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

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

#111

Post by dghf » Thu, Mar 19, 2015, 10:12 AM UTC

girvo wrote: post #84

SilasX wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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"?

> Then why the extreme repetition of "never" Because if you're the "wrong" colour or class, even reporting crimes or assisting canvassers can get you in trouble.

Or the "right" colour and class: viz Christopher Jeffries, a (white) landlord and retired teacher, somewhat eccentric but otherwise respectable, who was arrested for the murder of his tenant (and vilified in the national press) after volunteering what he thought might be relevant information about the night of her disappearance.

(He was later released without charge and won substantial libel damages from a number of newspapers.)

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

#112

Post by dghf » Thu, Mar 19, 2015, 10:20 AM UTC

chippy wrote: post #110

Anyone have any similar advise for Brits?

IANAL, but I would imagine it's a bit trickier, as our right not to incriminate ourselves is more restricted than that of our American cousins (at least in England & Wales -- Scotland and Northern Ireland may be different): the warning given by police is, "You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence."

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

#113

Post by gambiting » Thu, Mar 19, 2015, 10:22 AM UTC

skrebbel wrote: post #103

hueving wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, most people I know don't have an actual lawyer they know already. "don't talk without your lawyer" means to get a lawyer representing you before you talk. It isn't meant to imply that you must have one to begin with.

So how do you google for an appropriate lawyer when in custody and you only get one phone call? Not cynical, I really wonder. I guess the exact same problem exists where I live (the Netherlands).

I believe every single EU country will have public lawyers that you can talk to while arrested. It might take a few hours to get one summoned,but you definitely can. Obviously this is not an option when you are being interviewed by the police on the street.

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

#114

Post by DanBC » Thu, Mar 19, 2015, 10:25 AM UTC

dghf wrote: post #112

chippy wrote: post #110

Anyone have any similar advise for Brits?

IANAL, but I would imagine it's a bit trickier, as our right not to incriminate ourselves is more restricted than that of our American cousins (at least in England & Wales -- Scotland and Northern Ireland may be different): the warning given by police is, "You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say…

I think the advice isn't "say nothing", it is "say nothing until your lawyer is there".

So, for someone arrested (or questioned) in England or Wales the advice is to politely say something like "I'm happy to answer your questions officer, but I am waiting for my lawyer to get here".

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

#115

Post by ptaipale » Thu, Mar 19, 2015, 10:27 AM UTC

dghf wrote: post #106

ptaipale wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

If you do read the story further, and the NBC story it links to, you'll see that these 16 000 arrest warrants were issued by the Ferguson Municipal Court; they're not merely warrants known to Ferguson police but originating elsewhere. > It tells us that people are comparing numbers in a way that does not make sense. From the HuffPo article: "To give some context as to how truly extreme this is, a comparison may be us…

"arrest warrants on more than half of its citizens" -- that is clearly not true. Many of the warrants are on people who are not its citizens.

There sure are problems in places like Ferguson, but this comparison seems not entirely honest. Why do you compare arrest warrants of a single municipal court vs. number of residents in that small municipality, and then the arrest warrants of a much larger municipal court system and number of residents in that much larger municipal system? Of course these ratios are different, because by nature a single, small municipality issues many arrest warrants for people who are not residents, while a larger system mostly handles people living inside its constituency.

Compare St. Louis metropolitan area and Boston metropolitan area, then you see the scale of problems. It is there, so there should be no need to do flimsy tricks on apples and oranges. The war on drugs sure brings problems, and this is one symptom.

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

#116

Post by roel_v » Thu, Mar 19, 2015, 10:27 AM UTC

skrebbel wrote: post #103

hueving wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, most people I know don't have an actual lawyer they know already. "don't talk without your lawyer" means to get a lawyer representing you before you talk. It isn't meant to imply that you must have one to begin with.

So how do you google for an appropriate lawyer when in custody and you only get one phone call? Not cynical, I really wonder. I guess the exact same problem exists where I live (the Netherlands).

In the Netherlands, you don't 'get one phone call'. You have (since very recently, and only in some cases) the right to talk to 'a' lawyer before you are questioned. Hence, either the police provides you with one if you don't know who you'd like, or the questioning has to wait until your lawyer is present (bar some limits like withing x time, I don't know the procedural rules by heart - how things are actually applied also varies by area).

So if it takes 3 phone calls, so be it.

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

#117

Post by dagw » Thu, Mar 19, 2015, 10:27 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.

Maybe he honestly didn't think he was lying, since he never discussed the case on the phone call. Someone told him it was happening and he hung up the phone. Most people wouldn't necessarily consider that talking about something.

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

#118

Post by mellavora » Thu, Mar 19, 2015, 10:28 AM UTC

NhanH wrote: post #45

snowwrestler wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Put yourself in the shoes of a federal agent investigating a crime. Crimes happen all the time; they're commmitted by people who then try very hard to hide what they did. So a criminal investigator is going to treat everyone they interview with suspicion from the start. That suspicion is not a personal failing any more than a software QA tester who doesn't trust the latest build. It's inherent in that type of job. An…

All that you said is true, but I think it's orthogonal to what I was wondering about -- actually, it just raised more questions for me. The common legal advice is "do not talk to cop", which presumably because on average, you will actually get into trouble with it. So in a sense, the question was "Why would LEO cause you trouble for those technicality if you're innocent?". I mean, let's say the first innocent guy who…

I hope more people start to ask your questions. Law enforcement in the US has drifted far from what most people consider moral or right.

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

#119

Post by jessaustin » Thu, Mar 19, 2015, 10:38 AM UTC

skrebbel wrote: post #104

techstrategist wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I think that most Americans don't have a lawyer on call. The typical advice I have heard is to do a little research on lawyers in your city, and have a phone number of a reputable lawyer (or a few) in your wallet in case of a potentially severe legal situation. When you call them and establish a relationship where you are paying for their services they become "your lawyer". (this is not advice, I'm not a lawyer,…

> (this is not advice, I'm not a lawyer, etc) Related: will people sue you if you don't include that disclaimer?

IANAL, but I believe that in this case the disclaimer is just a courtesy. That is, before one makes a life-altering decision, one should consult a real attorney, not just us morons on HN.

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

#120

Post by jpatokal » Thu, Mar 19, 2015, 10:39 AM UTC

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.

If you're a US citizen returning to the US, you actually are not obliged to answer their questions. That said, this is a pretty grey area and they certainly don't like it if you don't.

https://greyenigma.wordpress.com/2012/03/30/i-am-detained-by...