31–40 of 172 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
imagine a man face down on the ground with his hands behind his head and his legs crossed in a narrow hallway. the man is sobbing in terror, and drunk. two cops are pointing assault weapons at the man and screaming at him from 20 feet down the hallway. eventually, they shoot him.
Why do they shoot him? Did he move abruptly or something? What should I be doing if I find myself in a similar situation?
tbqh i'm more worried about being gunned down by the police than being arrested or being searched at this point. exhibit A: https://twitter.com/ShaunKing/status/939014159726870530 (warning to system-believers: the link contains video of police executing a prone, face down, unarmed, nonviolent, nonresisting, white male; the officer was acquitted)
So, the situation in the video goes like this: (1) police had reason to believe that the man was armed and (2) man made a movement that was looking like he was reaching for a firearm. Now, what police should do in a situation which combines data points (1) and (2)?
officer 1 advances to cuff, officer 2 covers. so fucking simple.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do they shoot him? Did he move abruptly or something? What should I be doing if I find myself in a similar situation?
I can't bring myself to watch it either, but from other descriptions: the police order the man to crawl towards them (while simultaneously yelling at him to put his hands in the air). As he's crawling along the floor, his pants start sliding off. When he reaches down to pull up his pants, the police kill him.
I keep rewatching this video every now and then, very recommended if you're from the U.S. I wonder how much does all this information apply to other countries (for instance, in the EU).
I think a lot of countries have the ability to hold your silence against you. Thankfully this isn't the case in the US.
"suspect did not sufficiently invoke the right to remain silent when he stubbornly refused to talk:"
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudenc...
How far do you take this? For example, suppose you hear someone down the street yell, "My baby!", look up, and see a man shove a woman to the ground, take a baby from a stroller, get into a car with the baby, and drive quickly up the street, leaving behind the woman screaming "He took my baby! Help!". They pass you, and a block farther up turn left onto a freeway on ramp. 30 seconds later a police officer drives by,…
I think the venue for questioning matters.
A request to 'come down to the station to answer a few questions' is a bit different than being asked questions on your doorstep. "Down at the station" is an automatic "not w/o an attorney".
And for that matter the police coming into your home or office is not the same as 'coming down to the station'. Sure there is risk in answering any questions at all but there is also risk in not answering questions (the suspicion factor) you could say. Like computer security there are always tradeoffs.
Now many times if you are stopped by the police for speeding they will often ask you 'where you are going to or coming from'. How do you answer that? If you say "I won't tell you" you are more likely to get a ticket common sense says. If you answer the question you might still get the ticket but if there is a chance you would get a warning that could be helpful.
I think one natural thing to say if you are in a position where you could be considered a suspect is to simply say "Since it is reasonable for me to be considered a suspect I would need to have an attorney present before answering any questions". So for example if your business partner or even a neighbor is killed it's probably not a good idea to 'go down to the station to answer questions' etc. w/o an attorney. Answering at your front door? I would tend to think that is ok to do. Allowing detectives into your house to question you? Probably not.
How far do you take this? For example, suppose you hear someone down the street yell, "My baby!", look up, and see a man shove a woman to the ground, take a baby from a stroller, get into a car with the baby, and drive quickly up the street, leaving behind the woman screaming "He took my baby! Help!". They pass you, and a block farther up turn left onto a freeway on ramp. 30 seconds later a police officer drives by,…
It's a matter of the risk you're willing to take. Sometimes refusing to answer a simple question is going to get you arrested. As long as you're willing to risk arrest and expensive lawyers, don't say anything.
This is not true. To arrest someone (in theory sure a rogue cop can do anything) police need probable cause. Probable cause is not 'refusing to answer questions'. If they have enough to arrest you answering questions is not going to make them decide to not arrest you. Why? Because why would they believe just what you say verbally if there is no easy way to prove what you are saying?
How far do you take this? For example, suppose you hear someone down the street yell, "My baby!", look up, and see a man shove a woman to the ground, take a baby from a stroller, get into a car with the baby, and drive quickly up the street, leaving behind the woman screaming "He took my baby! Help!". They pass you, and a block farther up turn left onto a freeway on ramp. 30 seconds later a police officer drives by,…
I'm not saying that this makes the point less valid, but beware that people are always better equipped to make powerful arguments when that argument aligns with their source of income.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think a lot of countries have the ability to hold your silence against you. Thankfully this isn't the case in the US.
Citation needed.
> You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.
the wikipedia article goes into details: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence_in_England_an...