Hacker News Reader

Comment by M_Grey | Hacker News Reader

That entire way of policing has been normalized and legalized over the decades now. For example, originally "Less Lethal" options were intended to be used in a situation an officer would otherwise have to use their firearm. Now, they're just used as compliance "come-alongs"; these kinds of things start in our prisons and then come to our streets. Now you have police tasering streakers just to stop them, or swabbing students' eyes with pepper spray to get them to submit.

Is it any wonder that "failure to comply" has become legalese for, "You've given us the right to do anything to you, up to killing you on camera."

This isn't the airlines, although obviously their customer service is appalling; this is an issue with our police.

View on HN

Well, the only response police have to non-compliance has always been violence. It's always been against the law not to comply with their orders. And it seems obvious that they will choose the sort that's less risky to the officer (taser, pepper spray), because each and every one of them knows the stories of the officers who got hurt.

So yeah, if the police tell you to do something, you should expect to do it. It's neither the place nor the time for a debate and if you think they're wrong, you need to argue that in court. And that will be a lot easier if you don't resist arrest in the first place.

Again, an absurd and grandiose interpretation. You do not need to comply with the police in "Whatever they say." If a Police officer violates the law, you cannot comply with them. If they use physical intimidation, they are not acting as an officer of the law. You are a citizen with an obligation to comply to the legal extent, not a slave to the whims of officers.

> You do not need to comply with the police in "Whatever they say."

In what sense? You can say that you only have to comply with lawful orders, but unless the cop believes their own order to be unlawful, which is unlikely, they're going to force you to comply. And if you're wrong about the order being lawful, you will get hit with resisting arrest, which will only make life harder for you in fighting it.

If you want to put a stop to it, do so in the courtroom. Do it on the streets and you'll be tasered and accomplish nothing.

The difference is in the rate of escalation. In the US, non-compliance can lead to violence really, really quickly.

On average, the people being arrested are more likely to attack the cops. If, on average, people went quietly with the police and fought this in the court system, things would change for the better.

>On average, the people being arrested are more likely to attack the cops.

Compared to... people with no contact with the police? You cant actually be saying that the average arrest is resisted, can you?

Normally one would make an apples to apples comparison of the average of arrested people in both populations, instead of trying to include the people who weren't arrested for reasons I'm not at all clear on.

Who was being arrested? "Resisting" isn't some magic phrase that turns a simple encounter into a mugging by the state, sorry. As for risk, if you're a police officer you've chosen to protect and serve the public, which is a sacrifice; if you can't potentially take the risks to make that sacrifice... find a new damned job, we don't need or want you.

What is needed is extensive revamping of legislation to curb both police powers, and equipment, starting with an end to the war on drugs and associated weaponry/vehicles/agencies.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com