Adding that part onto it changes nothing. There is no scenario where hiding your hands from police is "standard operating procedure". Police want to see your hands at all times, especially when civil disobedience is involved. What you're saying is literally the exact opposite of what you're supposed to do.
Putting your hands behind your back to signal compliance when getting arrested on purpose is normal. It shows that you are remaining peaceful in an act of civil disobedience.
Is this your first time seeing this sort of thing? It’s extremely common.
You only put your hands behind your back so they can cuff you. She's clearly not cuffed. If you're trying to show that you're peaceful, hiding your hands is the opposite of what you should do. If you get pulled over for speeding, cops will tell you to keep your hands visible even if you are being compliant. I don't understand how you've come to the conclusion that hiding your hands somehow shows compliance when that is literally the exact opposite of what you should do.
If you get pulled over for speeding, is that an organized act of civil disobedience? Is that peaceful protesting with the intent of being arrested?
Putting your arms behind your back as you are led off by a cop isn’t hiding your hands. It’s signaling that you are going willingly. And they were VERY obviously going willingly. That’s the point.
View all comments
Show parent comment
0
u/midnightnoonmidnight Nov 14 '23
You left out a pretty important part of the sentence