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

81–90 of 216 posts

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

#81

Post by Erwin »

venomsnake wrote: post #74
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…

> "Sir, do you know how fast you were going?" The proper answer is - "No, because I know exactly where I am"

That's going to get you instantly arrested in Albuquerque, NM.

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

#82

Post by techstrategist »

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…

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, etc)

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

#83

Post by smcl »

dingaling wrote: post #73
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…

> "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 told me "you can wipe that smirk off your face or I'll do it for you" followed by vague suggestions that I should be taken to the police station) I should be able to rest easy knowing I've done nothing wrong and there's not a single crime I could've been found guilty of at that moment. However, they probably could've made my life extremely unpleasant - taking me in for some sort of "questioning", spending a night in the cells - who knows.

So this is a long-winded way to ask - is that totally ironclad\foolproof, or is there a non-zero chance that this response will make the situation worse despite being totally legal?

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

#84

Post by girvo »

SilasX wrote: post #69
lgierth wrote: post #2

Also very enlightening, and many probably already have watched this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc > Dont Talk to Cops > Mr. James Duane, a professor at Regent Law School and a former defense attorney, tells you why you should never agree to be interviewed by the police.

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"?

> Then why the extreme repetition of "never"

Because if you're the "wrong" colour or class, even reporting crimes or assisting canvassers can get you in trouble.

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

#85

Post by venomsnake »

Erwin wrote: post #81
venomsnake wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Sir, do you know how fast you were going?" The proper answer is - "No, because I know exactly where I am"

That's going to get you instantly arrested in Albuquerque, NM.

They outlaw science there?

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

#86

Post by netrus »

fijal wrote: post #70

This is precisely why in Poland (and likely more european jurisdictions) lying as an accused is not a crime (even if you muddle stuff completely), only as a witness. It's a bit shocking this is not the case in America

In Germany, not even prison escape is a crime per se (unless you hurt someone or damage property, of course - so it's mostly the "door-left-open"-scenario), because we recognize the elementary human desire to be free. And you do not have to accuse yourself, and that includes lying, if necessary. I'd say it works pretty well.

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

#87

Post by Karellen »

uts wrote: 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…

If the police initiate the contact, shut up and talk to your lawyer. Because someone else might have robbed a house, and the police have you as a suspect (maybe you look like the perp) and if you open your big mouth without a lawyer, you could accidentally get yourself into trouble.

See the "never talk to the cops" youtube vid, which is undoubtably already linked somewhere else in the thread, about why you need a lawyer in those circumstances, and why your right to a lawyer is especially there to protect you when you are actually innocent.

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

#88

Post by ptaipale »

tsotha wrote: post #60

I thought everyone knew this. Never talk to representatives or agents of the US federal government without your lawyer present. Never, ever, ever. When they make contact, ask them for a phone number your lawyer can call. Ask them what matter the questions will be regarding. Get a card if it's in person. They're going to tell you there's no reason to hire a lawyer and you can clear the whole thing up in five minutes i…

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.

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

#89

Post by baddox »

SilasX wrote: post #72
chimeracoder wrote: post #7

> 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. This is a very good reminder, and everything he says is both important and true. Unfortunately, it's…

>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.

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

#90

Post by Udo »

uts wrote: 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…

> If I've actually committed a crime

The article (and other such presentations on the subject) indicate very clearly that innocence is not a factor. It doesn't seem to matter if you've committed a crime or not - and whether your assessment your own innocence itself actually holds true or not is yet another uncertain factor.

> if someone's committed a crime against me

Then your lawyer will facilitate all the necessary measures, and he/she'll do it better and more efficiently than you ever could.

> What determines when I should be talking to the cops and when I shouldn't?

Beyond basic cooperation at, say, a traffic stop or during an emergency, most experts seem to agree that you should never, under any circumstances talk directly to any law enforcement personnel.

Post reply on HN