191–200 of 216 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How many thousands of investigations is he personally involved in per year? I'd guess something on the order of 0.05.
My point was that he's making it seem like this happens a lot without actually quantifying it. It seems misleading to me.
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.
I think procedurally what the officer is doing is establishing a documentation record to support their speed facts because that makes it easy for them if/when you contest the ticket in court.
The officer has a preferred narrative/mold and is trying find a way to document that you agree with that version at the time you were pulled over in case you try to change the story later in court. So "yes, I know" seems to work essentially as that blanket acceptance of the officer's narrative.
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.
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…
The answer that you should train yourself to give is "I do not consent to searches, seizures, or questioning without the assistance of legal counsel. Am I free to go? If not, why am I being detained?"
The same response covers all police questions in the US. You can repeat the entire thing on subsequent questions, or you can shorten it to "I don't consent to questioning without the assistance of legal counsel." You have to train yourself. Your natural instinct will be to present as nonthreatening and cooperative. You need to be nonthreatening and unimaginably stubborn. If you have ever seen the television show "COPS", very nearly every "guest star" just talks himself right into a trip to jail. Almost every episode is a variation on this:
COP: Sir, can you think of any reason why I should arrest you tonight?
Dumb-Assed Suspect: I have drugs in my pocket.
COP (to DAS): Put your hands behind your back.
[COP handcuffs DAS and performs a search.]
COP (to camera): He just gave us reasonable suspicion, so I searched him and found drugs.
He's going to jail now.
If you have any inkling it might go down the third way, it would be wise to record the entire encounter and make public records requests for any recordings the police may have in their possession as soon as you possibly can. And you should have such an inkling. So record every police encounter, always. If it's a routine encounter, you can always delete the video, but if it goes bad, you can't magic up a recording out of thin air.
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).
You have the right to legal counsel. That means they have to let you do what you need to do to find a lawyer, or provide you with one. They can't just say, "sorry, time's up, now we go question you anyway." They could in theory detain you for a while longer without a lawyer, but they couldn't continue to question you.
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.
The police version of "lie" is to state something that actually is untrue.
The difference is important because human memory is fallible. You can "lie to the police" while saying nothing but what you believe to be the truth.
"It's OK to talk to the police as long as you don't lie" may be true, but it's also completely useless, because it's impossible to guarantee.
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…
If you answer directly, it should be to say "I only know what my speedometer displays." And then politely decline to mention the number it had been displaying. If you say a number, in the cops eyes, you are either lying or confessing. If you just say "yes", you cut off certain affirmative defenses you could otherwise raise. If you say "no", the cop may charge you with reckless or inattentive driving rather than speed…
Unless you are in a jurisdiction where such actions are illegal...
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"?
I would seriously consider reporting anything non-lethal in US, see "Good Samaritan Backfire or How I Ended Up in Solitary After Calling 911 for Help" : https://medium.com/human-parts/good-samaritan-backfire-9f53e...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, he meant that too. I haven't watched the video for a few years, but I believe he explicitly uses that scenario as one example.
He explicitly says not to report crimes? Note that he talks to a cop in the video.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
The visa and ESTA forms really should get rid of questions about whether I was involved in the crimes of Nazi Germany between 1933 and 1945. Snare me all right, but snare me with something more relevant today.