Reminder: Oh, Won't You Please Shut Up? (2011) • Hacker News Board

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

#31

Post by WildUtah » Thu, Mar 19, 2015, 3:52 AM UTC

themartorana wrote: post #24

chimeracoder wrote: post #7

> The lesson — other than that criminal justice often has little to do with actual justice — is this: for God's sake shut up . Law enforcement agents seeking to interview you are not your friends. You cannot count on "just clearing this one thing up." Demand to talk to a lawyer before talking to the cops. Every time. This is a very good reminder, and everything he says is both important and true. Unfortunately, it's…

I feel like at some point in time, entrapment was frowned upon... Unfortunately it's this behavior that reinforces - not helps fix - the often maligned urban/minority fear of ever helping the police in any way ever. Does the entire neighborhood know who committed crimes X? Yes. Will anyone ever talk to the police? Na.

"it's this behavior that reinforces"

It's a mild reenforcement but the root reason to fear and not cooperate with the police is the same as ever. When most police resources in the USA are focused on drug enforcement and most Americans have committed federal felonies they don't think they should be incarcerated for and most underclass young men are committing them routinely, you can't expect crime ridden communities to see the police as any kind of blessing.

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

#32

Post by gkop » Thu, Mar 19, 2015, 3:56 AM UTC

mikeash wrote: post #17

gkop wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Your argument does not rest on most cops being good cops, it stands if some cops are good cops. So why throw in an assertion you can't back up?

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

#33

Post by timv » Thu, Mar 19, 2015, 4:09 AM UTC

gkop wrote: post #32

mikeash wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Your argument does not rest on most cops being good cops, it stands if some cops are good cops. So why throw in an assertion you can't back up?

You asserted that it was "dangerous" for him to bandy around such statements.

Care to back up that assertion?

"Unnecessary" and "dangerous" are quite different.

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

#34

Post by rosser » Thu, Mar 19, 2015, 4:09 AM UTC

snowwrestler wrote: post #30

caseysoftware wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

But only if you lie during that conversation. Edit: this is literally what happens in Ken's hypothetical story. If the subject didn't lie about the phone call, they couldn't be charged with a false statement.

So ... what, be honest and incriminate yourself?

No. LAWYER UP AND SHUT UP.

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

#35

Post by gregory144 » Thu, Mar 19, 2015, 4:11 AM UTC

mikeash wrote: post #6

gregory144 wrote: post #4

But in the last 12 years, I've seen it in a dozen cases... Once a year, throughout the country? How many thousands of investigations are performed per year? Doesn't seem very likely to happen.

How many thousands of investigations is he personally involved in per year? I'd guess something on the order of 0.05.

My point was that he's making it seem like this happens a lot without actually quantifying it. It seems misleading to me.

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

#36

Post by stavrianos » Thu, Mar 19, 2015, 4:12 AM UTC

snowwrestler wrote: post #30

caseysoftware wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

But only if you lie during that conversation. Edit: this is literally what happens in Ken's hypothetical story. If the subject didn't lie about the phone call, they couldn't be charged with a false statement.

Which you may be deliberately manipulated into.

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

#37

Post by rosser » Thu, Mar 19, 2015, 4:12 AM UTC

mod wrote: post #8

mikeash wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How many thousands of investigations is he personally involved in per year? I'd guess something on the order of 0.05.

Not to mention, I imagine they only play that card when it seems like they need to for one reason or another.

They play that card as a matter of course, because once they've got you for felony false statement, that's leverage to get you to play ball on the real reason they were talking to you in the first place.

"That's a nice, felony conviction-free life you've got there. It would be a shame if something were to happen to it..."

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

#38

Post by rosser » Thu, Mar 19, 2015, 4:15 AM UTC

snowwrestler wrote: post #21

The general case here is: don't lie to federal agents. The easiest way to do that is to stay silent and demand a lawyer. But understand: if you're on the periphery of an investigation, you're running a chance of raising a red flag. It's well within your rights, and ultimately you can't incriminate yourself by being silent. But you could substantially add delay, frustration, and lawyer costs to the whole experience. A…

"If one would give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I would find something in them to have him hanged." — Cardinal Richelieu

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

#39

Post by gkop » Thu, Mar 19, 2015, 4:16 AM UTC

mikeash wrote: post #17

gkop wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

timv: the OP is warning people to avoid talking to cops. "Most cops are good" is a very common sentiment that is even inculcated in kids growing up attending public schools. This widespread common belief contributes to people speaking naively to police and thereby getting themselves in trouble. That is what I meant by dangerous. I didn't explain this in my reply to mikeash because it seemed to me that mikeash was being obtuse given the context of the OP.

Edit in reply to rosser: I agree with you there.

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

#40

Post by dropit_sphere » Thu, Mar 19, 2015, 4:17 AM UTC

gkop wrote: post #32

mikeash wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Your argument does not rest on most cops being good cops, it stands if some cops are good cops. So why throw in an assertion you can't back up?

Oh but he can.

See, he's not holding himself to your standard of evidence. That would require mass mindreading, plus the ability to irrevocably demonstrate the authenticity of such.

Rather, he's backing up that statement with evidence in the reader's head, counting on most readers to reflect back on their life experience and see if his statement fits. He has faith that it will. In my case, it does: I agree. I'll even upvote him.