Live data from Hacker News

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

popehat.com

131–140 of 216 posts

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

#131
post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Could you explain that in more detail? I would have assumed, perhaps naively, that the larger municipality would have had more non-residents (commuters, tourists, out-of-town shoppers, people com…

When the small municipality is part of a larger metro area, those commuters and out-of-town shoppers come from a large area and pass through this small administrational area, so it is natural that the ratio of things like arrest warrants can be large when compared to number of residents. To understand this outside the context of Ferguson and the racially loaded atmosphere in this discussion, take for an example the C…

> It's a police force that handles an area which has just 7400 residents.

And about 300,000 daily commuters. What's the commuter/resident ratio for Ferguson?

The City of London Police also have certain national responsibilities, in the fields of fraud and intellectual property.

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

#132

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 Germany, in many cities and towns, local attorney associations provide emergency phone numbers. The provide free legal advice on the phone and provide you with a free attorney for the duration emergency (e.g. while a search warrant is executed).

Intrestingly, I just noticed that I have the number stored in my cell phone (since before I had a smart phone). That may not be the smartest way to do it.

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

#133
post #18

Are we talking about their cool HTTP 503/522 error page?

Doesn't include italicising or links or title, but:

There's really no excuse for the fact that we don't have a "SHUT UP!" tag; I shall have to remedy that. After all, "SHUT UP!" is one of our most venerable and consistent themes.

There's a reason for this. The reason lies at the heart of law enforcement methodology in general and federal law enforcement abuse of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001 in particular.

Imagine this scenario, based on an actual situation:

A business associate calls you and says, "my dear business associate, the shit has hit the fan; Federal Agency X is investigating Project Y we did together. Two Agency X agents are interviewing people."

"Oh coitus," says you, or words to that effect, and terminate the conversation.

Later that day, two well-dressed and polite agents of Agency X visit you. Because you despise me and want me to weep and gnash my teeth, you consent to be interviewed. At some point, they ask you "have you talked about this investigation with anyone?"

"No," you say.

They smile.

At the end of the interview, it occurs to you to ask, "Hey, am I in trouble? Do I need a lawyer?"

The agents smirk. "No," they say. "I mean, unless you lied about talking to anyone about this investigation."

See, you've fallen into a false statement trap, which I've talked about before. The feds know that you've talked to somebody about their investigation. They were probably standing next to your friend when he made that call this morning. And now you've talked your way into a felony.

Here's how it works. The feds identify some fact that they can prove. It need not be inherently incriminating; it might be whether you were at a particular meeting, or whether you talked to someone about the existence of the investigation. They determine that they have irrefutable proof of this fact. Then, when they interview you, they ask you a question about the fact, hoping that you will lie. Often they employ professional questioning tactics to make it more likely you will lie — for instance, by phrasing the question or employing a tone of voice to make the fact sound sinister. You — having already been foolhardy enough to talk to them without a lawyer — obligingly lie about this fact. Then, even though there was never any question about the fact, even though your lie did not deter the federal government for a microsecond, they have you nailed for a false statement to a government agent in violation of 18 USC 1001. To be a crime under Section 1001, a statement must be material — but the federal courts have generally supported the government's position that the question is not whether a false statement actually did influence the government, but whether it was the sort of false statement that could have influenced the government.

Hence, the government's chickenshit false statement trap works — even though the government agents set it up from the start. Now, however weak or strong their evidence is of the issue they are investigating, they've got you on a Section 1001 charge — a federal felony. In effect, they are manufacturing felonies in the course of investigations.

You think this is an improbable scenario? You think I'm talking about rare and extreme cases to color the entirety of federal law enforcement? To the contrary, as a federal defense attorney, I'm encountering this more and more often. Not to sound like an old fart, but we never indulged in such bullshit when I was a federal prosecutor (cue the scoffing from many defense attorneys). But in the last 12 years, I've seen it in a dozen cases, and heard about it from colleagues across the country. It's now routine for federal agents to close out an investigation with a false-statement-trap interview of a target in an effort to add a Section 1001 cherry to the top of the cake.

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.

SHUT UP.

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

#134
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…

There is an additional wrinkle here. The overwhelming majority of people prosecuted by the Feds are guilty of something (and not just of some "made up" crime). I worked for a federal appellate judge. Saw dozens of criminal cases come up on appeal. Didn't see a single one from the Feds where the evidence of guilt wasn't overwhelming (even if some convictions were defective for technical reasons, and even if some were for debatably immoral conduct like drug trafficking). They don't go around baiting random people they think are innocent to lie in an interview. They do it to make sure they have concrete points of leverage to get information about the rest of the crimes.

Of course, this really sucks if you're innocent (though even then, often your associates aren't and you were in the wrong place at the wrong time). When these guys see guilty people lie to their face day in and day out, it's hard to give the rare actually innocent person the benefit of the doubt. They have the moral obligation to do that, mind you. It's just understandably hard.

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

#135
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…

Obviously there's a balance here. You don't want to put people in danger with your silence. The answer depends on what you look like, what you are doing (are you carrying contraband?), and the situation.

Being a witness in general is a real pain in butt in any case, particularly if you are witnessing a non-trivial crime.

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

#136
post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When the small municipality is part of a larger metro area, those commuters and out-of-town shoppers come from a large area and pass through this small administrational area, so it is natural that the ratio of things like arrest warrants can be large when compared to number of residents. To understand this outside the context of Ferguson and the racially loaded atmosphere in this discussion, take for an example the C…

> It's a police force that handles an area which has just 7400 residents. And about 300,000 daily commuters. What's the commuter/resident ratio for Ferguson? The City of London Police also have certain national responsibilities, in the fields of fraud and intellectual property.

I suppose the problem in Ferguson is more about out-of-town shoppers than commuters. Specifically, out-of-town shoppers for controlled substances. So this is yet another symptom/consequence/whatever in the war on drugs.

Just because you made me interested, I googled and found e.g. this: http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-darren-wilson-arrest-201...

Should Brooks, a resident, and Johnson, a non-resident, have been arrested? According to law, yes. Is this fight on drugs working? Probably not. But should the residence status impact whether they are arrested? No. Does this make it silly to compare number of arrest warrants to number of residents? To some extent, yes. No doubt that the situation is worse in St. Louis than in Boston, but it's not just one Ferguson.

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

#137
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…

There is an additional wrinkle here. The overwhelming majority of people prosecuted by the Feds are guilty of something (and not just of some "made up" crime). I worked for a federal appellate judge. Saw dozens of criminal cases come up on appeal. Didn't see a single one from the Feds where the evidence of guilt wasn't overwhelming (even if some convictions were defective for technical reasons, and even if some were…

Aaron Swartz

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

#138

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).

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/OnePhoneCall

http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/2274/you-have-th...

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

#139
post #16
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".

Strong disagreement.

If we are going to get real reform, we need the police to also buy in. Alienating them doesn't help.

The drive to consider oneself a "good person" is fundamental to human nature (yes, psychopathy is a pathology). The issue is that "good" is socially defined. LEOs operate in a very odd social space.

How do we get LEOs to want to align more with a more civil social space? This is the nut we need to crack.

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

#140
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…

How do you know if you have committed a crime or not?

How do you know that the LEO will not, during his discussion with you, trick or lead you into committing or admitting to some crime?

Post reply on HN