Comment by Karunamon | Hacker News Reader

Comment by Karunamon | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

>"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?

>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

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.

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

http://bradhicks.livejournal.com/316176.html

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

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.

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...

By his own account, he was ignoring police officers while interfering with their work at the scene of an accident.

You can't do that and expect to not get physically removed.

Even then, that still doesn't necessitate violence and solitary confinement.

Stop making excuses for bad behavior!

So when he says "that doesn't excuse what the officers did" you think he's excusing their behavior?

>You can't do that and expect to not get physically removed.

This is an excuse/rationalization.

Yes, physically removed from the immediate situation which is treating an accident victim and the first responders don't want to figure out whether the dumb white kid who keeps sticking around is an off-duty EMT.

He absolutely should have been physically removed from that particular situation since he wasn't leaving on his own.

This doesn't mean he should have had his hands stepped on or been put in solitary to teach him a lesson.

I'm not talking about the violence and solitary confinement, I'm talking about the use of physical force and subsequent arrest.

The point when he was in handcuffs on the ground would have been where he should have waited the situation out kept quiet and not talk to officers "how he appreciates their service." or enquire if their actions where "standard protocol". That is just asking for trouble.

> That is just asking for trouble.

It's also perfectly legal and doesn't deserve the treatment he received.

You need to understand that doing anything an officer might class as "Disobeying a Lawful Order" can get you killed.

This bit, written by an individual with Aspergers, explaims the situation more clearly -- and why the awful nature of it isn't going anywhere. http://bradhicks.livejournal.com/316176.html

If you don't feel like reading it, this line will substitute somewhat: > "[...] If you don't think he should have given that order, you can file a complaint later, but you can't complain to Internal Affairs if you're dead."

(The reason why it is necessary -- and yes, this is arguable, but this is not new -- follows not long after that sentence.)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com