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

Police in Canada Are Tracking People’s ‘Negative’ Behavior in a ‘Risk’ Database

vice.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 289 posts

Re: Police in Canada Are Tracking People’s ‘Negative’ Behavior in a ‘Risk’ Database

#231

Post by Fogest »

cabaalis wrote: post #204
emptybits wrote: post #4

FTA: The Ontario Provincial Police say, “We can knock on someone’s door and say, ‘We’re so worried about you, can we come in and chat?’” Yikes. I understand the positive spin is the police care about the wellbeing of at-risk people with these visits. But wouldn't it also be true that anything and everything the police observe and believe as a result of such a visit could also be used against the resident or others in…

I recommend everyone watch this video. It's geared towards lawyers. If the police are asking questions with any level of suspicion at all, don't talk to them. Even if you do not lie, and are innocent, the things you say can still be used against you. Summarizing: 1. There is no way it can help. 2. If your client is guilty (or even innocent), they might admit guilt with nothing in return. 3. If your client is innocent…

The police in the past actually wanted me to come in and talk to them about an issue someone had reported. I came in and they surprised me with the line "My partner is just setting up the camera in the other room if that's okay". I was quite surprised and shocked that they wanted to record what they made sound like a friendly chat.

I of course refused to give any kind of statement under video and instead just spoke privately with an officer and gave minimal details. However I fear that others less inclined about their rights or why they wanted to record would be screwing themselves.

Essentially I had a false report made against me and there was no evidence. If I said anything incriminating in a video statement by accident I would have just made evidence for them. No one advised me of this. It felt like I should have brought a lawyer with me.

Edit: This was in an Ontario based police department.

Re: Police in Canada Are Tracking People’s ‘Negative’ Behavior in a ‘Risk’ Database

#232

Post by whenchamenia »

_lessthan0 wrote: post #177
barry-cotter wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In most of the world the police could beat you to death with video evidence and they’d get away with it. Competent, professional more or less upright police are not the worldwide or historical norm. In most of the world the police are the biggest gang. Police in the US are the very model of probity, courtesy and professionalism compared to almost every country in the Western Hemisphere, never mind African, Arab or As…

lmao, unless you are not a white hetero male. US police are most likely the worst in the west.

Even that doesnt help if you dont look like the right kind of white hetero male. Lets not muddy the water with identity politics please.

Re: Police in Canada Are Tracking People’s ‘Negative’ Behavior in a ‘Risk’ Database

#233

Post by laumars »

tempguy9999 wrote: post #210
laumars wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm getting badly uptight because ISTM you may have defined suicide into something you are morally required to intervene in, and prevent. From your orig post: "...given support to help enable them to grow into better people..." You're obsessing over one sentence, pulling it apart and taking it completely out of context - even after I have already clarified what I meant. I have repeatedly made the case that support…

I'm "pulling [that sentence] apart" because it's the very pivot point of the issue. The core, the crux, the interpretation of which is purely subjective, so where things can go bad. I actually agreed with some of your posts and upvoted 2 of them (edit: including the original one I replied to initially!) When I was concerned about was the fine balance between helping and suddenly forcing 'for their own good', hence in…

> I'm "pulling [that sentence] apart" because it's the very pivot point of the issue. The core, the crux, the interpretation of which is purely subjective, so where things can go bad.

It's not the pivotal point and it's not subjective. There is an intended meaning which the author of that post, namely me, specifically wrote. That was then clarified in every subsequent post where you've repeatedly argued a contradictory meaning.

Furthermore I would consider myself uniquely qualified to comment on what was meant in that post - and all other posts by me - because I specifically wrote them. So arguing with me - the author of those posts - about the meaning of those posts is just absurd beyond comprehension. Please stop it.

> When I was concerned about was the fine balance between helping and suddenly forcing 'for their own good', hence in my original post I said "That's ripe for abuse". I was not initially criticising you, just saying it's frightningly abusable; be cautious.

You don't need to tell me this - I wrote literally that in my very first post (and again in a subsequent post too). Hence why I keep saying that you're taking that sentence of out context when parade it around in isolation like you have.

> Then you posted this "That's [suicide is] a mental illness". Now it seemed you opened the door to 'helping' whether they liked it or not.

No, I did not. I specifically and repeatedly said "I'm not going to argue about mental illness" - even after you directly asked me to talk about mental illness. I did suggest maybe you could benefit by talking to someone if you were sincere about your own mental health problems but I'm not forcing you to do that either (though I would recommend it - talking does genuinely help).

> Maybe you didn't but that's how I read it, and it did not play well with me. I don't think you got how badly that scared me. Well, that's ok.

Again, I think I - of all people - am uniquely qualified to tell you what I meant and if I tell you that you've misunderstood me, then you have misunderstood me.

Re: Police in Canada Are Tracking People’s ‘Negative’ Behavior in a ‘Risk’ Database

#234

Post by jdc »

sgift wrote: post #15
jdc wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Can you really? In my experience with the RCMP at least, yes. They might give you attitude about it, though. I have received a veiled threat or two though (which materialized to nothing).

What is "received a veiled threat"?

Whoops, meant vague threat. Was "we can do this the easy way or the hard way."

Re: Police in Canada Are Tracking People’s ‘Negative’ Behavior in a ‘Risk’ Database

#235

Post by whenchamenia »

dao- wrote: post #108
sonnyblarney wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When the police come to your door, you're going to answer. Agree with the program or not, this is not spam.

If they say "can we come in?" it likely means they're legally not allowed to come in unless you invite them in. Which means they won't kick down your door either if you just don't answer.

But they can 'see something suspicious' inside, and then suddenly be duty bound to investigate. Do not open your door for cops, and if you feel you should, step outside swiftly and lock the door behind you. They will always find something if they want to, even it it was not there before they entered.

Re: Police in Canada Are Tracking People’s ‘Negative’ Behavior in a ‘Risk’ Database

#236

Post by skywhopper »

emptybits wrote: post #4

FTA: The Ontario Provincial Police say, “We can knock on someone’s door and say, ‘We’re so worried about you, can we come in and chat?’” Yikes. I understand the positive spin is the police care about the wellbeing of at-risk people with these visits. But wouldn't it also be true that anything and everything the police observe and believe as a result of such a visit could also be used against the resident or others in…

The thing is that the police are not the appropriate agency to be leading "helpful" interventions. These are the people empowered to kill you, imprison you, seize your belongings, and charge you with crimes. Those people are not the ones who should be knocking on your door offering "help".

Re: Police in Canada Are Tracking People’s ‘Negative’ Behavior in a ‘Risk’ Database

#237

Post by Retra »

kjsbfkjbf wrote: post #225
781 wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That video is very US centric. In Europe in particular, police officers are not such an enemy. Also, in UK, refusing to talk to police at first contact can be used against you, for example it will be more difficult later to introduce exculpatory evidence that you were supposed to know of at the time you refused to speak. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence_in_England_an...

> In Europe in particular, police officers are not such an enemy. Everywhere in the world the police are your enemy. They exist as the manifestation of a state's domestic violence.

So we should abolish police worldwide? Or is there maybe some nuanced angle there that the state might be operating on your behalf?

Re: Police in Canada Are Tracking People’s ‘Negative’ Behavior in a ‘Risk’ Database

#238

Post by mcv »

kjsbfkjbf wrote: post #225
781 wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That video is very US centric. In Europe in particular, police officers are not such an enemy. Also, in UK, refusing to talk to police at first contact can be used against you, for example it will be more difficult later to introduce exculpatory evidence that you were supposed to know of at the time you refused to speak. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence_in_England_an...

> In Europe in particular, police officers are not such an enemy. Everywhere in the world the police are your enemy. They exist as the manifestation of a state's domestic violence.

In a democracy, the state shouldn't be your enemy either. The state should represent you, as should the police.

Re: Police in Canada Are Tracking People’s ‘Negative’ Behavior in a ‘Risk’ Database

#239

Post by mcv »

skywhopper wrote: post #236
emptybits wrote: post #4

FTA: The Ontario Provincial Police say, “We can knock on someone’s door and say, ‘We’re so worried about you, can we come in and chat?’” Yikes. I understand the positive spin is the police care about the wellbeing of at-risk people with these visits. But wouldn't it also be true that anything and everything the police observe and believe as a result of such a visit could also be used against the resident or others in…

The thing is that the police are not the appropriate agency to be leading "helpful" interventions. These are the people empowered to kill you, imprison you, seize your belongings, and charge you with crimes. Those people are not the ones who should be knocking on your door offering "help".

Different cultures have different ideas on the role of police.

Re: Police in Canada Are Tracking People’s ‘Negative’ Behavior in a ‘Risk’ Database

#240

Post by lbsnake7 »

cabaalis wrote: post #204
emptybits wrote: post #4

FTA: The Ontario Provincial Police say, “We can knock on someone’s door and say, ‘We’re so worried about you, can we come in and chat?’” Yikes. I understand the positive spin is the police care about the wellbeing of at-risk people with these visits. But wouldn't it also be true that anything and everything the police observe and believe as a result of such a visit could also be used against the resident or others in…

I recommend everyone watch this video. It's geared towards lawyers. If the police are asking questions with any level of suspicion at all, don't talk to them. Even if you do not lie, and are innocent, the things you say can still be used against you. Summarizing: 1. There is no way it can help. 2. If your client is guilty (or even innocent), they might admit guilt with nothing in return. 3. If your client is innocent…

The other day I was reading about Miranda rights and I didn’t realize it wasn’t a thing until the 60s. It was heavily pushed and publicized by lawyers to make it a necessity to have lawyers at every step of the way. There is some debate about how harder it is to get convictions because of the Miranda rights. I’m not trying to say anything about how important the rights are when people go through the process, I just thought it was interesting.

How does the rule about not talking to police work? What about when police are canvassing the neighborhood and they are knocking on every door? Are you supposed to talk then? What about when you have info of a crime? What about when you want to report a crime? Any of these situations is potentially a way for police to twist your words.

Post reply on HN