Comment by bane | Hacker News Reader

Comment by bane | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I have a knife, I'm high on PCP, I just stabbed an old woman. You're a cop, you manage to arrest me without turning me into a bullet sponge while I was wildly swing my bloodied knife at you.

It takes you and six of your fellow police to bring me into the booking room. While there, I bite you (twice) and draw blood, kick you in the knee, dislocate one of your fingers and break your nose -- after spitting on you. I do about the same to the other officers.

While searching me you stab yourself on a used needle in my back pocket and I try to go for another knife in my boot. I induce myself to vomit on you then pull my pants off and defecate in the middle of the floor.

Please direct me to the comfortable chair I can sit quietly in while you ensure I can exercise my humanity while politely asking me my in-processing questions. At least until I get bored of answering them or get uncomfortable in any way, then we can take a 15 minute rest and stretch break. If I get too tired, I can go home.

Yes, even people like that should be treated well. As soon as you say "actually, %&!^ it, they're worthless, it doesn't matter what we do to that piece of inhuman trash", regardless of what happens to them, it affects you. Treating people well when they're in custody is as much about making sure police officers don't have to feel that they're terrible people as it is about treating the criminal like a human being.

If you want to live in a safe, well-balanced, equal society then you simply can't have anyone who isn't treated as well as possible. The measure of a civilised society is not how well it treats the best people, but how well it treats the worst.

This is where the warm fuzzy blankets of inalienable rights and equal treatment start to fray.

The police officers have a right to work in a safe (as far as possible) environment. That means the aggressive/resisting prisoner is cuffed whilst being booked, with no shoes. Your next choice is to either treat all prisoners like the aggressive one, or to allow officers to use judgement as to when someone needs to be restrained heavily.

Equality is a fine goal, but in reality it results in everyone getting treated poorly in this context.

to allow officers to use judgement as to when someone needs to be restrained heavily

What I'm suggesting is that the default position should always be not restraining people. Removing someone's freedom should never be done lightly. In the case of Aaron Schwartz it was. I would argue that some police officers tend to default to the position of treating someone badly - not violently, but in a way that assumes their guilt, assumes that they need to be restrained, or assumes that they're deliberately hiding something. That is completely the wrong way to do things in a civilised society.

Police officers should only ever act with force if they're protecting themselves or others, and always with the absolute minimum action necessary, and they should always stop when the threat has been removed. Very occasionally that will require restraining someone and taking their shoes, but probably in far fewer cases than actually happens. Restraining someone who isn't violent 'just in case' is an appalling thing to do - and is exactly what results from everyone being treated poorly.

First, Just in case is a pretty dismissive statement. If last week some scrawny kid pulled a boot knife in custody and my buddy Frank (you remember Frank, tall guy, worked nights a lot to avoid his wife - yeah the one with the dodgy leg) got cut you'll find my attitude to custody risk change pretty heavily. Every single suspect is getting cuffed and de booted because fuck them I'm not risking my life for no reason.

Second once you treat people differently based on perception of behaviour (professional judgement) you need oversight. Once you need oversight you need records. Once you need records booking takes longer. Ok. So now we've got evidence that police discriminate due to race/gender/something and bobs your uncle everyone gets locked down for booking again to undo that.

Armchair policing reminds me a lot of armchair generalling - sure is easy to say what should (have) happen(ed) when you're completely removed from the situation. Police officers are irrational human beings who are influenced by all sorts of extraneous factors on any given day. Not to mention that's with the assumption they're basically good people doing their best to do the right thing™ which probs doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Of course I don't have answers, I just think this stuff is really hard.

I'm sure you realize people are handcuffed for the officers safety. Not to dehumanize them. First offenders, even so called non-violent ones have been know to panic under the stress of an arrest and have been known to attack officers or attempt to flee. I'm not suggesting Aaron would have done this, but the officers don't know him, and these procedures dont just exist to treat someone poorly.

I'm not sure what your proposed solution is, assume the best until someone does attack an officer or tries to escape? I agree it would be nice to assume the best, but it doesn't seem practical. With regard to what Aaron was accused of, I'm not sure why they required an arrest anyway. Shouldn't this have just been a civil case? It seems a bit excessive to arrest and book someone for an alleged copyright violation.

Man I wish I could just arbitrarily handcuff people who might possibly consider hurting me.

If you sign up with your local police force, you might be able to me a few more.

Honestly, I think the point you're making is a great ideal, and one we should continuously aim for.

I don't want to seem overly dismissive, I agree with you completely that I would want to live in the world you're describing.

It's a shame that both of us don't, and for reasons that are complicated and very hard.

> or to allow officers to use judgement as to when someone needs to be restrained heavily.

With great power comes great responsibility.

I admire your insistence on treating people correctly. But humanly can still mean "restrained".

You're concerned about how a cop might feel emotionally restraining a person, but you completely ignore how they might feel physically being the subject of a violent assault by an in-custody suspect.

No person in custody reveals their intentions and being under arrest is stressful. Humans are in fact animals, and like any animal react unpredictably under stress.

I think it's important to look at somebody like Aaron holistically. Not too terribly long after the video was taken, he did in fact violently and tragically kill somebody.

>he did in fact violently and tragically kill somebody

... by hanging. Which, I believe, is why they take your shoes... because you can hang yourself with the laces.

> Yes, even people like that should be treated well.

Yes, and I agree with everything you said. But in the case described "treating well" may mean restraint, to keep the person from hurting him/herself.

Your ideals are good, but you seem short on human experience. Unfortunately, there are situations that call for violence. Or rather, for the application of force.

I don't know if I'd be able to maintain my calm in those situations, but yes, even when someone is treating you like shit, we have an obligation as humans to be decent to other people. Not excellent, mind you, just basic human decency.

It's easy to be nice to people who are nice to you. It's hard to be nice to people who are shitty to you, and often times, it's the people who are worst to you that most need basic decency offered to them.

While clearly some folks that get booked are harder to work with than others, do you even know what dehumanization looks like for someone like that? It's not safety procedures taken by officers, its getting the shit beaten out of you by a frustrated officer or getting shot before you are even apprehended.

Yeah, as a matter of fact I do.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com