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

141–150 of 172 posts

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

#141

Post by kolbe »

jimmywanger wrote: post #98
kolbe wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Fine, then your omission can be considered aiding and abetting. My point is that of you want to follow a rule like 'never talk to the police' dogmatically, with no context, that in and of itself can put you in a worse position than before. 99% of the time, it's best to just request a lawyer, but not 100%.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aiding_and_abetting

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

#142

Post by kolbe »

alangpierce wrote: post #96
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.

I think omission of information makes it aiding and abetting or accessory or something. Not a lawyer either, but a lawyer once told me that this was a notable exception to the rule in this video.

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

#143

Post by throwaway_98554 »

TaylorAlexander wrote: post #135
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…

I grew up in a very privileged white world, with an attitude that I could always talk to the police because they were never interested in me. I felt that there would be unlikely to be an outcome where I got in any real trouble even if I had been breaking the law in some childish but “not actually bad” kind of way. Doing some dumb stunt or smoking a little weed - “nothing serious”. A friend from a different place help…

> I grew up in a very privileged white world, with an attitude that I could always talk to the police because they were never interested in me. I felt that there would be unlikely to be an outcome where I got in any real trouble even if I had been breaking the law in some childish but “not actually bad” kind of way. Doing some dumb stunt or smoking a little weed - “nothing serious”.

What you describe as the "very privileged white world" sounds exactly how the citizen/police interactions ought to be.

It is a fragile balance that has been built and maintained by your society. The way you describe such as legacy is problematic, as people often see 'privilege' as something 'unfair', something to distance ourselves from. And by saying that the correct citizen/police interactions are a privilege, you push for everyone to average down, rather than make a better world for everyone.

You should instead focus on making sure everyone has the best chance of having a decent civil society. The best start is by using your everyday language as a way to anchor the correct interaction as the goal, not something to be avoided.

Ex:

"Last Friday night two officers brought me to my parents. I was a little too 'agitated'. It scared the shit out of me, but they let me go with a warning. I tell you man, I'm happy to have such friendly officers in my city." ("My friend from a different place got in trouble with the police last week. It looks like it's a pattern. Hopefully we'll find what is causing this friction soon and stop this shit." (<--- point out it's an unwanted consequence and that something has to change.)

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

#144

Post by kolbe »

emodendroket wrote: post #43
skrebbel wrote: post #38

Is the hidden motive here to sell lawyer services? This is a lawyer on a long and powerful rant about how you shouldn't do X without a lawyer. 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.

If you go talking to police about a crime you're accused of there's a good chance you'll need a lot more help from a lawyer than if you'd said nothing.

How do you know what you are and are not accused of?

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

#145

Post by Retra »

alangpierce wrote: post #94
Retra wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

People aren't tried in a court of common sense, they are tried in a court of law. If the law doesn't protect the use of common sense, then the law should change.

"Some lawyer in a YouTube video" is still far more qualified to tell me how to behave around the police than you are. Regardless of whether you think it is common sense or not. Obviously, you have to weigh the risks and decide for yourself, but that is such a trivial statement that it really doesn't need to be said. What needs to be said is that you don't know the risks unless you know the law and the status of the investigation; thus common sense should tell you not to talk to the police at all.

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

#146

Post by jopsen »

ivraatiems wrote: post #114
throwaway0255 wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can talk about rights and due process all you want, I’m not disagreeing with any of that, that’s great for people who can afford it. I’m talking about the practical outcome of this for average Americans. The practical outcome is that for every 1 time this advice prevents you from accidentally incriminating yourself, there will be 20 times that it just makes officers dislike you and abuse their authority over you,…

> You can talk about rights and due process all you want, I’m not disagreeing with any of that, that’s great for people who can afford it. I’m talking about the practical outcome of this for average Americans. Rights and due process apply to everyone, not just people who can afford it or people the police like. Telling someone "don't assert your rights because you're poor" is telling them to self-subjugate; that's aw…

> Things proceed as above, but your lawyer now has ammunition to use to help you in court.

We see it in the news time and time again, that public defenders spend a total of 15 minutes with their clients before trial. If they meet them at all.

We see time and time again that poor Americans spend months waiting for trial. In jail or out on bond (unable to get a job because of the bond).

For poor Americans self-subjugation might be a reasonable legal strategy.

We certainly hear of many innocent people taking a plea bargain, because it was faster than waiting for trial. And because they had no faith in the US justice system.

Just google around, there's lots of problems, pretrial detention is just one reason why poor Americans would be encouraged to submit, rather than demand justice: http://www.pretrial.org/the-problem/

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

#147

Post by emodendroket »

jopsen wrote: post #138
emodendroket wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, for instance, not everyone has rules where the police need a warrant to search your home or vehicle.

[citation needed] Article 8 of the ECHR seems to require a court orders of some kind: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_8_of_the_European_Conv... Not all European countries have the same exact rules as the US, some have stronger privacy in some areas and some have weaker in some areas. But the US isn't exactly a poster child for privacy. Granted US rights on unlawful searches are for the most part decent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_warrant#United_Kingdom

> In England and Wales, a local magistrate issues search warrants, which require that a constable provide evidence that supports the warrant application. In the majority of cases where police already hold someone in custody, police can search premises without a search warrant under Section 18 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE), which requires only the authority of an inspector.

> Under Section 18(5)a of PACE, a constable can conduct a search immediately without an inspector's authorisation. This subsection allows a constable to search the home of a suspect(s) under arrest in their presence before they take the suspect to a police station (or other custody location). Under Section 32 of PACE, a constable who arrests a person who is on their own property or has just left their premises, may immediately search both the suspect and the immediate area.

At no point did I say that the US is a "poster child for privacy," but the laws work differently.

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

#148

Post by jopsen »

Gorbzel wrote: post #105
tscs37 wrote: post #104

I think it's a sad statement for the american justice system that this is advice people want to follow. I feel lucky I don't have to live in the USA.

I feel lucky I live in the USA such that I am permitted to follow this advice.

Where are you not?

The right not to self-incriminate is pretty wide-spread :)

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

#149

Post by TaylorAlexander »

csomar wrote: post #134
Simon_says wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, in my philosophy, the guy with the gun and the legal authority to arrest is the one who gets to decide who's annoying, unfortunately.

They can't arrest you without probable cause. Especially if you are inside your house.

They absolutely can arrest you without probable cause. It’s illegal but that is to be decided later - and your case may never be decided if they find some excuse after the fact to legitimize an illegitimate arrest. This is made easy by the protectionism that happens amongst the police.

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

#150

Post by jopsen »

MichaelApproved wrote: post #124
tscs37 wrote: post #104

I think it's a sad statement for the american justice system that this is advice people want to follow. I feel lucky I don't have to live in the USA.

What country do you live in that what you say to police can't be used against you?

In most countries the police does an independent investigation, and what you say to them can also be used in your defense.

The police can be called to testify on your behalf; just as well as they can testify against you.

Not always a reason to talk, but it makes it less dangerous to help the police. After all we do want to help the police catch criminals don't we?

Post reply on HN