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

171–180 of 216 posts

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

#171

Post by SilasX »

baddox wrote: post #89
SilasX wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

The individual choice in doctors, while not perfect (because of cost, geography, etc.), is vastly more substantial than individual choice in police officers and their policies. It is not remotely surprising that doctors do a better job at their job than police officers.

I was comparing to the case where doctors/researchers would seek out people to participate in such trials, not ordinary, patient-sought medical care.

If you want to compare to "patient"-sought services, then there are probably less abuses of people who report crimes.

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

#172

Post by jrs235 »

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…

Officer: "Sir, do you know how fast you were going?"

You: "The speed limit." (Even if going faster than the limit, you were minimally going the limit.)

O: "Do you know what the speed limit is?"

Y: "Yes, it's [speed limit]"

O: "I clocked you at [speed over that is over the limit]. Why do you think that is?"

Y: "I don't know Sir, perhaps the device clocked a different vehicle?"

O: "There weren't any other vehicles around."

Y: "I don't know what to say then Sir."

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

#173

Post by jrs235 »

ctdonath wrote: post #152
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…

"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 "th…

Officer: "any reason you were going so fast?"

You: "I wasn't going fast. I was driving at a safe and prudent speed given the conditions."

ADD: It is good to know if the state you are in or states your frequently drive in is/are "Maximum Speed Limit" or "Presumed Maximum Speed Limit" state(s). I grew up in Minnesota which is a "Presumed Maximum Speed Limit" but now live in WI which is a "Maximum Speed Limit". The nice thing about Minnesota and "Presumed Maximum Speed Limit" is that if you are on a highway outside of a municipality (so in a township) then the posted speed limits are only presumed to be the maximum speed limit. Going faster is prima facie evidence of going to fast and allows officers to stop you. However, if you choose to fight the ticket in court, you can admit to going faster than the posted limit and argue that you were still driving a safe and prudent speed given the conditions. So, if you were in the country driving 65 on a straight and level road with a posted speed limit of 55 on a clear, dry day with 10+ miles of visibility and no other cars on the road, people or animals int he ditch or near the shoulder and a cop caught you on his laser device sitting 1/2 mile down the road, assuming you slowed down to 55 mph before getting close to him, you could argue these facts in court and argue that "the facts and outcomes speak for themselves"... no one was harmed or injured showing again that the speed of 65 mph in those conditions and circumstances was in fact still safe and prudent. In Wisconsin, if you admit to going over the posted speed limit anywhere, you're guilty of not driving a safe and prudent speed no matter what.

IANAL, but this book was an eye opener: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1413312519/ref=as_li_tl?ie=... (affiliate link) save your money though and borrow it from the library.

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

#174

Post by foldr »

coldpie wrote: post #142
ptaipale wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, that's nice to know. I'm not a US citizen though, so I think I really need to answer those questions - without a lawyer - unless I want to be put back to the next plane heading back where I came from.

Basically, yes. It's an ugly situation and lots of people take the stance of never visiting the US because of it.

You can be subject to the same kind of questioning when entering any country. The only way to be sure of avoiding it would be never to travel abroad.

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

#175

Post by jrs235 »

pluma wrote: post #157
dvirsky wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No might indicate negligence, which isn't as horrible as recklessness.

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

#176

Post by jrs235 »

pluma wrote: post #157
dvirsky wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes doesn't indicate anything except awareness. They usually will follow it up with "How fast were you going?"

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

#177

Post by metaphorm »

SilasX wrote: post #163
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.

I was talking about consent to searches and giving statements, where it's admitted in the basis of consent being given.

the same logic applies though. we don't expect suspects to consent to incriminating themselves.

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

#178

Post by metaphorm »

rayiner wrote: post #151
Spooky23 wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"innocent until proven guilty" is both a legal and an ethical doctrine. in the legal sense it establishes that the burden of proof is on the prosecution, not the defense. in the ethical sense it informs us to avoid persecution, ostracism, or other extra-judicial punishments of a person who is merely accused of a crime.

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

#179

Post by philbarr »

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…

Exactly - I know someone who tried to go the smart-arse route, and the police ended up spending 45 minutes looking into every possible detail of the car, right down to "the lights have the wrong pattern on them". Ended up costing them far more than just accepting a speeding ticket.

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

#180

Post by rasz_pl »

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…

>"Sir, do you know how fast you were going?"

"How can I help you officer?" / "What seems to be the problem?"

etc

Post reply on HN