Thanks for providing a nice example of a rock bottom terrible comment. Yes, the problem with this person being beaten up, put in solitary and abused for no reason simply comes down to their inability to shut up. If only they had the wisdom to know that the police, who are paid by our tax dollars just HAVE to beat you up and abuse you if you say anything they dislike. I mean, its not as if they had a choice of whether they wanted to beat the person up or not, they basically HAD TO! Because, you know, that person was mouthy.

"he acted (and wrote) in such a way where he's constantly assuming the role of a victim"

What type of brain got you to the conclusion that this person was something other than the victim here?

Look, I get your point that shutting up is a good idea, but we can't blame the person for not shutting up, the police should be blamed for their actions. The fact that we have people like you standing up for the police here makes me think we probably have no chance as a society anymore.

We can both blame the author for not shutting up and the police for not responding reasonably to someone who was nothing more dangerous than a smartass.

I would argue that the police deserve somewhere in the neighborhood of one million times more blame for false imprisonment and beating than a civilian deserves for, gasp, talking when they people they pay to protect them didnt want them to talk.

No problem, thanks for providing an example of the naiveté that underscores way too many HN comments.

First off, I never said that there isn't a problem with the way the police treated OP. In fact, I'm encouraging him to sue both the police department and the officers personally for the way they treated him, which was clearly unacceptable behavior. Translation: I want to see him get justice.

But I also am able to see nuance in a situation, which clearly you're lacking. He might be a victim, but he's not blameless, insofar as: • Refused to pipe down and leave the accident when ordered to by a police officer. • Continued to instigate police officers who were securing the scene. • Yelled like a crazy person while in a holding cell.

or, as I said in the parent comment: OP COMPLETELY FAILED TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF HIS RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT AND AVOID AN ENCOUNTER WITH THE POLICE.

His behavior was unacceptable, and holding him to account for that as someone who enjoys their constitutional rights and insists upon defending them in NO WAY MAKES ME A POLICE APOLOGIST. Police aren't the only one who can trample upon rights, those who fail to understand or abuse them are culpable as well. The fact you don't understand that makes me wonder if our free society held together by liberty and a respect for the rule of law has any chance any more, yet I'll remain an optimist.

You seem to have projected some bizarre stuff on my comment. I understand that the OP failed to take advantage of their right to remain silent, I really do. However, none of the things you say the person should be "blamed" for, should EVER result in the punishment they got. The fact that you're not able to see beyond "well they both fucked up" is pretty shocking really.

"His behavior was unacceptable, and holding him to account for that as someone who enjoys their constitutional rights and insists upon defending them in NO WAY MAKES ME A POLICE APOLOGIST."

"Holding him to account" in your book happens to mean beating the shit out of him and putting him in a cell, whereas I simply don't think someone who is yelling things the police don't like deserves this treatment. If that makes me naive, I'll take it.

"But I also am able to see nuance in a situation, which clearly you're lacking."

This is one of the dumbest things I've ever read. Because you were able to see subtle details like "this person wasn't being polite!" only super wisdom filled you is able to understand that the police were right to beat them up and put them in solitary. I genuinely cannot believe that someone could make such an utter shit argument and then have the gall to blame the OTHER person for a lack of understanding of the nuances, like yourself, who is of course brilliant.

In civilised countries, the police are the good guys, and having them nearby makes you feel safer. Encounters with the police should not be scary if you've done nothing wrong.

There was a place I've heard about where the police was scary, though I never lived there: that was communist Romania, where my parents grew up. And the US, too, it seems.

Fuck off, is it not 'unacceptable' to decide not to use your right to be silent.

Nope, we can't. This type of thinking is a strong indicator that one may be suffering from antisocial personality disorder.

The police work for the public. They are "public servants".

Who should be the one shutting up when the boss is talking?

You're high, the guy did NOTHING wrong. The police are to blame for this.

Um, have you actually filed a civil suit against a police department? Do you know how expensive and time-consuming it is? Those who choose this route have me total admiration, as it is grossly expensive, it takes years, and it extends the suffering caused by mistreatment at the hands of those supposed to protect you manifold.

Yeah, I love the attitude of "look, if you want to make a complaint about police beating you and falsely imprisoning you, you should quit your job and invest hundreds of thousands of dollars in a case against them, anything else is stupid." Super realistic and clearly enabling a better world to happen very soon.

Have you ever sued the police?

I'm stretching my brain as hard as i can to figure out how this is relevant?

To any reader, this is a perfect example of the Just World bias and victim blaming. See how Gorbzel makes it clear that the fault of the encounter lies on the victim, not the perpetrator.

This is indeed a perfect example of what is typically called "victim blaming". Where I disagree with you is that I do not read Gorbzel as suggesting that the perpetrator is not at fault: by my reading Gorbzel says nothing one way or the other on that subject.

If you read the comment with the preconception that every interaction has one side which is Right and one side which is Wrong, then you will see the cops portrayed as "Just". If you read the comment without that preconception, you will not.

I am very afraid of people with that preconception, because they pick sides and then try to stick to them by confirmation bias. Like the cops.

(Just in case it wasn't absolutely clear: my position is that the victim here was careless-in-a-way-that-would-have-no-negative-consequences-in-a-perfect-world, like I was careless the time I left my flat unlocked and a guy tried to steal my laptop. Whereas the cop's actions were criminal, like the guy who tried to steal it. Both sides are "at fault" in some sense, but hardly equally.)

I probably should explain my position more fully. The cause of a result and the fault of a result are entirely separate concepts. I think of "cause" as anything that, when prevented, would prevent the final result. By this definition, both the officer and the author caused the abuse and arrest.

However, "fault" is in the deviation from a perfect world that caused the result. The author, showing concern and asking about the well-being of another person, is not at fault for the abuse he received. The police officer, abusing his position, is at fault.

To apply these to your example of your stolen laptop, I would say that it was partially caused by you, but was not your fault.

The way that I read Gorbzel's comment as that both cause and fault were on the author, not just cause.

Thanks for explaining. I agree that there is a distinction between "cause" and "fault" as you describe.

Gorbzel's comment is pretty blunt: for sake of argument, it basically amounts to "[Victim] is an idiot and should have known better, for his own sake". But to me it is very clearly an assignment of "cause" not "fault" in your terminology.

I understand this from phrases such as "for […] his own well-being" and "to his own detriment", as well as the fact that it's phrased as "advice". These make clear that Gorbzel is saying that the victim erred from a self-interest point of view not a moral point of view.

Did you even pause to ponder that OP could've been you ? What if everything he says is indeed true. And he has presented a bunch of facts that point in his favor. If you would've been arrested to simply calling 911 and trying to help - at 1am - how would you feel ? Oh and about suing the Police - you ever tried it ? I'm assuming you have a $50K minimum retainer and a good lawyer ready ?

He wasn't arrested simply for calling 911, though. It's an undeniably shitty situation, but based on his own account, if he and his friend simply got the cellphone back, said "thanks", or even just shut up and went home, we most likely wouldn't be arguing about this right now.

I have no idea what it would take to curb a significant portion of this sort of overreach, but it is worth being stripped naked and thrown in solitary confinement? You tell me.

> you have the right to remain silent in any interaction with authorities

Is it true that in some states you have to identify yourself, as in at least state your name?

Good point.

I significantly disagree with Hiibel, but alas, SCOTUS says that you have to give your name.