Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Don't Talk to the Police (2012)

youtube.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 172 posts

Re: Don't Talk to the Police (2012)

#91

Post by rhizome »

tzs wrote: post #7

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,…

Do you say "it looked like he turned left a block up"? Or do you say "I will not answer without a lawyer"? I've run into a lot of people who go with the latter, citing that video.

Then the police need to work on policy and community relations if people are reticent to help them, when altruism can be a punishable act.

Re: Don't Talk to the Police (2012)

#92

Post by Steuard »

golergka wrote: post #23
cryoshon wrote: post #4

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)?

They should put a higher priority on "don't kill an innocent person" than on "immediately eliminate anything that could be a threat". Police officers should be trained based on the principle that the loss of an officer's life, while awful, is still less of a tragedy than the death of someone who could be an innocent bystander. They should be trained that when confronting a suspect, an outcome in which the officer and the suspect are both badly injured but alive is better than an outcome where the officer is unharmed and the suspect is dead. It should not be the role of police officers to kill anyone unless that person is unambiguously attempting violence or is planning imminent violence and cannot be deterred in any other way.

So applied to this case, the police officers should not have shot the suspect until they unambiguously saw a gun in his hand. Does that mean that they would be running the risk that the suspect had been faking his sobbing terror and his panicked, confused attempts at immediate compliance for the past three minutes, and that he had in fact decided to pull out a handgun to attack an entire team of police officers who had rifles aimed at his head? Yes, it does mean that they would be running that risk. By waiting until they could clearly see a gun in his hand, there would indeed be a chance that a suspect irrational and suicidal enough to try that could get off one or two hastily aimed shots in the general direction of the officers before being killed by their overwhelmingly superior firepower. But in the actual situation, and I suspect in a great many similar situations, an unnecessary death would have been avoided.

Re: Don't Talk to the Police (2012)

#93

Post by sliverstorm »

notatoad wrote: post #17
sherjilozair wrote: post #12

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.

These cases are all pretty damn ridiculous, but do always seem to involve the victim doing something with the hands.

Goes without saying this shouldn't be happening, but makes me think as a member of the public, step one is just, keep your hands where they can see them. (Which isn't big news)

Re: Don't Talk to the Police (2012)

#94

Post by alangpierce »

Retra wrote: post #25
tzs wrote: post #7

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,…

As a counter-point... why should we take your word on this over the word of the lawyer(s) in the talk. "Under no circumstances" pretty clearly includes the ones you've given.

When the words of some lawyer in a YouTube video fly in the face of common sense, you should probably go with common sense, regardless of how emphatic the lawyer is. (tzs and I both believe it to be common sense that you should talk to the police here, although others may disagree.)

Edit: Currently there are some downvotes and no responses, so if anyone has a reasoned moral argument for why you should say "I will not answer without a lawyer" in tzs's example (for example, citing risks explained in the video and weighing them with the possible benefits of stopping a kidnapping), it would be great to hear that perspective. (Or any other criticisms of my comment are welcome.)

Re: Don't Talk to the Police (2012)

#95

Post by omegaham »

kolbe wrote: post #87
joshmn wrote: post #65

As someone who has been through the criminal justice system a handful of times, here's what I always tell people: If you are approached by a policeman/woman, you don't need to say anything other than, "I'm going to ask you to refer all questions to my counsel as I'm not prepared to handle or able to answer any questions you may have." Don't have counsel? Get some. Can't afford any? Tell the policeman/woman that you'l…

How do you balance that and obstruction of justice for crimes that you are not a suspect in? Especially ones where your knowledge is urgent and your silence is a public danger.

I'm sure that there are situations where this is good to consider, but real life isn't a Criminal Minds episode where the lady's slowly getting lowered into the Pit of Misery while the police frantically try to get there in time. If you have important information, it can wait a day while you get your affairs in order.

If it really is that urgent, yes, I would say something. Any other time? It can wait.

Re: Don't Talk to the Police (2012)

#96

Post by alangpierce »

kolbe wrote: post #77

It's not as simple as he makes it out to be. He breaks the problem down into an issue of protecting or violating your innocence. It would be a real shame (and possibly illegal) if your friend just got shot in the head, and police asked you "which way did the shooter flee?" and you reply that you need to confer with your lawyer before answering any questions.

> and possibly illegal

I'm not a lawyer, but I'm fairly sure that asking to see a lawyer in that situation would never be illegal. But I certainly agree that it would be a real shame and probably unethical.

Re: Don't Talk to the Police (2012)

#97

Post by jimmywanger »

mistermann wrote: post #88
joshmn wrote: post #65

As someone who has been through the criminal justice system a handful of times, here's what I always tell people: If you are approached by a policeman/woman, you don't need to say anything other than, "I'm going to ask you to refer all questions to my counsel as I'm not prepared to handle or able to answer any questions you may have." Don't have counsel? Get some. Can't afford any? Tell the policeman/woman that you'l…

It seems to me that this advice forgets it's own lesson: A policeman/woman can only get you in trouble. In many cases, a copy really does just want to have a 5 minute chat, and if you stonewall them ( Am I being detained? ), they might decide to exercise their power to get you in trouble, just to return the sentiment of unreasonableness.

Did you not watch the video?

Even if you tell the absolute truth, the cops _might_ be able to twist that against you somehow.

Don't give them any ammunition. Sure, if the cop wants to be a hard-ass, let him haul you in. He probably won't because of all the paperwork.

The point of the video is that it's the cop's job to try to haul you in. Don't do the cop's job for him - he's much better at it than you are defending your innocence.

For an example, watch "My Cousin Vinnie". The sheriff accuses the defendant of shooting a clerk. The defendant responds incredulously "I shot him?" How do you think that reads in court in a deadpan voice?

Re: Don't Talk to the Police (2012)

#98

Post by jimmywanger »

kolbe wrote: post #82
Waterluvian wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my mind that question is reframed as, "how much do you look our for others vs. yourself?"

It's also thought of as obstruction of justice. So, you aren't looking out for yourself in this situation either.

It's not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obstruction_of_justice

Obstruction of justice is knowingly lying to the police. By not saying anything, by definition, there's no way you can lie.

Re: Don't Talk to the Police (2012)

#99

Post by jimmywanger »

tptacek wrote: post #37
tzs wrote: post #7

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,…

Or, how about, you just pulled into your garage and got carjacked. Do you call the police? That will involve talking to them, and they might think it's all just an insurance scam.

A good rule of thumb (I teach all of my children relatives this) is that if you approach somebody they're probably ok. If they approach you, watch out.

In your example, you reached out to the police. If I called the police, I'd talk to them, as they'd be predisposed to like me. Otherwise, if they just come up to me and start asking random questions, I'll tell them to go away politely unless they had a warrant.

The police can't arrest you without probable cause. And just saying nothing is not probable cause.

Re: Don't Talk to the Police (2012)

#100

Post by danenania »

kolbe wrote: post #87
joshmn wrote: post #65

As someone who has been through the criminal justice system a handful of times, here's what I always tell people: If you are approached by a policeman/woman, you don't need to say anything other than, "I'm going to ask you to refer all questions to my counsel as I'm not prepared to handle or able to answer any questions you may have." Don't have counsel? Get some. Can't afford any? Tell the policeman/woman that you'l…

How do you balance that and obstruction of justice for crimes that you are not a suspect in? Especially ones where your knowledge is urgent and your silence is a public danger.

You can (and should) help out, but with a lawyer present.
Post reply on HN