I see where you're coming from. Perhaps I should have said "seemingly nonsensical" (I'm sure the bystanders think they're being helpful). The point doesn't change in the slightest.
Correct response: "You've done good, but it's time to let the EMTs take things from here."
Incorrect response: "Move to the other side of the street. [Arrest for hesitation.]"
You labeled the responses wrong. The one you labeled "Correct" should have been labeled "Would be nice to see but totally unreasonable to expect"; the one you labeled "Incorrect" should have been labeled "Abrupt but to be expected from a cop who has more important things to think about than pandering to the ego of a bystander".
Nope, I labeled them correctly. Your expectations of what would happen (which align with my own) have no bearing on what is right or wrong.
Police officers have better things to do than "pandering to the ego of a bystander" (is that what they're calling politeness these days)? Then surely they have much better things to do than spending hours engaging in an egregious miscarriage of justice to flatter their own notions of self-importance (i.e. that they deserve unquestioning obedience even in non-urgent situations). Except that they clearly didn't. So what, exactly, are the "more important things" they have to think about?
Your expectations of what would happen (which align with my own) have no bearing on what is right or wrong.
I wasn't talking about expectations about what would actually happen. I was talking about your claims about what was right or wrong, with which I disagree. See below.
"pandering to the ego of a bystander" (is that what they're calling politeness these days)?
In the particular context under discussion (a cop who has more important things to think about in the particular situation under discussion), yes. A cop who arrives at an accident scene is under no obligation to say "good job" to a bystander who called 911. Just saying "Move" to the bystander if he wants him out of the way is not impoliteness; it's prudence in a situation that, to the cop, is not yet under control.
surely they have much better things to do than spending hours engaging in an egregious miscarriage of justice to flatter their own notions of self-importance
But you weren't talking about that. You were talking specifically about the cop just saying "Move" to the bystander. The bystander not complying immediately escalates his status, in the cop's mind, from "bystander" to "potential threat". That's why the bystander got arrested.
I certainly agree that the cops took things much too far after they arrested and cuffed the bystander. But again, you weren't talking about that; you were talking specifically about what happened before the arrest. Big difference.
(i.e. that they deserve unquestioning obedience even in non-urgent situations)
You were talking specifically about what happened at the accident scene. An accident scene is not a non-urgent situation.
> Just saying "Move" to the bystander if he wants him out of the way is not impoliteness; it's prudence in a situation that, to the cop, is not yet under control.
> [reordered to address two points at once] An accident scene is not a non-urgent situation.
There is a conceivable circumstance under which taking a second to explain/pander would be the less prudent road: the bystander is interfering so egregiously with the EMTs that the extra second poses a plausible risk to the patient. Of course, in this situation the correct response is a shove, followed by a placating explanation. Under no circumstance was a single order to "move" followed by an arrest the fastest or most probably successful method of addressing the situation.
There's a reason why most cops are polite, professional, and (comparatively) slow to escalate: it's the best way to encourage in-kind behavior. It's pragmatic.
> But you weren't talking about [the later arrest, you were talking about saying "Move"]
I didn't switch subjects. I used the officers' later jerk-off behavior to refute the excuse you were trying to make (they had more important things to think about). If they had more important things to think about, they wouldn't have gone and picked a fight.
> ... [if] the bystander is interfering so egregiously with the EMTs that the extra second poses a plausible risk to the patient
Dude, you need to take a CPR class or something. Emergency response is HARD. If you're the EMT, you don't know if the patient has a ruptured soft organ, low blood pressure, or clotting problems, ICP, arrhythmia, etc etc etc. In five seconds they can go from lucid to passed out and then what seemed like a routine stop gets deadly serious and you're in trouble.
You need to work fast but you need to work ultra smart. One missed sign or wrong move could ruin a patient's life.
The whole time you're working you're trying to keep tons small bits of information in your head (ask about allergies, ask about illness, ask about prescriptions, ask about family history, any Battle's sign, how was cap reflow? Any heart problems? is the patient losing orientation? more neck soreness, did I miss a C-spine hairline? I need to move her shoulders but it might cripple her. if I could just get some friggin ROOM here. Can I ignore the bruise on the thigh? Did I hear wheezing? ... etc ).
Now do this when you have drunk people milling about, talking back to the police right over you.
My point, because you don't seem to get it: every accident scene is an urgent situation until the patient has been transported. Every interference is egregious. Every. last. one.
You seem to think that cops and EMTs have superhuman abilities to diagnose patients, psychoanalyze bystanders, and predict the future, all while while chatting amiably and stroking egos. It's bizarre.
(I did ski patrol for a few years so I got a taste of what EMTs do every day. I am in awe.)
I need to move her shoulders but it might cripple her.
This brings up another point that struck me about the situation as described in the article. The author's friend was "supporting the back" of the injured woman: why? Why not just let her lie still, with something soft under her head, and something else under her feet to keep them elevated, until the EMTs got there? The fact that one bystander was holding the woman up might in itself have struck the cops (and the firemen) as unusual, not to mention a possible cause of damage to the patient.
Under no circumstance was a single order to "move" followed by an arrest the fastest or most probably successful method of addressing the situation.
What happened was more complicated than that. See below.
There's a reason why most cops are polite, professional, and (comparatively) slow to escalate: it's the best way to encourage in-kind behavior. It's pragmatic.
And there's a reason why prudent citizens are careful when dealing with cops, particularly cops that appear not to be aware of the pragmatic truth you have just stated: it's the best way to avoid having the cops decide that you're a target instead of a bystander. It should have been obvious after the first interaction with the aggressive cop, when she told him to leave immediately, that further interaction was wasted on her.
I didn't switch subjects...If they had more important things to think about, they wouldn't have gone and picked a fight
Yes, you are switching subjects. When the cop told the bystander to "Move", she wasn't picking a fight--that didn't happen until later. At that point the cop did nothing else but order the bystander to move. And that, the time of the first order, is when the cop had more important things to think about.
It was not until later, after the bystander had (a) not moved, (b) been told a second time to move and not moved, and (c) said that the other bystander, whom the cops had pulled away from the injured woman (I suspect because they weren't sure whether he was helping her or trying to do something else, like rob her--remember this all happened very quickly and chaotically), was his friend, that the cops actually arrested him. Then they picked a fight.
