wrong choices. They are fully sanctioned under the Law to take your life if they feel threatened in the line of duty. Even something as simple as putting your hand in you pocket could be a life threatening situation and you could be shot.

This attitude is abhorrent. Asking questions is not justification for a cop to do anything to you, even at a "crime scene."

Cops are not dictators allowed to commit murder because they "feel threatened." They are supposed to be trained professionals who asses actual risks.

Cops are not judge and jury, or at least they're not supposed to be.

> They are fully sanctioned under the Law to take your life if they feel threatened in the line of duty.

That's a terrible attitude and is not the law, though unfortunately law enforcement protects its own and will never prosecute police.

I have a right to self-defense. Does that mean I have the right to shoot police when I feel threatened by them driving behind me as I go on my morning walk?

"I have a right to self-defense."

No you do not have the right of self defense against a Police Officer. If you try to assault an Officer you will more then likely be shot and killed. The Officer will be completely within the bounds of the law.

It's not so black-and-white as you try to oversimplify a myriad of issues and legalities. It depends. If the man stayed at a reasonable distance, presented ID, approached calmly and slowly and said he needed to check the health of the prisoner because he is both a doctor and required to render aid under Duty to Rescue, and then waited for permission or made his intentions clear if denied, things might've happened differently. Regardless, that jurisdiction is likely to be out a few million to settle this matter and this guy will be slightly richer.

“Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated: “Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.”

“An arrest made with a defective warrant, or one issued without affidavit, or one that fails to allege a crime is within jurisdiction, and one who is being arrested, may resist arrest and break away. lf the arresting officer is killed by one who is so resisting, the killing will be no more than an involuntary manslaughter.” Housh v. People, 75 111. 491; reaffirmed and quoted in State v. Leach, 7 Conn. 452; State v. Gleason, 32 Kan. 245; Ballard v. State, 43 Ohio 349; State v Rousseau, 241 P. 2d 447; State v. Spaulding, 34 Minn. 3621.

“When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justified.” Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80; Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1.

“These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by the use of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence.” Jones v. State, 26 Tex. App. I; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State, 43 Tex. 93, 903.

It's possible that if this persons behaviour was conducted in a professional manner they would have let him into the crime scene but thats a very small possibility. The Police can call in an Ambulance or Fire rescue on a whim if they need it. Its more likely that they would not take the risk. At a minimum they would have to ID you and search you first.

I doubt very highly this case will make it to court. Or see any sort if compensation.

"Show me your ID"

"Why?"

"Show me your ID! You must obey an officer."

"I haven't done anything, I need to know he is OK, and I will be on my way"

Thats where any possibility of a civil ending to this story ends. He refused to show his ID while trying to enter a crime scene while officers were apprehending a suspect. At that point he becomes a danger to the Officers. Possibly an accomplice to the person in custody. Who knows what the crime was, how many suspects they were looking for etc.

On the self defence note, if anyone were to attempt to enter a crime scene and refuse to show ID and manage to get into an altercation with an Officer which lead to your death. There would be no chance that Officer would be on the wrong side of the law.

The author should have given that as his reasoning for blocking traffic. This doesn't justify any of the interaction after "you must obey an officer".

Yeah, I didn't read the part where he identified himself as a physician to the officers.

On the other hand ...

>It does appear the cops overreacted, but how could he expect anything but a negative reaction from the way he approached it?

"Stop resisting!" is goes beyond overreaction, it's conspiracy.

Interesting to see that "white" managed to lead the spate of pejoratives toward the end of the article ("Each of 4 white, ignorant, racist asshole police officers").

I've been the victim of interracial crime, at least once due to my race. I did not consider the race of my assailants to be anywhere near the top of the list of characteristics to which I should like to object.

Without any facts, I'm skeptical. He should either move on with his life, or make a formal complaint and/or a lawsuit.

Taking the middle road with a story with few details on Medium doesn't help anyone.

I didn't believe Bill Cosby's accusers. Neither did law enforcement. Seeing the cover of the magazine with so many accusers, yeah maybe I and law enforcement were both wrong and it needed a closer look. Didn't want to believe it.

It could be the same with all of these stories of law enforcement behaving very badly. It seems like a weird thing for so many disparate people to be fabricating. Maybe there is a problem and reporting it isn't getting toward a solution? If it happens to you, silence is almost certainly the wrong course of action. I don't want to believe there is an endemic problem with law enforcement either. What I want shouldn't matter at all.

Why does "white"/"male" matter? I understand that this is potentially a very contentious question, but I genuinely don't understand why those are listed in the title, or why "white" was the first in a list of insulting words used at the end of the article.

What really gets to me is the fact that white societies are the number #1 immigration destinations for non-whites, and are entirely responsible for this person's opportunities and high standards of living.

Yet all he sees is white racism.

edit: since I can't reply anymore; to that one person...

You've missed the point entirely.

1. You don't know that race had anything to do with what happened. All you have is one side of a story that keeps dragging race into it. Which is very racist in itself.

2. If white societies where racist, they would not be the #1 immigration destination or have the highest standards of living for non-whites (or even let non-whites in).

But he's probably right (and he's certainly the most qualified to comment on this incident). I'm pretty sure if I had walked up and said, "Is everything all right? I'm a medical doctor in case you need a hand with anything." the situation would have gone much differently.

Furthermore, even if he isn't right, there is plenty of evidence of a growing white nationalism/racism in this country that the article wouldn't be any less relevant if you could somehow prove that these four particular officers are not racist.

But he didn't identify himself as a doctor. I can't help feel the encounter may have gone differently if he had.

Not that the behaviour is any more acceptable if he was just a random passer by.

He should ignore a racially motivated beating by police because other people of the same race are responsible for his high standard of living?

There is so much wrong with this I don't even know where to begin. How about that his high standard of living is primarily due to his hard work and intelligence, not the graciousness of his white overlords.

"Each of 4 white, ignorant, racist asshole police officers."

While he was probably trying to use it in an aggressive sense, I'd avoid getting too offended. You can't expect people to talk nicely right after being wronged like that. If I were telling people about something like that I would try to speak as calmly as possible, but I'd be pretty upset if someone found a slip-up as an excuse to ignore me.

I feel like it's important to point out that, while it's certainly understandable that a person might latch onto characteristics like that in reaction to that kind of a situation, it is, nonetheless, racism. In order for racism to stop, it eventually has to stop with no exceptions.

I think the tacit claim made by the article was that the entire interaction was almost entirely race-driven, suggesting that:

1) The person he tried to help would not have been accosted by police if he were white

2) The author would not have been beaten and abused if he were white.

3) Perhaps neither would have happened if the officers were not white.

As the story fits in with the over-arching narrative of so many police departments across the country being explicitly or implicitly racist and heaping brutal unspeakable abuse and murder on nonwhite populations.

I think all 3 explanations above are plausible, but there's certainly enough police brutality floating around out there that white people can get their fair share as well. And nonwhite officers can certainly dish it out.

Had I read through this article years ago I'd feel very different about this then I do now. My default position is, and always will be, to suspect the government is at fault but that being said I still understand why police officers do what they do.

I'd like to leave something that has helped me to understand the thought process of most police officers. There is a youtube channel called "Think Like A Cop - The Rest Of The Story" run by an..... interesting character. He's an expolice officer who, by all accounts I've been able to find, was very good at what he did.

He presents the "other side of the story", the side of the police that you don't usually hear well developed. From watching many of his videos, I can pretty safely assume that he doesn't trust the government, I'm fairly sure he isn't racist, and I'm fairly sure he isn't sexist. What is more representative of him is that he tries his hardest not to be politically correct. It is my opinion that even if you don't respect him as a person, you can probably respect his methods of thinking about problems and his experience as a police officer. I'd hope some of the people here watch some of his stories about how cops react to situations as he makes things that seem 100% unreasonable seem much more sensible.

For instance his motto is "no people belong on the ground" which refer to to people who want to be adversarial to the police. This policy is blanketed across all people that cops deal with and after watching some of his police shooting videos you can see why. When he shows videos of cops getting shot or killed he mostly shows videos where the police don't follow this golden rule. This rings true with all of the cop shooting videos I've seen.

I'm not saying he is right, I'm not saying I'm right, I'm just saying he offers a very "interesting" perspective that I think many will enjoy.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCsgkhimI0MthrMZo-F2zrTQ/fea...

not an endorsement; just being helpful...

Thanks, I'd have felt kind of strange linking directly to there. He is a very interesting person, it's well worth watching him.

From the comments on the article:

aggieben:> Did you identity yourself as a doctor, or in any kind of way you had a reason to be there?

author:> No I didn’t. That was my first error. Second was not immediately showing my ID. I certainly could have done this all better.

This struck a nerve. He should contact the ACLU, and If this guy needs money for lawyers I'd throw in to the pot to get some precedent.

We need a few very large businesses to refuse to do business with police, against their own financial interest, before they'll notice something is wrong. More fines that taxpayers pay aren't fixing it. If Dunkin Donuts could be convinced not to allow cops to enter their business except with a warrant, or Glock refused to sell a department any more weapons, they might do something.

(Of course, this is illegal in California. And I'm hesitant to encourage this fully without a measurable standard of when sufficient change has occurred to start working with them again.)

Yeah ok, brave guy but he will eventually get shot for doing this. Call me a coward, but I'd never do something like this. I have a kid to raise.

Thats all fine and dandy, but if it was your kid being detained (or yourself), wouldn't you like a passerby to check on you? It's not being coward, it's being shortsighted.

At what point did you identify yourself as a doctor?

At what point does not immediately notifying people that you're a doctor remotely justify beating the shit out of you?

It doesn't justify the beating. But if a random guy walks into the middle of a police confrontation, that random guy is going to be presumed hostile until proven otherwise, with some fairly good reason. He just made the situation considerably less safe, even with the best of cops.

From there, the cops went completely out of control. But notifying them that he was a doctor might have prevented them from starting down that path.

I'm sorry that this happened to the author, but the author has no common sense whatsoever. In addition to suing these officers and the police department, he should probably consider getting some common sense and never approaching a police officer again. I mean, seriously, what did he expect would happen? That they would let him check the suspect? That's so incredibly far-fetched and ridiculous, I cannot even imagine it! Does this guy even know what country he lives in? As was quoted in another piece today, "This is America."

"Common sense" is only common to the people who know it already.

There are plenty of people who think the vast majority of the police are public servants trying to do their job, serve and protect. Maybe they're right. Some are. I've had good interactions with police officers and bad ones. The author was trying to do the right thing and maybe save someone's life. If a woman screams for help in a dark alley, it isn't common sense to run in and try to help her -- you're putting yourself in the line of fire. But it's brave and we celebrate and worship the people who do it rightfully as heroes, we don't berate them for "not having common sense" and putting themselves at risk.

What he did took courage or naive ignorance (or both) and from the rest of the article I'm fairly certain it's not ignorance -- he's well aware of rampant police brutality.

He witnessed white cops and a handcuffed black male who he claims was possibly muttering to himself.

No one was beating anyone, no one was bleeding out.

Common-sense is he interfered and made the situation worse.

He didn't interfere (he asked some questions as a certified medical professional) and he didn't make the situation worse. The officers made the situation worse, and he probably made things better for the guy in question -- would you want those particular violent abusive officers spending the next little while with their full attention on YOU? Ideally they'd be in jail, but if he distracted them for a while the guy's probably better off -- maybe the author took a beating the guy would have received.

If you're in America, and you don't know this, you're either white or ignorant.

I've approached police officers before and never had the shit beaten out of me. Usually we just talk a bit about whatever's going on.

Wait for the evidence, and the other side of the story, before making a judgment.

The last 9 out of 10 of these types of stories turned out to be completely hoaxed on the part of the victim.

I can write the other side for you right now, the same as the last few dozen times this type of thing happened: "We investigated ourselves, and found ourselves free of fault. The man in question was acting suspiciously and interfering with us protecting you. Our officers have to make snap judgments about circumstances like whether a suspicious person's ID is fake; they shouldn't be tried with perfect hindsight."

Do you have a link to an example of hoax story? I haven't seen that.

Take any racial media story...

From the Duke-lacrosse rape case, to the shooting of Michael Brown, the "clock boy", the black woman killed in jail, and everything in-between and beyond.

All proved to be false narratives.

The list is so large that I'm constantly surprised by the opinion that such a thing does not exist.

"As I pulled over to ask if the gentleman was OK, I was immediately threatened with a ticket for blocking traffic. I re-parked my car legally and returned."

This person drove past the scene of a crime while Police Offices were in midst of arresting someone. He stopped his car was told to move. He then proceeded to park his car car and approach the suspect.

I'm sorry but if you pull your car over and interferer with a crime scene where the police are in the midst of an arrest you will be arrested and incapacitated to preserve the safety of the officers.

The 'Evil White Man' is sadly, predictable click bait to drive traffic. I'm sure this person would be in court if he had a case. But any lawyer is going to tell you if you interfere with police business you have no case.

While I basically agree with the argument of this article -- that it's not okay for officers to be so aggressive, abusive, and dishonest -- I don't find the tone to be very helpful for a couple of reasons.

1) The word "white" appeared in a sequence of insults toward the end of the article. It's hard to deny that, while this kind of talk might be broadly accepted, it's still basically racism. Fundamentally, the ethnicity of the officers is irrelevant. The account of what happened didn't even mention the officers calling out the author's race.

2) It's understandable that a person would feel extremely angry after an experience like this. Even so, it seems the author hasn't let much of his anger die down since the time of the event. The tone of the article is not only angry, but quite frankly, a bit juvenile e.g. the talk about hiring a "badass" lawyer.

Either way, I don't feel like much good will come as a result of this incident. I'd feel differently if Mr. Afshar spent his time calmly talking about how he took the officers to court, what kinds of evidence he cited against them, and how others could do the same.

The ethnicity is relevant in that these 4 white officers give a bad reputation for other white officers.

Even Jesus acted out of anger, and it was righteous.

I'm white and I didn't view it as any sort of racist slur to identify the cops as white. It indicates that the author viewed his treatment, and the treatment of the handcuffed suspect, at the hands of police as probably being racially motivated.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com