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

151–160 of 216 posts

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

#151

Post by rayiner »

Spooky23 wrote: post #130
mhaymo wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The problem is that everyone is viewed as a perp, particularly if you are black. "Innocent until proven guilty" means something.

It means something specific: at trial, the police must prove your guilt by a reasonable doubt, and doubt is resolved in favor of the accused. That's all it means.

This is not to say that law enforcement doesn't need to cut back on the aggressive tactics. But rather that the presumption of innocence has nothing to do with why.

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

#152

Post by ctdonath »

tempestn wrote: post #67
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…

This is a good point though. What do you folks suggest for the standard traffic stop, along the lines of, "Sir, do you know how fast you were going?" Presumably both "yes" and "no" would be bad. (The former is obvious, and the latter could mean you're not paying sufficient attention, etc.) So, do you just stare at them in silence? Do you say something like, "I'd rather not answer," which while accurate, sure sounds l…

"Do you know how fast you were going?"

Or, in my case a couple weeks back, "any reason you were going so fast?"

You don't have to answer. I didn't (though I may have babbled some irrelevancies while digging out the paperwork). It's actually quite a mental & social breakthrough to realize you don't have to answer people's questions.

As for being a victim or witness, still best to keep statements very short, as in "that man assaulted me, there's the stick he hit me with, and that woman walking away saw it, I want to press charges and I need to talk to a lawyer" or "I witnessed the attack, here's my contact information". You say what you must to establish legitimate victimhood ("she stole my cocaine" isn't), identify perpetrators and witnesses, and identify probable perishable evidence.

Then.

Shut.

Up.

The only thing to say at this point is "am I free to go?" - repeatedly, if necessary. They'll say & do darned near anything, but at some point they have to either arrest you or not stop you from leaving.

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

#153

Post by DanBC »

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?

The disclaimer is just a way to say "this is a complex subject; things might be different in your situation; get real legal advice". A lawyer would use something "I am not your lawyer" or "I am not a lawyer in your jurisdiction".

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

#154

Post by pluma »

mellavora wrote: post #124

Remember also we need to end civil forfeiture, which lets police take your stuff without charging you with a crime. It is a growing business in the US, police are now regularly trained in the game and rewarded based on their daily take. more reading: https://www.aclu.org/criminal-law-reform/civil-asset-forfeit... and google suggests the following: http://fear.org/1/ http://endforfeiture.com/

Or if you're more into being educated by comedy, John Oliver did a nice take on it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks

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

#155

Post by ctdonath »

mellavora wrote: post #121

So my question is what can we, the hacker community, do to change this? Would pervasive sousveillance help? Thinking deeper: we need to change the culture of LE in the US. What needs to change such that LEOs become part of the wider community, so they are held accountable etc.. Silly idea: a "trip-advisor" or "4-square" for police encounters. Any encounter with a LEO, you upload the location, their badge number, and…

I've considered an app that would, once initiated, aggressively record audio/video/location/movement/etc, no stop button (!), resisting app termination, strong encrypting the content, and (key point) immediately uploading to a deep-storage service like Amazon Glacier. Usage would be free, retrieval of content would require service-support costs and proof of ownership or warrant/subpoena.

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

#156

Post by pluma »

tajen wrote: post #100
ptaipale wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Actually, the "airports aren't national territory" myth has no legal basis and is mostly just propagated to make it easier to turn people away.

Legally, once you leave the plane, you're under the jurisdiction of whichever country you landed in. Unlike embassies, airports aren't anything special in that regard.

But sadly it doesn't really matter what international law actually says but how laws are enforced. Good luck escalating to the Hague over whether or not the TSA can detain you or refuse entry.

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

#157

Post by pluma »

dvirsky wrote: post #109
tempestn wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a good point though. What do you folks suggest for the standard traffic stop, along the lines of, "Sir, do you know how fast you were going?" Presumably both "yes" and "no" would be bad. (The former is obvious, and the latter could mean you're not paying sufficient attention, etc.) So, do you just stare at them in silence? Do you say something like, "I'd rather not answer," which while accurate, sure sounds l…

How can saying "Yes, I know" get you into bigger trouble than a speeding ticket? At best you can try to lie and state a legal speed if you were going in a borderline speed. Anyway, it could be different in the US (I'm from Israel, where police is brutal only if you're Palestinian or holding a political rally. Otherwise they're mostly useless). I only got pulled once, for not coming to a complete stop on a stop sign (…

No indicates recklessness.

Yes indicates intent.

You're screwed either way.

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

#158

Post by bcg1 »

dantillberg wrote: post #78
bcg1 wrote: post #11

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, s…

I can't help but wonder if those kids would have gotten the same apparently-lenient/gracious treatment from the judge if they'd instead been POC teenagers from the inner city.

Actually he seemed genuinely ticked off at those kids, and I wouldn't say he was lenient (I wasn't really trying to make a statement about that with my story, so maybe I gave a false impression by mistake). I'm white and my friend that I was arrested with was black, and we received the same treatment from the judge (not from the cops though, but that is a different story) - and from what I saw those two kids were the only ones who got chewed out, the rest of us were just arraigned and sent on our way for further processing.

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

#159

Post by mayneack »

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).

https://www.popehat.com/2011/05/27/how-to-cold-call-a-lawyer...

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

#160

Post by rrss1122 »

ajuc wrote: post #101
WildUtah wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 t…

If most of population performs crimes routinely and don't think it's a crime - it's probably because your law is stupid.

Alternately, it's probably because the use of "most" is unwarranted.
Post reply on HN