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

91–100 of 216 posts

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

#91

Post by baddox »

uts wrote: post #80

I want to clarify the scope of this advice. If I've actually committed a crime and a cop is interrogating me about it, I should shut up and talk to my lawyer. (e.g. I robbed someone's house) In the other extreme, if someone's committed a crime against me, I should actively call the police to talk to them (e.g. someone robbed my house). The majority of interactions with police fall somewhere between these two examples…

You should have a lawyer before you talk to police about a crime committed against you as well.

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

#92

Post by praptak »

SilasX wrote: post #69
lgierth wrote: post #2

Also very enlightening, and many probably already have watched this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc > Dont Talk to Cops > Mr. James Duane, a professor at Regent Law School and a former defense attorney, tells you why you should never agree to be interviewed by the police.

Thanks, but I'll continue to report crimes and assist canvassers looking for anyone who saw a suspect. "But he obviously didn't mean that !" Then why the extreme repetition of "never"?

I would seriously consider reporting anything non-lethal in US, see "Good Samaritan Backfire or How I Ended Up in Solitary After Calling 911 for Help": https://medium.com/human-parts/good-samaritan-backfire-9f53e...

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

#93

Post by baddox »

SilasX wrote: post #69
lgierth wrote: post #2

Also very enlightening, and many probably already have watched this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc > Dont Talk to Cops > Mr. James Duane, a professor at Regent Law School and a former defense attorney, tells you why you should never agree to be interviewed by the police.

Thanks, but I'll continue to report crimes and assist canvassers looking for anyone who saw a suspect. "But he obviously didn't mean that !" Then why the extreme repetition of "never"?

No, he meant that too. I haven't watched the video for a few years, but I believe he explicitly uses that scenario as one example.

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

#94

Post by baddox »

snowwrestler wrote: post #46
mikeash wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'…

You witness a mugging. You get a good look at the person who did it. A cop comes up to you and says "did you see what happened?" What's the right thing to do here? Shut up and demand a lawyer before you'll answer any questions? You hear about a shooting in your neighborhood on the radio. Walking to the subway, you see a person with a gun run down an alley. At the subway station a cop asks you if you've seen anything…

> Personally, I don't want to live in a society in which no one helps anyone because of fear.

You shouldn't talk to police in the situations you describe. And of course we don't want to live in this type of society. It would be great if police behaved differently.

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

#95

Post by baddox »

timv wrote: post #33
gkop wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The word "dangerous" is not exclusively used to indicate the likelihood of physical injury. It is also widely used to describe the likelihood of any undesirable consequences. The undesirable consequence in this case is a weakening of the argument being presented.

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

#96

Post by ptaipale »

dzdt wrote: post #75
x0x0 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you read the ferguson report -- and I can't do it justice -- the police were systematically used to assault black people, and use them as a cash source to fund local government. Meanwhile, white people skated on the same charges. I can't do the report justice, but it's utterly appalling. And while white people might not know what is going on, trust me, black people damn sure do. To say the least, this does not imp…

Crazy stat : city of Ferguson has outstanding arrest warrants on more than half of its citizens. This is an insane police state! http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nathan-robinson/the-shocking-f...

That sounds like a red herring. Without reading the story further than the first paragraph, I guess the reality is more like this:

Police in city of Ferguson knows of 16 000 arrest warrants for people from all over the USA, plus a number of foreigners, and Ferguson has 21 000 residents.

Some smaller city may have just 210 residents, and its police force may (theoretically) also know of the same 16 000 arrest warrants. Does that tell us that the USA is a horrible police state? No. It tells us that people are comparing numbers in a way that does not make sense.

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

#97

Post by tempestn »

smcl wrote: post #83
dingaling wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Sir, do you know how fast you were going?" The only responses you should use in such situations are: 'No comment' 'Am I free to go?' Plus the statutory minimum ( name, address, DoB according to your local legislation ). Psychologically it is very, very difficult. One way to try to handle it is to pretend you're responding to Emacs Eliza, which will always try to turn your words back onto you.

Have you used either of those responses before? Judging from my limited exposure with the police this sort of "technically I don't have to do this\answer this" response is an invite for a cranky cop to do everything they can to inconvenience you as a punishment. For example in my case if I'd carried on doing what I was doing (talking to my friend at conversational level and smiling, while a passing police officer tol…

One thing they can easily do, which once happened to me after being nothing but polite: take your driver's license, walk back to their car, and play on their phone for half an hour. I imagine the chances of that would go up with a non-cooperative response.

I'm certainly not saying you should spill your guts, but at least being as polite as possible without saying anything incriminating seems sensible.

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

#98

Post by rmc »

SilasX wrote: post #72
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…

>LEOs - especially Feds - will do everything they can to intimidate you, make you uncomfortable, lower your confidence, etc. It's literally their job to make people like you make mistakes. It sucks, but that's what you're up against. I don't know why we tolerate that. Imagine if doctors used such techniques to get people to participate in medical trials. We'd reject any claim that the subjects gave consent. Or imagin…

> Imagine if doctors used such techniques to get people to participate in medical trials. We'd reject any claim that the subjects gave consent.

They used to. From the Nazis to Tuskegee syphilis experiment.

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

#99

Post by mhaymo »

SilasX wrote: post #72
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…

>LEOs - especially Feds - will do everything they can to intimidate you, make you uncomfortable, lower your confidence, etc. It's literally their job to make people like you make mistakes. It sucks, but that's what you're up against. I don't know why we tolerate that. Imagine if doctors used such techniques to get people to participate in medical trials. We'd reject any claim that the subjects gave consent. Or imagin…

We don't expect criminals to consent to being prosecuted. Those parallels really don't make a lot of sense.

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

#100

Post by tajen »

ptaipale wrote: post #88
tsotha wrote: post #60

I thought everyone knew this. Never talk to representatives or agents of the US federal government without your lawyer present. Never, ever, ever. When they make contact, ask them for a phone number your lawyer can call. Ask them what matter the questions will be regarding. Get a card if it's in person. They're going to tell you there's no reason to hire a lawyer and you can clear the whole thing up in five minutes i…

That is slightly weird. How would I, for instance, arrange a lawyer to be present when I step out of a plane at JFK and talk to the immigration officer, who quite legitimately just wants to see my passport? He'll also be asking questions which I'm obliged to answer. There's no choice, but there's seldom any trouble, either.

The OP talks about local police. In US, the customs are unfortunately a very different form of jurisdiction. Sometimes I hear citizen aren't in the US jurisdiction until they've crossed the border. Which is a problem that US citizens probably need to solve through their democracy.

Centuries ago, constitutions were written to protect citizen with a heavy focus on local police scopes, but now that we all routinely walk through borders and on planes, we probably need to rewrite those constitutions with international police checks in focus. We can't afford to be in a no-law situation a dozen times a year.

Post reply on HN