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

Reminder: Oh, Won't You Please Shut Up? (2011)

popehat.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 216 posts

Re: Reminder: Oh, Won't You Please Shut Up? (2011)

#11

Post by bcg1 »

Actually over the years, I've found that shutting my mouth would be helpful not only when talking to law enforcement. Not always so good at carrying that out though.

Anyways, it reminds of the time I was arrested for smoking the forbidden devil vegetable. We were brought into the city court room to be indicted while we were waiting two suburban white teenagers were in from the bench getting chewed out by the judge, saying that he's sick of seeing these kids from the suburbs coming into the city to buy drugs and encouraging crime in his neighborhood. After he finished his rant, he asked them what they plead and they said not guilty of course. Then one of them felt the urge to speak up and said, "I just want to point out one thing before we go... the police officer wrote down that it was crack cocaine, but it was regular cocaine, not crack." After the judge picked his jaw up off the floor he broke character and told them to shut up until they had a lawyer.

Re: Reminder: Oh, Won't You Please Shut Up? (2011)

#12

Post by mikeash »

NhanH wrote: post #10

The question that I have every time I read about something similar to this is not about the law itself, but about the human who's applying the law: how/ why/ what is the line of thought that would lead them to (supposedly) knowingly do something like this? I realize that processes, bureaucracy and generally abstraction can allow people to do less than desirable behaviours, but I can't quite figure out which abstracti…

I would say "all of the above."

LEO do routinely believe that people they investigate must be guilty. They don't investigate at random, but rather are prompted by some evidence of criminal behavior. That certainly doesn't mean that you must be guilty if they investigate you, but it sets them up to believe you are.

The system is set up with compartments so nobody sees the full consequences of anything and this sort of misbehavior is encouraged. If you send somebody to jail, they disappear from your life the moment the verdict is reached and you have no reason to dwell on the harm you've caused them. (And if you do, you probably think it's a good thing, because you think they're a criminal!) And you probably get a commendation for putting a bad guy away.

Bad behavior does get reported disproportionately. Most cops are good cops. For everyone like this, there are ten cops who find a lost cellphone and personally deliver it back to the owner, as happened to a neighbor of mine a few months ago. That doesn't make the news. Although that doesn't mean it shouldn't be a concern for the majority of us. Even a small risk of being falsely imprisoned is important, and there's no harm in taking the "SHUT UP" route with a good cop.

Finally, I would be wary of assuming that malicious intent is no higher than among the general population. Bad people tend to seek power over others, and what better way to wield such power than to do so legally as a member of the police? No doubt, the legitimate "protect and serve" folks still greatly outnumber the bad guys, but I would bet they're more concentrated.

Re: Reminder: Oh, Won't You Please Shut Up? (2011)

#14

Post by serve_yay »

The only time I ever did this, it was a routine traffic stop and I was with my wife and my parents. The cop was asking me a bunch of questions about why I was driving so fast, and I just played it off like I didn't understand, just trying to say as little as possible. It was a bad tactic - it raised suspicion and I later learned that my mother thought I was actually holding drugs or something because I was being evasive. I still in general agree with the advice, but... it requires some subtlety.

Re: Reminder: Oh, Won't You Please Shut Up? (2011)

#15

Post by ars »

serve_yay wrote: post #14

The only time I ever did this, it was a routine traffic stop and I was with my wife and my parents. The cop was asking me a bunch of questions about why I was driving so fast, and I just played it off like I didn't understand, just trying to say as little as possible. It was a bad tactic - it raised suspicion and I later learned that my mother thought I was actually holding drugs or something because I was being evas…

I've written that before on HN and got massively downmodded, hopefully that doesn't happen to you.

If you are actually guilty then keep your mouth closed. But if you are not guilty then staying quiet is not necessarily to your benefit.

Re: Reminder: Oh, Won't You Please Shut Up? (2011)

#16

Post by gkop »

mikeash wrote: post #12
NhanH wrote: post #10

The question that I have every time I read about something similar to this is not about the law itself, but about the human who's applying the law: how/ why/ what is the line of thought that would lead them to (supposedly) knowingly do something like this? I realize that processes, bureaucracy and generally abstraction can allow people to do less than desirable behaviours, but I can't quite figure out which abstracti…

I would say "all of the above." LEO do routinely believe that people they investigate must be guilty. They don't investigate at random, but rather are prompted by some evidence of criminal behavior. That certainly doesn't mean that you must be guilty if they investigate you, but it sets them up to believe you are. The system is set up with compartments so nobody sees the full consequences of anything and this sort of…

It's dangerous to bandy around statements like "most cops are good cops" for which you don't have evidence. Instead, you might say "Some cops are good cops".

Re: Reminder: Oh, Won't You Please Shut Up? (2011)

#17

Post by mikeash »

gkop wrote: post #16
mikeash wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would say "all of the above." LEO do routinely believe that people they investigate must be guilty. They don't investigate at random, but rather are prompted by some evidence of criminal behavior. That certainly doesn't mean that you must be guilty if they investigate you, but it sets them up to believe you are. The system is set up with compartments so nobody sees the full consequences of anything and this sort of…

It's dangerous to bandy around statements like "most cops are good cops" for which you don't have evidence. Instead, you might say "Some cops are good cops".

How is it "dangerous"? I'm expressing my personal opinion on a relatively obscure site on the internet. It is one of the least dangerous activities I can imagine.

Re: Reminder: Oh, Won't You Please Shut Up? (2011)

#19

Post by mikeash »

ars wrote: post #15
serve_yay wrote: post #14

The only time I ever did this, it was a routine traffic stop and I was with my wife and my parents. The cop was asking me a bunch of questions about why I was driving so fast, and I just played it off like I didn't understand, just trying to say as little as possible. It was a bad tactic - it raised suspicion and I later learned that my mother thought I was actually holding drugs or something because I was being evas…

I've written that before on HN and got massively downmodded, hopefully that doesn't happen to you. If you are actually guilty then keep your mouth closed. But if you are not guilty then staying quiet is not necessarily to your benefit.

Your guilt doesn't matter. You can still incriminate yourself even if you have committed no crime.

It sounds like grandparent didn't go to jail, so even though he calls it a "bad tactic" it seems to have worked out fine.

The people who actually know this stuff, i.e. lawyers and cops, all universally advise people not to talk to the police without counsel. Never have I seen one add the qualifier "but it's fine if you're not guilty." I'm inclined to take their word for it.

Re: Reminder: Oh, Won't You Please Shut Up? (2011)

#20

Post by caseysoftware »

ars wrote: post #15
serve_yay wrote: post #14

The only time I ever did this, it was a routine traffic stop and I was with my wife and my parents. The cop was asking me a bunch of questions about why I was driving so fast, and I just played it off like I didn't understand, just trying to say as little as possible. It was a bad tactic - it raised suspicion and I later learned that my mother thought I was actually holding drugs or something because I was being evas…

I've written that before on HN and got massively downmodded, hopefully that doesn't happen to you. If you are actually guilty then keep your mouth closed. But if you are not guilty then staying quiet is not necessarily to your benefit.

Please read the article. Whether you're guilty or not, you can be made guilty on various other charges from a simple conversation.
Post reply on HN