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

181–190 of 216 posts

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

#181

Post by jrs235 »

jrs235 wrote: post #173
ctdonath wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

I couldn't figure out why the downvotes so fast, but after reading my reply I think I get it. Because my reply suggested talking to the police. If so, you're are correct, I take back my suggested response above. It only can clue in the officer to note any and every adverse condition regarding the stop. Saying instead "I don't believe I was going fast." is the most one should say in a reply to the question "any reason you were going so fast?"

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

#183

Post by SilasX »

metaphorm wrote: post #177
SilasX wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And we don't expect people to just give their health to medical research either, but we still require consent, and don't accept a fuzzy, intimidated substitute.

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

#184

Post by metaphorm »

skrebbel wrote: post #79

I'm not American and I have a question. Everybody in this thread repeats to "never talk to law enforcement without your lawyer present". I don't have a lawyer. I don't know a lawyer. I've hardly ever even talked to a lawyer. If I were in the USA and I'd get picked up for questioning, I wouldn't know who to call. Does every American "have a lawyer"? Do you know their phone number by heart? Is having a lawyer like havi…

most American's have no lawyer to call. the expression "don't talk to police without your lawyer present" should be extrapolated to mean all of the following:

if the police want to question you, say no. if the police serve you with a warrant and detain you for questioning, exercise your 5th amendment right (the right to remain silent, so as to avoid self-incrimination). the only thing you should say to a police officer when you are being questioned is that you will not answer any questions until you have consulted legal council. if you do not have legal council available you may request a public defender (another legal right of citizens). if you have the means to hire a private attorney instead, its probably better to do that. only a lawyer who is professionally obligated to represent you can give you good legal advice about what you should and should not say to the police.

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

#186

Post by mikeash »

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…

It might be reasonable to talk to cops in those situations. I don't know. "Don't talk" seems to apply to when you are, or might be, accused of a crime. There, your guilt or innocence does not matter in the least. Don't talk.

You're right that nobody recommends demanding a lawyer for a traffic stop. But they do recommend not talking to the officer beyond the minimum requested. For example, it's standard for an officer who catches you speeding to ask "do you know how fast you were going?" If you give a number that's over the posted limit, then they have you admitting to breaking the law. If you give a number that's under the limit and they know you were going faster then they have you lying to an officer.

I don't think it's worth keeping in mind that Ken White is a defense attorney because I've seen this exact advice from many places, both lawyers and cops, and there's never any disagreement. I have seen cops say that traffic stops will go a lot easier if you're nice and polite to the officer. But that does not mean you have to answer all their questions. Immediately shouting "I demand a lawyer!" is a good way to get written up for every minor infraction the officer can find, but nicely declining to answer questions you're not required to answer is fine.

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

#187

Post by mikeash »

gkop wrote: post #32
mikeash wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is it "dangerous"? I'm expressing my personal opinion on a relatively obscure site on the internet. It is one of the least dangerous activities I can imagine.

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?

Because this is an informal conversation, not some nitpicky debate society. Somebody asked a question and I gave my opinion as a response.

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

#188

Post by mikeash »

marincounty wrote: post #54
mikeash wrote: 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…

"Bad behavior does get reported disproportionately. Most cops are good cops. For everyone like this, there are ten cops who find a lost cellphone and personally deliver it back to the owner, as happened to a neighbor of mine a few months ago. That doesn't make the news." 1. Name the town? (Make the news?) 2. I'm not going compare good/bad cops. (It's impossible to argue, unless the Federal government just finished an…

1. Fairfax County, VA.

4. The revenue generation aspect of traffic enforcement is deeply worrying. However, I don't think you have to be a bad cop to participate in that. The problem is the system, where the laws are written in a way that ignores how people actually behave, and thus virtually everyone breaks them. There's no need to entrap or falsely accuse people for the purposes of revenue generation, because there's more than enough true violations out there.

How are people in your area unable to know what law they broke? It's always been clear for everyone I know: exceeding the posted speed limit, parking where prohibited, etc. The issue is simply that driving the posted limit is nearly impossible in many cases (everybody else is going faster and it's dangerous if you don't too), parking signs have poor visibility and are difficult to understand, etc.

"Bad cops" is an easy answer to the woes of modern-day policing, but I just don't think it's the root of the problem.

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

#189

Post by rayiner »

vdaniuk wrote: post #170
rayiner wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You are conveniently ignoring a great number of plea deals when 'justice' is served without a case being heard in court.

Pleas aren't scrutinized by trial, but they are heard in court: http://wakeforestlawreview.com/2015/01/fourth-circuit-holds-.... At least at the federal level, judges may only accept a guilty plea after conducting a colloquy with the defendant and convincing themselves that the plea is voluntary, the defendant knows his rights and consequences of the plea, and that there is a factual basis for the plea. In federal courts, the factual basis will usually be a detailed document enumerating the facts the prosecution is prepared to prove at trial, which if proven will establish the defendant's guilt.

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

#190

Post by ctdonath »

jrs235 wrote: post #181
jrs235 wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I couldn't figure out why the downvotes so fast, but after reading my reply I think I get it. Because my reply suggested talking to the police. If so, you're are correct, I take back my suggested response above. It only can clue in the officer to note any and every adverse condition regarding the stop. Saying instead "I don't believe I was going fast." is the most one should say in a reply to the question "any reason…

Downvotes perhaps because lying to a cop, or resorting to yes-it-is-vs-no-it-isnt with authorities is stupid. He stopped you, and has far more weight in court regarding whether conditions were safe for that speed than you do. Doing 54 in a 40 is fast, and neither the cop nor judge will agree with your assessment.

Cops may let you go faster, and they're authorized to do so if conditions fit ... but they also get to say "the speed limit is a limit" and charge you accordingly. There are a few areas where speed limits are broadly understood, even codified, as suggestions (they post limit signs to elicit federal funds, but on a dry sunny day all they care is you can stay on the road and can stop in time), but nearly everywhere else just realize speed limits are just that, and if you violate them don't be surprised if the jurisdiction decides to profit off your actions.

Post reply on HN