Don’t Talk to Police (2012) [video](youtube.com)
youtube.com
Don’t Talk to Police (2012) [video]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE
240 comments
The cops say, "if you have nothing to hide" and also "if you don't come in, I can't help you." Fortunately, Daryl saw through the latter one and didn't come in.
Yes, it's another plug for one of my Substack articles:
https://albertcory50.substack.com/p/baby-please-dont-go
Yes, it's another plug for one of my Substack articles:
https://albertcory50.substack.com/p/baby-please-dont-go
I was raised by career long LEOs. My mother and father and all 3 of my stepfathers were LEOs.
They always told me to never speak to the police. Every interaction with a police officer is inviting trouble into your life.
They exist to monetize your mistakes. They have no legal obligation to assist you in any manner.
They always told me to never speak to the police. Every interaction with a police officer is inviting trouble into your life.
They exist to monetize your mistakes. They have no legal obligation to assist you in any manner.
what if you are asked to identify yourself such as for a speeding ticket or a Terry stop. I don't think it's clear cut.
This is clear cut. There are situations where you are legally obligated to interact with the police, like providing your identification at a traffic stop. In any other situation, you should avoid interaction with the police.
> This is clear cut.
Sort of. So you're pulled over for a brake light that's out. Then, they start asking "Where are you coming from?", "Why are you here?", "Do you live near here? (when they already have your address)", "If you're coming from that far, why don't you have luggage?" etc.
I guess you can try to give as terse an answer as possible without coming across as rude? Saying nothing is your right, but they have lots of power to generate consequences if they don't like it.
Sort of. So you're pulled over for a brake light that's out. Then, they start asking "Where are you coming from?", "Why are you here?", "Do you live near here? (when they already have your address)", "If you're coming from that far, why don't you have luggage?" etc.
I guess you can try to give as terse an answer as possible without coming across as rude? Saying nothing is your right, but they have lots of power to generate consequences if they don't like it.
But it is clear cut! You don’t have to answer any of those questions. You only need to provide your identification and registration.
Remember it’s not a normal social interaction. They use the fact that it feels rude to refuse to answer questions to get you to incriminate yourself. They’re playing a game, and so you need to understand the rules. Not answering is not being rude. Invoke your 5th amendment right and shut up.
Remember it’s not a normal social interaction. They use the fact that it feels rude to refuse to answer questions to get you to incriminate yourself. They’re playing a game, and so you need to understand the rules. Not answering is not being rude. Invoke your 5th amendment right and shut up.
The meme lawyers from the "shut the fuck up Friday" video suggest saying "I'm not answering questions about my day", but they're meme lawyers so probably talk to a real lawyer if you want a real suggestion.
The real answer is that there is no actual way to win. You are at their mercy and it is really 100% up to what they choose to do.
While it is true that you are physically at their mercy, provided you survive your encounter with the police (not by any means a guarantee in this country), you CANNOT be incriminated in a court of law for invoking your right to remain silent. You CAN be incriminated in a court of law for literally anything else you say. The winning move is clearly not to give them any more ammunition than they already have.
That WAS true, until Scalia et al eviscerated the protections of the 5th Amendment if you invoke it after you start talking. Then (according to the majority opinion of the Court), your subsequent invocation of the 5th Amendment CAN be used as evidence against you.
Relevant cases: Berghuis v. Thompkins (2010), Salinas v. Texas (2013)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berghuis_v._Thompkins
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berghuis_v._Thompkins
Oof I didn’t know about this. So it only works now if it’s the first thing you say?
I think we all understand that part. It's the part where they can say anything happened and it's suddenly your word against theirs. So, irritating them can have consequences.
The tactic feels fine for an interrogation room, where's everything is on camera. In the outside world, it's trickier.
The tactic feels fine for an interrogation room, where's everything is on camera. In the outside world, it's trickier.
Yeah that is true, although most police have bodycams these days, and they’ve also got a recording going from their car, so there’s generally going to be some evidence in your favor. It is also always a good idea to start recording at least audio on your phone before talking to police.
A lot of people seem to think that not answering questions is going to aggravate the officer, and that’s not generally true in my experience. Assuming you’re asserting your rights calmly and not being belligerent, it’s well within the normal scope of behavior that they expert to encounter.
A lot of people seem to think that not answering questions is going to aggravate the officer, and that’s not generally true in my experience. Assuming you’re asserting your rights calmly and not being belligerent, it’s well within the normal scope of behavior that they expert to encounter.
So many responses aren't getting the point of this comment. Cops are basically trying to sort "good people" from "bad people", despite how regressive that is. Often times you'll get pulled over while being "guilty" of something that is completely understandable (newly broken tail light) or mostly used as a pretext to pull people over to investigate other things (5-10 mph over in most areas). If you stay terse with the cop, especially if you're young, they'll see you as someone flippant who doesn't respect their authorituh and punish you with the letter of the law. Whereas if you engage and give them friendly answers they're more likely to see you as a person (aka "good person") and let you go with a warning. Obviously for this to work, you need to have the sense to not give them answers that incriminate you or otherwise make them suspicious.
Heck you don’t have to be rude to not answer their questions. If you’re young you can even blame your parents: “Sorry officer but my parents advised me to never answer any questions without my lawyer, so that’s what I’m doing.”
As an older person, if you want to deflect blame, you can blame your lawyer, your LEO cousin, or anyone else you want.
As an older person, if you want to deflect blame, you can blame your lawyer, your LEO cousin, or anyone else you want.
> If you’re young you can even blame your parents: “Sorry officer but my parents advised me to never answer any questions without my lawyer, so that’s what I’m doing.”
This is the best advice for young people: if you say you're taking your parent's advice, there's a number of advantages:
a) You're not being rude,
b) You're coming across as someone who obeys authority,
c) It's nothing personal,
This is the best advice for young people: if you say you're taking your parent's advice, there's a number of advantages:
a) You're not being rude,
b) You're coming across as someone who obeys authority,
c) It's nothing personal,
If a cop lets how nice you are influence whether they ticket you, they are corrupt and making a joke of their profession. Cops don’t ask you questions to be conversational. They do it because they want to fuck you.
What exactly do you think the goal of their profession is? Pure uniform malevolence?
I think the personal goals of the average cop involve doing the least amount of work possible, doing whatever they want, supporting their peers in doing whatever they want, and getting paid. Doing whatever they want usually involving "putting people in their place" and forcing them to "respect their authority", whether consciously or not.
The goals of policing as a profession has roots in protecting capitalism and those who control capital. It hasn't deviated much from that since it started. And I would describe capitalism as malevolent. So to answer your question: yes.
The goals of policing as a profession has roots in protecting capitalism and those who control capital. It hasn't deviated much from that since it started. And I would describe capitalism as malevolent. So to answer your question: yes.
I agree with most of what you wrote in this comment - I don't agree with your original comment that just seems to be rejecting analysis.
If police are protecting capital and those who control capital, then they're not uniformly malevolent - coming across as someone who, in another context, might be telling them what to do is likely to get you further with them.
Likewise, if one goal of individual police is to force people to "respect their authority", then you're going to have a better time when you do "respect" that authority, especially when you're at the business end of the stick. Note that I put the quotes there because you don't actually have to respect them in order to make them feel respected.
That's essentially what my argument boils down to - acknowledging their motivations, especially the nuances and not just painting with a broad brush, in a way that you personally can work with will be advantageous.
If police are protecting capital and those who control capital, then they're not uniformly malevolent - coming across as someone who, in another context, might be telling them what to do is likely to get you further with them.
Likewise, if one goal of individual police is to force people to "respect their authority", then you're going to have a better time when you do "respect" that authority, especially when you're at the business end of the stick. Note that I put the quotes there because you don't actually have to respect them in order to make them feel respected.
That's essentially what my argument boils down to - acknowledging their motivations, especially the nuances and not just painting with a broad brush, in a way that you personally can work with will be advantageous.
I don’t care about having a bad time if it’s the result of a corrupt cop not respecting me exercising my rights. I think it is my moral imperative to use all my rights at all times with cops because it helps normalize it for others who can’t so nonchalantly have a lawyer and afford going to court.
If a cop treats me courteously and greets me kindly and is respectful in doing their job, I will also greet them kindly and wish them well at the end, but I still still say “respectfully, I will provide identification/documentation and confirm basic details about my identity but am otherwise exercising my right to remain silent and to speak with an attorney”. I will acquiesce only very slightly in that I will sign the ticket they give me instead of getting arrested for refusal to sign.
If he wants to make up a reason to arrest me or potentially even harm me, I will fight it in court.
If a cop treats me courteously and greets me kindly and is respectful in doing their job, I will also greet them kindly and wish them well at the end, but I still still say “respectfully, I will provide identification/documentation and confirm basic details about my identity but am otherwise exercising my right to remain silent and to speak with an attorney”. I will acquiesce only very slightly in that I will sign the ticket they give me instead of getting arrested for refusal to sign.
If he wants to make up a reason to arrest me or potentially even harm me, I will fight it in court.
> it is my moral imperative to use all my rights at all times with cops
This is a poor standard, that I doubt you're actually meeting. For example, when you drive through a construction zone, do you flip off every cop you see in order to maximize your right to free expression?
I do actually agree with where you're coming from! It's just that the standard you've claimed leaves much to be desired - it's framed in a closed world zero sum way, which only makes sense if you're only considering the times you have no choice but to interact with cops.
Like for example, I have yelled at a cop doing construction duty (poorly) to "do your job" - traffic was backing up because he was looking the other way and chatting, rather than making sure cars kept moving.
I have laid on the horn at some undercover car setting up to harass some kids in a strip mall parking lot, because it stopped in the entrance to the lot with me half stuck out into the highway. Ended up drawing aggro and getting an earful about how I was disrupting their investigation about drugs blah blah blah. But at the end of the day they want to attack the people they set out to attack, rather than a side quest of hassling me because I called them out.
If a cop passes me on the highway at high speed with no lights (ie not an emergency), often times I will follow them under the rationale of equal protection under the law.
I'm sure I'll get jumped on for explicitly listing these things - people wielding "privilege" or another truncheon-of-the-day, thinking they're "progressive" but really just wanting to enforce the crab bucket. But there was principle in all of them - cops are citizens like everybody else, and should be subject to the same laws and responsibilities as everyone else. And it's all citizens' moral imperative to enforce that.
So back to the topic - the context is being pulled over for something that you are actually "guilty" of, but aren't necessarily going to get a ticket for (cf 3 Felonies a Day). Of all the times I've been pulled over, I'd say about half resulted in just a warning. So it's not that the cop will make up a reason to ticket you, but rather that they already have that reason but perhaps will show you mercy. Once I'm in their direct sights, to me the optimal way to play is whatever is most likely to make them let me go. If that involves playing the part of someone who enjoys licking boots? So be it! Dissent is better expressed in contexts where you aren't already in their sights.
This is a poor standard, that I doubt you're actually meeting. For example, when you drive through a construction zone, do you flip off every cop you see in order to maximize your right to free expression?
I do actually agree with where you're coming from! It's just that the standard you've claimed leaves much to be desired - it's framed in a closed world zero sum way, which only makes sense if you're only considering the times you have no choice but to interact with cops.
Like for example, I have yelled at a cop doing construction duty (poorly) to "do your job" - traffic was backing up because he was looking the other way and chatting, rather than making sure cars kept moving.
I have laid on the horn at some undercover car setting up to harass some kids in a strip mall parking lot, because it stopped in the entrance to the lot with me half stuck out into the highway. Ended up drawing aggro and getting an earful about how I was disrupting their investigation about drugs blah blah blah. But at the end of the day they want to attack the people they set out to attack, rather than a side quest of hassling me because I called them out.
If a cop passes me on the highway at high speed with no lights (ie not an emergency), often times I will follow them under the rationale of equal protection under the law.
I'm sure I'll get jumped on for explicitly listing these things - people wielding "privilege" or another truncheon-of-the-day, thinking they're "progressive" but really just wanting to enforce the crab bucket. But there was principle in all of them - cops are citizens like everybody else, and should be subject to the same laws and responsibilities as everyone else. And it's all citizens' moral imperative to enforce that.
So back to the topic - the context is being pulled over for something that you are actually "guilty" of, but aren't necessarily going to get a ticket for (cf 3 Felonies a Day). Of all the times I've been pulled over, I'd say about half resulted in just a warning. So it's not that the cop will make up a reason to ticket you, but rather that they already have that reason but perhaps will show you mercy. Once I'm in their direct sights, to me the optimal way to play is whatever is most likely to make them let me go. If that involves playing the part of someone who enjoys licking boots? So be it! Dissent is better expressed in contexts where you aren't already in their sights.
> but rather that they already have that reason but perhaps will show you mercy
And this is what I take issue with. This leads to the systemic racism we see in policing. There is no reason why a cop should change their mind on whether to ticket you for the probable cause event after they leave their vehicle and approach yours. The decision should already be made and stay that way.
> which only makes sense if you're only considering the times you have no choice but to interact with cops
Yes, I agree, but the other viewpoint I have is that I refuse to interact with cops for any reason other than being forced to. I won't talk to them, I won't call them (unless it's an emergency and someone asks me to on their behalf - and then I don't stick around unless it's crucial), I won't even open my door for them unless they have a warrant. Unless I'm being detained or they have a warrant, I'm ignoring them. If someone burst into my home right now and robbed me, I still would not call the police (although, I live alone, and having kids or a spouse might make me reconsider that since I'm calling on their behalf). I have been held at knife point fixing my car in a parking lot (Seattle) and did not call the cops.
And this is what I take issue with. This leads to the systemic racism we see in policing. There is no reason why a cop should change their mind on whether to ticket you for the probable cause event after they leave their vehicle and approach yours. The decision should already be made and stay that way.
> which only makes sense if you're only considering the times you have no choice but to interact with cops
Yes, I agree, but the other viewpoint I have is that I refuse to interact with cops for any reason other than being forced to. I won't talk to them, I won't call them (unless it's an emergency and someone asks me to on their behalf - and then I don't stick around unless it's crucial), I won't even open my door for them unless they have a warrant. Unless I'm being detained or they have a warrant, I'm ignoring them. If someone burst into my home right now and robbed me, I still would not call the police (although, I live alone, and having kids or a spouse might make me reconsider that since I'm calling on their behalf). I have been held at knife point fixing my car in a parking lot (Seattle) and did not call the cops.
> Once I'm in their direct sights, to me the optimal way to play is whatever is most likely to make them let me go. If that involves playing the part of someone who enjoys licking boots? So be it! Dissent is better expressed in contexts where you aren't already in their sights.
Also the point in the video is that this never works aside from the most absolute mundane of traffic stops, and even then you're putting yourself at risk. Did you watch it?
Also the point in the video is that this never works aside from the most absolute mundane of traffic stops, and even then you're putting yourself at risk. Did you watch it?
It is clear cut because when you obtained your driver's license, you have had already signed and agreed to reveal your name on a "traffic" stop because you are on public road with intent for commerce (or not).
Walking on the sidewalk, your D/L, not so much unless you were operating a vehicle, registered or not.
Walking on the sidewalk, your D/L, not so much unless you were operating a vehicle, registered or not.
It seems like there’s a practical approach and a literalist approach here. I never understood the insistence of “don’t talk to the police” in relation to the questions above. If you can give the “right” answers, why wouldn’t you?
I understand how this might be compromising fundamental rights, but at the same time I just want to get home. Is this wrong?
I understand how this might be compromising fundamental rights, but at the same time I just want to get home. Is this wrong?
The problem is that you don’t know what the cop is doing. They might just be pulling you over for the reasons they stated, or they might be investigating some crime in the area and looking for suspicious people. Even a right or true answer can incriminate you in a certain light. Everything you say can potentially bite you in the ass later.
Better to be a little inconvenienced and take longer to get home than say something that can later be used in a court of law to implicate you in something you had no knowledge of.
I really want to emphasize that ALL of my police family gives this same advice.
Better to be a little inconvenienced and take longer to get home than say something that can later be used in a court of law to implicate you in something you had no knowledge of.
I really want to emphasize that ALL of my police family gives this same advice.
> Better to be a little inconvenienced and take longer to get home
How much longer? In my jurisdiction the cops can hold you for 24 hours (or something like that) without formally charging you.[1] I do not believe that this is very different to other places.
TBH, the only reason they don't usually do it to the wrong guy is because cops like to have a decent set of evidence before detaining someone. If they waste their time on someone who probably isn't going to get convicted, then they aren't looking for the person who probably will get convicted, and their comparative statistics looks bad.
So, yeah, there's a fine line.
Piss off the cop for no good reason and you'll get home ... eventually.
Be polite but say as little as possible and you'll not waste more than 5m.
Be talkative and there's a good chance you'll incriminate yourself of a crime you never committed.
[1] After which time they have to either charge you or let you go.
How much longer? In my jurisdiction the cops can hold you for 24 hours (or something like that) without formally charging you.[1] I do not believe that this is very different to other places.
TBH, the only reason they don't usually do it to the wrong guy is because cops like to have a decent set of evidence before detaining someone. If they waste their time on someone who probably isn't going to get convicted, then they aren't looking for the person who probably will get convicted, and their comparative statistics looks bad.
So, yeah, there's a fine line.
Piss off the cop for no good reason and you'll get home ... eventually.
Be polite but say as little as possible and you'll not waste more than 5m.
Be talkative and there's a good chance you'll incriminate yourself of a crime you never committed.
[1] After which time they have to either charge you or let you go.
> Everything you say can potentially bite you in the ass later.
Even if they didn't read you your Miranda rights before? My knowledge of legal affairs comes only from movies, but I got the impression that things you say before they read you Miranda can't be used against you. Are all the movies wrong?
Even if they didn't read you your Miranda rights before? My knowledge of legal affairs comes only from movies, but I got the impression that things you say before they read you Miranda can't be used against you. Are all the movies wrong?
They do not need to read you your Miranda rights to question you, no. They only read you your rights if you are being detained. But they are free to use anything you say before or after if for some reason you wind up in court.
Here’s a corroborating source: https://www.lawinfo.com/resources/criminal-defense/when-must...
Movies are often really wrong about lots of things in the criminal justice system.
Here’s a corroborating source: https://www.lawinfo.com/resources/criminal-defense/when-must...
Movies are often really wrong about lots of things in the criminal justice system.
Thanks for the link. It makes sense.
Hopefully I will never need to put my newly acquired knowledge to a test.
Hopefully I will never need to put my newly acquired knowledge to a test.
Miranda is for when they're getting read to arrest you. Before that it's just a convo between you and the cop, which can be used in court, that's why people say to keep it to talk about whatever they pulled you over for. You don't have to tell them where you're coming from or where you're going for example.
Thanks for the continued insistence!
Haha I don’t know if this is sarcastic, but I get it if so. Someone else said I was too indignant.
I apologize if I’m coming on strong. I’ve talked to one of my uncles in particular, who was a police officer for a long time and who now works for DHS, about the tactics that he’d use once he stopped people to try to get them to admit to something he could arrest them for. He obviously always felt like he was just doing his job: if he could get them to incriminate themselves, then he just nabbed a criminal. But he’d do a lot of really tricky stuff! And there are a lot of things that are technically illegal that they can get you in if they’re suspicious of you for some reason.
Anyway as a result this a thing that I feel pretty strongly about :)
I apologize if I’m coming on strong. I’ve talked to one of my uncles in particular, who was a police officer for a long time and who now works for DHS, about the tactics that he’d use once he stopped people to try to get them to admit to something he could arrest them for. He obviously always felt like he was just doing his job: if he could get them to incriminate themselves, then he just nabbed a criminal. But he’d do a lot of really tricky stuff! And there are a lot of things that are technically illegal that they can get you in if they’re suspicious of you for some reason.
Anyway as a result this a thing that I feel pretty strongly about :)
You need to watch the videos.
I think the standard cop questions, "Do you know how fast you were going?" and "do you know why I stopped you?" are also invitations for you to incriminate yourself.
A polite "No idea, officer" is your answer.
Edit: to you guys claiming that's lying to an officer and you have to know your speed, I can only say show us the proof that that's ever happened.
I don't think that would ever come up in court, if you happened to challenge the ticket and if the cop happened to show up. He would say, "I clocked him at 65," you'd have no defense, case closed.
A polite "No idea, officer" is your answer.
Edit: to you guys claiming that's lying to an officer and you have to know your speed, I can only say show us the proof that that's ever happened.
I don't think that would ever come up in court, if you happened to challenge the ticket and if the cop happened to show up. He would say, "I clocked him at 65," you'd have no defense, case closed.
>A polite "No idea, officer" is your answer.
You just admitted to reckless driving. You're not allowed to not know the speed limit or your own speed while driving - the speedometer is right in front of you, and the officer knows exactly where the last speed limit sign you passed was. And if you recant on that in any way, if you even seem slightly uncertain, you just admitted to lying to an officer.
This is why the rule is "never talk to police," not "never talk to police unless you think you're clever."
You just admitted to reckless driving. You're not allowed to not know the speed limit or your own speed while driving - the speedometer is right in front of you, and the officer knows exactly where the last speed limit sign you passed was. And if you recant on that in any way, if you even seem slightly uncertain, you just admitted to lying to an officer.
This is why the rule is "never talk to police," not "never talk to police unless you think you're clever."
You don't have to answer any question. Provide ID if it's required. Tell them you refuse to answer ANY questions and they do what they do. Ask if you're under arrest and if yes ask for a lawyer. That's it. Just keep quiet. 0 fucks if it's awkward or you feel like this is not a normal human interaction - guess what? It's not.
When the time comes to go before a judge you and your lawyer simply say that you did not say anything apart from asking about the arrest and for a lawyer. That's it.
When the time comes to go before a judge you and your lawyer simply say that you did not say anything apart from asking about the arrest and for a lawyer. That's it.
Cop: "Here is your license and your ticket. You are free to go"
...
Judge: "I have a written report here from Officer Trip saying he visually observed you going 32 mph in a 30 zone. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?"
You: "No"
Judge (thinking): I've never known Officer Pao R. Trip to be a stickler for speeding. There must be some story behind this
You: "I did not say anything apart from asking if I was under arrest and for a lawyer"
Judge (thinking): ahhh, that's it. Thank goodness, that would have been bothering me until at least the third hole
Judge: "I find you guilty of speeding, here is your fine and insurance points. Please pay at the cashier's window or online within 21 days"
<judge hammer>
...
Judge: "I have a written report here from Officer Trip saying he visually observed you going 32 mph in a 30 zone. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?"
You: "No"
Judge (thinking): I've never known Officer Pao R. Trip to be a stickler for speeding. There must be some story behind this
You: "I did not say anything apart from asking if I was under arrest and for a lawyer"
Judge (thinking): ahhh, that's it. Thank goodness, that would have been bothering me until at least the third hole
Judge: "I find you guilty of speeding, here is your fine and insurance points. Please pay at the cashier's window or online within 21 days"
<judge hammer>
here is a more realistic way this would play out:
you get a ticket. forward the said ticket to a traffic lawyer. the cop does not show up and the ticket gets dismissed.
ask me how i know. also, even if the cop does show up: 32 in 30 will get the cop laughed out of the room and the judge will be pissed cause he's wasting everyone's time.
bonus points for the cop's name :) hahahaha.
you get a ticket. forward the said ticket to a traffic lawyer. the cop does not show up and the ticket gets dismissed.
ask me how i know. also, even if the cop does show up: 32 in 30 will get the cop laughed out of the room and the judge will be pissed cause he's wasting everyone's time.
bonus points for the cop's name :) hahahaha.
There are jurisdictions where a written report from a cop suffices. That's what I was imagining for the description.
Your point is that you may get leniency from a judge, including demonstrating your class by hiring an attorney.
My point is that you can further decrease your chances of paying a ticket by also trying for leniency from the cop by acting nicer, iff the context is right. If it was a highway speed patrol, their goal is to fill a quota and you're likely boned once they've taken the time to pull you over. But town cops are often just looking for pretexts to pull over the wrong sort of person. Break their expectations and appeal to their humanity/authorituh, and there's a good chance they won't write you a ticket.
For example I got pulled over doing 35 in a 30 at night, in an area where 5-10 over is the norm. I had pulled out of an apartment complex where I was visiting a friend, in an otherwise boring-ass suburb. As I was backing out, the cop pulled in to round the apartment complex lot, and then followed me out to the road. When he pulled me over, I straight up told him "I saw you behind me but figured you didn't want to be stuck behind me doing exactly 30 for this whole road". He told me that apartment complex has a lot of drug activity - to which I expressed worried surprise, thanked him, and said my friend just lived there because it was close to <big company> and low rent. He ran my stuff, came back to the car, and I don't think he even gave me a written warning.
This certainly isn't an endorsement of "always talk to the police! they're so friendly and helpful!" I'm just saying there is something you're giving up by completely shutting down the social aspect.
Your point is that you may get leniency from a judge, including demonstrating your class by hiring an attorney.
My point is that you can further decrease your chances of paying a ticket by also trying for leniency from the cop by acting nicer, iff the context is right. If it was a highway speed patrol, their goal is to fill a quota and you're likely boned once they've taken the time to pull you over. But town cops are often just looking for pretexts to pull over the wrong sort of person. Break their expectations and appeal to their humanity/authorituh, and there's a good chance they won't write you a ticket.
For example I got pulled over doing 35 in a 30 at night, in an area where 5-10 over is the norm. I had pulled out of an apartment complex where I was visiting a friend, in an otherwise boring-ass suburb. As I was backing out, the cop pulled in to round the apartment complex lot, and then followed me out to the road. When he pulled me over, I straight up told him "I saw you behind me but figured you didn't want to be stuck behind me doing exactly 30 for this whole road". He told me that apartment complex has a lot of drug activity - to which I expressed worried surprise, thanked him, and said my friend just lived there because it was close to <big company> and low rent. He ran my stuff, came back to the car, and I don't think he even gave me a written warning.
This certainly isn't an endorsement of "always talk to the police! they're so friendly and helpful!" I'm just saying there is something you're giving up by completely shutting down the social aspect.
nah. this is exactly the type of behavior that gets people in trouble. a cop is not your friend and this is not social hour.
if we are running on anecdotal evidence: every time I got a ticket I got it dismissed. 25mph zone, 40mph zone, freeway, school zone you name it. they do their number and "bark" at you. you get the ticket and take care of it later.
btw: traffic tickets are a racket. to give you an example: 72 in 60 on 405. Traffic was moving anywhere between 70-75, 4 lanes, i was in the left lane. One cop with a quota tried to give me a ticket. took the ticket and... you guessed it, got it dismissed. This is just the type of bullshit we have to put up with.
if we are running on anecdotal evidence: every time I got a ticket I got it dismissed. 25mph zone, 40mph zone, freeway, school zone you name it. they do their number and "bark" at you. you get the ticket and take care of it later.
btw: traffic tickets are a racket. to give you an example: 72 in 60 on 405. Traffic was moving anywhere between 70-75, 4 lanes, i was in the left lane. One cop with a quota tried to give me a ticket. took the ticket and... you guessed it, got it dismissed. This is just the type of bullshit we have to put up with.
You've had much better luck than me getting tickets dismissed. I'm sure it's a jurisdiction thing.
Also faster than 30 mph on the 405? Your story doesn't check out. When was your last drink tonight, sir?
Also faster than 30 mph on the 405? Your story doesn't check out. When was your last drink tonight, sir?
> A polite "No idea, officer" is your answer.
That can also be used against you since you're admitting that you were not paying attention to your speed. It also means you lose the ability to claim that any speed the officer says you were traveling at is wrong, since you, by your own admission, wouldn't know any better.
"You tell me" might be a better answer.
That can also be used against you since you're admitting that you were not paying attention to your speed. It also means you lose the ability to claim that any speed the officer says you were traveling at is wrong, since you, by your own admission, wouldn't know any better.
"You tell me" might be a better answer.
"You tell me" is flippant and reduces your chances of leniency.
"Yes" could be used as evidence that your speeding was wilful, which probably isn't that bad but know that you're still giving them something.
I think "I believe so" or "pretty sure" was my go-to, but it's been a long time since I've been pulled over.
I actually don't even know that most cops actually ask this question. I think "do you know why I pulled you over?" is more common. To which you can often say "no" since you have no idea what actually went on in their head, but you might want something like "I can guess?" if you want to own up to some egregious action and show you were at least aware that it was wrong rather than acting as if you just drive like that all the time. But I can't tell if this is my real life experience or too many imagined interactions from message board discussions.
BTW "not that I'm aware of" when asked about weapons in the car etc. It shows that I'm aware of the technicalities and lawyerly answers (I don't know what they consider a weapon), but also engaging with them and their concerns.
"Yes" could be used as evidence that your speeding was wilful, which probably isn't that bad but know that you're still giving them something.
I think "I believe so" or "pretty sure" was my go-to, but it's been a long time since I've been pulled over.
I actually don't even know that most cops actually ask this question. I think "do you know why I pulled you over?" is more common. To which you can often say "no" since you have no idea what actually went on in their head, but you might want something like "I can guess?" if you want to own up to some egregious action and show you were at least aware that it was wrong rather than acting as if you just drive like that all the time. But I can't tell if this is my real life experience or too many imagined interactions from message board discussions.
BTW "not that I'm aware of" when asked about weapons in the car etc. It shows that I'm aware of the technicalities and lawyerly answers (I don't know what they consider a weapon), but also engaging with them and their concerns.
They already logged your speed, so I don't see what you're gaining by remaining silent on this.
[deleted]
There's a different video in which James Duane addresses the traffic stop situation - https://youtu.be/-FENubmZGj8?t=503
Does the average non-lawyer know when they're obligated to answer the police? I don't think I do.
you have to show your ID, you don't have to talk to the cop. It's not that hard to be respectful with yes, no, not sure, etc without giving away anything. Never consent to a search of your car. Not ever. Don't lie, if you don't want to answer something then simply decline.
Recent case in point: Walt Nauta, who got charged along with Trump. Had he just kept his mouth shut, he probably wouldn't have been charged, but they got him dead-to-rights saying stuff they're pretty sure they can prove he was lying about. And this is it "working the way it should".
The darker version is a Federal Agent says you told him something you didn't even say because it helps the case he's building. He asks you to repeat it on record and when you balk, he threatens you with a felony for "lying to a federal agent".
Don't ever do it, even if it's an investigation you're sympathetic to. If _your_ lawyer is there taking notes, they know there's less shenanigans they can pull.
The darker version is a Federal Agent says you told him something you didn't even say because it helps the case he's building. He asks you to repeat it on record and when you balk, he threatens you with a felony for "lying to a federal agent".
Don't ever do it, even if it's an investigation you're sympathetic to. If _your_ lawyer is there taking notes, they know there's less shenanigans they can pull.
> The darker version is a Federal Agent says you told him something you didn't even say because it helps the case he's building. He asks you to repeat it on record and when you balk, he threatens you with a felony for "lying to a federal agent".
This is shown in a scene from "Wolf of Wall Street"[0]. In this case the main agent gets his partner to come to within earshot of Jordan Belfort and asks Jordan to repeat his bribery offer. Testimony from one FBI agent is good, testimony from two is better.
[0] - https://youtu.be/3IKbkjs8xd0?t=46
This is shown in a scene from "Wolf of Wall Street"[0]. In this case the main agent gets his partner to come to within earshot of Jordan Belfort and asks Jordan to repeat his bribery offer. Testimony from one FBI agent is good, testimony from two is better.
[0] - https://youtu.be/3IKbkjs8xd0?t=46
It's a little worse than that even - in that example, I think the feds are just trying to get him to repeat something _he said_.
The way it works, is they meet with you alone: You say "A, B, C". They take some notes and write down "D, E, F" because it's what they want to hear or what they wish you said. A few weeks later, they present you with a written statement to sign that says "D, E, F". You protest "but I didn't say that, I said A, B, C!" And then they threaten you: either sign the statement or we charge you with lying to a Federal Agent (a felony).
According to my Father in-law (an attorney with decades of experience), it happens way more than anyone would like to admit.
The way it works, is they meet with you alone: You say "A, B, C". They take some notes and write down "D, E, F" because it's what they want to hear or what they wish you said. A few weeks later, they present you with a written statement to sign that says "D, E, F". You protest "but I didn't say that, I said A, B, C!" And then they threaten you: either sign the statement or we charge you with lying to a Federal Agent (a felony).
According to my Father in-law (an attorney with decades of experience), it happens way more than anyone would like to admit.
That’s another reason to have a lawyer present to take notes, so that federal agents don’t get away with their legally protected lying on their reports.
As an extremely relevant and related topic, it's Shut the Fuck Up Friday [1], time to review the script!
[1] https://youtu.be/sgWHrkDX35o
[1] https://youtu.be/sgWHrkDX35o
Beria's law: 'show me the man and I'll show you the crime'. That's how they get you.
Happily for the State, no matter how many times you give this obvious advice, people will still blab away and incriminate themselves.
Ha. Even in a thread such as this peopled by highly educated types, you see comment after comment expressing some disbelief with this obvious advice.
This advice precedes the 5th am, incidentally. So long as you live in a system where the State has the burden of proof, it is NEVER beneficial to say ANYTHING to a cop.
But, like I said, many folks don’t understand this. So, lawyers and prisons and judges will always have a job.
I suppose it’s like a senior programmer advising a noob not to create a pointer object using ‘new()’ within a frequently called function… but, folks will do it anyway. Oh well.
Ha. Even in a thread such as this peopled by highly educated types, you see comment after comment expressing some disbelief with this obvious advice.
This advice precedes the 5th am, incidentally. So long as you live in a system where the State has the burden of proof, it is NEVER beneficial to say ANYTHING to a cop.
But, like I said, many folks don’t understand this. So, lawyers and prisons and judges will always have a job.
I suppose it’s like a senior programmer advising a noob not to create a pointer object using ‘new()’ within a frequently called function… but, folks will do it anyway. Oh well.
I have a simple script that I have constructed to deal with the police when/if I ever get questioned. I feel it strikes a good balance between the potential ways of approaching this.
While I would like to be helpful to your investigation, in order to ensure my rights are protected, I cannot speak with you without a lawyer present. I appreciate your patience and understanding.
In my mind, this balances being respectful, dealing with potential follow-ups in the vein of "only a guilty person would say that", shutting down potential conversation, etc.
If anyone has good edits, I'm all ears.
While I would like to be helpful to your investigation, in order to ensure my rights are protected, I cannot speak with you without a lawyer present. I appreciate your patience and understanding.
In my mind, this balances being respectful, dealing with potential follow-ups in the vein of "only a guilty person would say that", shutting down potential conversation, etc.
If anyone has good edits, I'm all ears.
As noted in another thread, it is probably worth adding an explicit statement that you’re invoking your right to remain silent.
In that case, I'd amend it like so.
While I would like to be helpful to your investigation, in order to ensure my rights are protected, I must invoke my right to be silent without a lawyer present. I appreciate your patience and understanding.
I feel like there's some additional potential verbiage modification that can be made to make it more clear to the officer that you're trying to protect your rights and apologize for any inconvenience, but I can't put my finger on it. I think being cordial and respectful will deal with many potential negative side-effects of this approach.
Granted, I'm trying to amolierate the side-effect of this frustrating an officer you're interacting with or triggering their sense that you're actually guilty, causing yourself a greater headache. It's not about what's right, it's about what's effective.
While I would like to be helpful to your investigation, in order to ensure my rights are protected, I must invoke my right to be silent without a lawyer present. I appreciate your patience and understanding.
I feel like there's some additional potential verbiage modification that can be made to make it more clear to the officer that you're trying to protect your rights and apologize for any inconvenience, but I can't put my finger on it. I think being cordial and respectful will deal with many potential negative side-effects of this approach.
Granted, I'm trying to amolierate the side-effect of this frustrating an officer you're interacting with or triggering their sense that you're actually guilty, causing yourself a greater headache. It's not about what's right, it's about what's effective.
I think this is a reasonable approach. I would personally not add the additional apologies though, in case that winds up being spun in court later somehow.
Something like “I am invoking my 5th amendment right to remain silent and will not answer any questions without a lawyer present” is sufficient.
Most cops will be fine with this. They know the game a lot better than you. They’re not asking you questions to try to have a pleasant interaction with you. They’re fishing for things they can nab you on, and they know it. So, showing that you also know the game and clamming up isn’t necessarily unexpected or viewed as being rude.
Of course, you could always get a real prick who gets offended and tries to hassle you for it, in which case maybe your approach is the better one, but I suspect someone like that is going to cause problems regardless of how nicely you phrase it.
Something like “I am invoking my 5th amendment right to remain silent and will not answer any questions without a lawyer present” is sufficient.
Most cops will be fine with this. They know the game a lot better than you. They’re not asking you questions to try to have a pleasant interaction with you. They’re fishing for things they can nab you on, and they know it. So, showing that you also know the game and clamming up isn’t necessarily unexpected or viewed as being rude.
Of course, you could always get a real prick who gets offended and tries to hassle you for it, in which case maybe your approach is the better one, but I suspect someone like that is going to cause problems regardless of how nicely you phrase it.
The reason why I don't like that approach is because it is the approach of a career criminal. The cops wouldn't be wrong to hassle you in this interaction.
An apology goes a long way. Reading some of your other posts, I fear you're too indignant. I'm not, I only want to do what would produce the best possible outcome. I don't care about anything else and I have no righteous sentiment in this scenario.
An apology goes a long way. Reading some of your other posts, I fear you're too indignant. I'm not, I only want to do what would produce the best possible outcome. I don't care about anything else and I have no righteous sentiment in this scenario.
It’s also the approach of most police and lawyers, i.e. anyone who is familiar with the criminal justice system. I’ve mentioned it elsewhere, but I got this advice from my relatives who are themselves police, both state and federal.
Edit: and the police would absolutely be wrong to hassle you in this situation! It’s a right. If you don’t exercise it for yourself, nobody will do it for you.
Edit: and the police would absolutely be wrong to hassle you in this situation! It’s a right. If you don’t exercise it for yourself, nobody will do it for you.
Regarding this, it's critical that you remember it's not about what's right or wrong, it's about what works and what doesn't.
Related. Others?
Don't Talk to the Police - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23390344 - June 2020 (6 comments)
Don't Talk to the Police – James Duane - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19717507 - April 2019 (4 comments)
Don't Talk to the Police (2012) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15886628 - Dec 2017 (165 comments)
Don't talk to the police [video] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6001859 - July 2013 (37 comments)
Don't talk to the police - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=219758 - June 2008 (35 comments)
Don't Talk to the Police - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23390344 - June 2020 (6 comments)
Don't Talk to the Police – James Duane - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19717507 - April 2019 (4 comments)
Don't Talk to the Police (2012) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15886628 - Dec 2017 (165 comments)
Don't talk to the police [video] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6001859 - July 2013 (37 comments)
Don't talk to the police - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=219758 - June 2008 (35 comments)
Don't Talk to the Police Part 2 - https://youtu.be/tIt-l2YmH8M
This was a really disappointing video. It is a 30 minute infomercial for a book that constantly says "what if <x>? well, you'll have to read the book".
Also don't talk to federal agents.
Lying to a federal agent is a felony, and often times they don't have enough evidence for the original crime, but by talking to you they get evidence of you lying
Lying to a federal agent is a felony, and often times they don't have enough evidence for the original crime, but by talking to you they get evidence of you lying
It's worse than that -- often their MO is to deliberately get people rattled so they say something false (that the FBI already knew was false), then charge them for that. It's stupid, but it's currently the [courts' interpretation of] the law. (The written law has a materiality requirement, but this has been interpreted so loosely as to be irrelevant.)
https://www.popehat.com/2017/12/04/everybody-lies-fbi-editio...
https://www.popehat.com/2017/12/04/everybody-lies-fbi-editio...
With this law on the books they often operate under the same practice/advice you hear given to attorneys in court: "only ask questions you already know the answer to".
In many/most cases if they're asking questions they already know the truth behind at least some of them. They are attempting to leverage you into cooperating against co-conspirators or at least be able to hit you with a felony for misleading/false statements in the event the original investigation doesn't pan out to charges.
In many/most cases if they're asking questions they already know the truth behind at least some of them. They are attempting to leverage you into cooperating against co-conspirators or at least be able to hit you with a felony for misleading/false statements in the event the original investigation doesn't pan out to charges.
This is how Martha Stewart got sent to the klink, not for insider trading.
Is there no Miranda equivalent for federal agents?
There is, so you have the right to remain silent. The difference is that federal law makes it illegal to lie to a federal agent.
Lying to the police is dumb in general because it can be used against you. In the federal sense it’s dumber as it is a felony in of itself.
This is often cited as an abuse of power etc. I think there’s a lot of nuance.
Lying to the police is dumb in general because it can be used against you. In the federal sense it’s dumber as it is a felony in of itself.
This is often cited as an abuse of power etc. I think there’s a lot of nuance.
Just being silent is not enough: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36371237#36375516
Michael Flynn has entered the chat.
If you can, get past his ideology and that he was a Trump guy, the actual process of what happened to him and what he was charged with is pretty crazy.
He was very stupid for talking to agents without a lawyer. But, they went in and got him to lie about something that wasn’t a crime, and he didn’t actually do.
Also on the front page of HN right now: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36367147
If you can, get past his ideology and that he was a Trump guy, the actual process of what happened to him and what he was charged with is pretty crazy.
He was very stupid for talking to agents without a lawyer. But, they went in and got him to lie about something that wasn’t a crime, and he didn’t actually do.
Also on the front page of HN right now: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36367147
As a member of President Trump's transition team, Flynn made a pair of direct diplomatic requests to Russia's ambassador to the United States (Russia complied with both requests). Later, during an FBI counterintelligence investigation centering on Russia, Flynn lied twice about having had those diplomatic conversations at all. The case was later dropped because the entire overarching investigation (Crossfire Hurricane) --- which did not center on Flynn --- was dropped.
Flynn is a cut-and-dried example of how 18 USC 1001 can make sense. He wasn't entrapped. He hung himself out to dry. It's a great example of the logic of this thread and the post: don't talk to federal agents, because if you're an idiot and try to bullshit your way past basic facts of their investigation, they'll convict you for it.
Flynn is a cut-and-dried example of how 18 USC 1001 can make sense. He wasn't entrapped. He hung himself out to dry. It's a great example of the logic of this thread and the post: don't talk to federal agents, because if you're an idiot and try to bullshit your way past basic facts of their investigation, they'll convict you for it.
Michael Flynn is literally a traitor to the US.
Regular reminder that this is strictly true for the US. For other countries YMMV by following this approach.
E.g. it's generally a bad idea to shut up completely once you're in a police station in Japan, as they may hold you up for 23 days w/o pressing charges and allowing you to communicate with the outside world.
E.g. it's generally a bad idea to shut up completely once you're in a police station in Japan, as they may hold you up for 23 days w/o pressing charges and allowing you to communicate with the outside world.
A friend of mine recently had quite a bad experience asking the police for help with directions as he was traveling through the Netherlands.
He was trying to figure out where he was using the map on a bus stop and approached a nearby police car to ask for assistance.
They demanded his ID which he was not carrying at the time. He explained that it was in his bag at the place where he was staying and they said he needed to be able to identify himself, so they arrested him on the spot and he was not free again until the following morning. As a result he missed a ferry and had to spend the money booking another one.
He was trying to figure out where he was using the map on a bus stop and approached a nearby police car to ask for assistance.
They demanded his ID which he was not carrying at the time. He explained that it was in his bag at the place where he was staying and they said he needed to be able to identify himself, so they arrested him on the spot and he was not free again until the following morning. As a result he missed a ferry and had to spend the money booking another one.
It's strange, but you must be able to identify yourself if you're over the age of 14 [1] in The Netherlands. Having lived in the US for 20 years now, this also seems a bit draconian to me, but I didn't think much of it while growing up over there.
[1]: https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/paspoort-en-identit...
[1]: https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/paspoort-en-identit...
Honestly, lots of us Dutchies leave the house from time to time without ID. I don’t even think to carry it when I go running, or to the gym. And most of the time if you interact with the police while out without your ID it isn’t really a problem.
But that is of course only reliably true if you’re Dutch. The right kind of Dutch, too. Autochtoon used to be considered the polite term. (I always found it rather menacing personally.)
If you have contact with a police agent and you’re speaking English or are brown, yeah, better have that ID.
Of course anyone can be in the wrong place at the wrong time - maybe the agents the OP’s friend approached were conducting surveillance and interpreted an approach by a stranger without ID as suspicious under the circumstances. But I have also simply seen lots of differences in how police decide to enforce the law based on whom they are dealing with.
But that is of course only reliably true if you’re Dutch. The right kind of Dutch, too. Autochtoon used to be considered the polite term. (I always found it rather menacing personally.)
If you have contact with a police agent and you’re speaking English or are brown, yeah, better have that ID.
Of course anyone can be in the wrong place at the wrong time - maybe the agents the OP’s friend approached were conducting surveillance and interpreted an approach by a stranger without ID as suspicious under the circumstances. But I have also simply seen lots of differences in how police decide to enforce the law based on whom they are dealing with.
your mind has been corrupted by US propaganda
You set up an entirely new account to insult someone’s thought process? That’s very weak. Particularly because the conversation is about a totally different country.
What does the US have to do with The Netherlands required people to have ID at all times?
he's implying that cops mistreating foreigners and brown people isn't true and that US media has portrayed this as a thing when it isn't one
to be clear, my stance is BLM/ACAB
to be clear, my stance is BLM/ACAB
They should consider that the courts have literally ruled that the Dutch police are guilty of racial profiling: https://www.politico.eu/article/dutch-police-found-guilty-ra...
It's the same in Germany, but I still wouldn't expect the police to ask for my ID when asking for directions. The fact that you need to be able to identify yourself when asked doesn't mean that they are supposed to ask for it for every interaction.
IANAL, but 99% sure that the situation in Germany is that you have to identify yourself (give name, birthday, (address?)), but you /don‘t/ have to carry (or show) your government issued ID at all times.
You don't have to carry it, no. But if you don't carry your ID (or equivalent) and they have a reason to ask for it (e.g. you are a suspect of a crime), they can require you to take them wherever you keep your ID or to the station.
I figured it worked the same in the Netherlands, but from what I can tell it's true that you always need to carry it and you can get fined if you don't. So quite a bit more strict. That sucks.
https://de.m.wikibooks.org/wiki/Rechte_und_Pflichten_im_Umga... (German)
I figured it worked the same in the Netherlands, but from what I can tell it's true that you always need to carry it and you can get fined if you don't. So quite a bit more strict. That sucks.
https://de.m.wikibooks.org/wiki/Rechte_und_Pflichten_im_Umga... (German)
I actually recently asked a German police person the exact same question if I have to have my ID/passport with me at all times.
The answer was “no, you just need to own one or the other”.
I always thought as well that there is “Ausweispflicht” (ID carrying obligatory) in Germany.
I always thought as well that there is “Ausweispflicht” (ID carrying obligatory) in Germany.
Ausweispflicht means that you have to own a Reisepass or Personalausweis, not carry any of them.
[deleted]
That would definitely be surprising for most Americans. Many of us (like my wife) never carry id unless they plan on driving.
Even in the US it's weird. I arrived on a passport + visa. No requirement to carry it. Got a driver license. No requirement to carry that either, unless I'm driving. But now that I have a Green Card I need to carry it at all times. At least until I get citizenship.
I live in a state that allows for having my driver license on my phone.
I live in a state that allows for having my driver license on my phone.
As someone who also lived on a visa in the US, I think you were required to carry it at all times like your green card. It’s just never enforced.
This is very strange for an Indian, too.
We do not carry ID unless we are driving (driving license), using long-distance transport, or going to vote.
Always carrying ID is such a strange idea!
We do not carry ID unless we are driving (driving license), using long-distance transport, or going to vote.
Always carrying ID is such a strange idea!
I feel weird without it and I always carry my ID in the US, even when just going for a walk around the neighborhood.
Not hard for me since it’s in my wallet and I use one of those slim wallets and don’t carry many other cards and don’t stash receipts in the bill area like some people do.
Not hard for me since it’s in my wallet and I use one of those slim wallets and don’t carry many other cards and don’t stash receipts in the bill area like some people do.
And technically you don't have to have your ID on your person when driving. In some states you might be issued a fine if you make the officer mad but it's not a crime and you won't be arrested.
... or entering a bar, or buying alcohol, or purchasing allergy medicine
What kind of allergy medicine requires ID? I only know of pseudo-epinephrine (not to be confused with the as-strong-as-homeopathics phenylephrine), which is cold medicine.
Claritin D and Zyrtec D are sold for allergy relief, and contain pseudoephedrine.
Its interesting how generic “travel” advice is incompatible with so many countries
the generic advice is “leave your passport locked at the hotel so you dont get it stolen by pickpockets”
but also “never not have your passport on you because the local government wants to check it at any time”
how do you all reconcile that on a day to day basis?
the generic advice is “leave your passport locked at the hotel so you dont get it stolen by pickpockets”
but also “never not have your passport on you because the local government wants to check it at any time”
how do you all reconcile that on a day to day basis?
In my experience the general advice is : “Always carry with you a copy printed of your passport while leaving the original locked at the hotel”.
Keep your passport in a hidden pocket no easily reachable by pickpockets.
Although that helps to deal with pickpockets, can't thieves still demand your passport at gunpoint/knife-point, if they know the police require you to carry it?
what good is a passport to 99% of muggers?
Is a stolen passport any less useful to muggers than to pickpockets?
Traveling to foreign lands entails different rules and customs, which means new possible risks. Too many people think that their values or rules are universal. I think this is a major cognitive blind spot. It's like traveling to foreign lands with their different rules and customs is not such a smart idea, overall. Error on the side of caution.
> it's like traveling to foreign lands with their different rules and customs is not such a smart idea, overall.
Jeez. That is the reason why it is a good idea. Go out, and learn how similar or different other places are. Do you want to always experience the same old, same old? Yeah it causes an inconvenience sometimes, and good times at others.
Jeez. That is the reason why it is a good idea. Go out, and learn how similar or different other places are. Do you want to always experience the same old, same old? Yeah it causes an inconvenience sometimes, and good times at others.
I think we're just in this strange zone here in the EU, where we all enjoy freedom of movement but the penalties for not understanding the subtle differences between states can be quite a shock if you're caught out.
> too many people think that their values or rules are universal.
That's why travelling is good?
That's why travelling is good?
or just don’t think your values and rules are universal
travel frequently changes my aspirations from being exposed to things that I didnt know were options
there are a lot of developed nations out there now, I dont know where your frame of reference is from, but some of those developed nations are very far ahead of superpowers in a variety of ways that could be beneficial to you
travel frequently changes my aspirations from being exposed to things that I didnt know were options
there are a lot of developed nations out there now, I dont know where your frame of reference is from, but some of those developed nations are very far ahead of superpowers in a variety of ways that could be beneficial to you
That is a bleak point of view.
i would agree if someone is suspected of committing or witnessing a crime but to require ID for simply asking directions, and then getting arrested, seems like exactly the kind of overreach that gives a bad image to cops.
Chances are there is more to the story here. We're getting third-hand information after all.
[deleted]
True, I don't think of it much now that I've been living here for a few years. But it's scary how easily someone can be caught out while traveling through the NL from one part of Schengen to another where these rules don't apply.
This pisses me off to no small amount (as a Dutchman). Yes, the law says you have to be able to identity yourself, but you can only be asked if there's a good reason. Not a lawyer, but asking for directions is very much not a good reason (even when not speaking Dutch).
Interestingly the English explanation is much more ambiguous than the Dutch:
"These officials [police] may not ask to see proof of identity without giving a reason. " https://www.government.nl/topics/identification-documents/co...
Whereas in the Dutch version:
"De politie mag alleen uw identificatiebewijs vragen als daar een goede reden voor is." Translation: "The police may only ask for your identification if there's a good reason to do so" Typical.
I would lodge a complaint: https://www.politie.nl/onderwerpen/klacht-over-de-politie-in... (page in Dutch)
Interestingly the English explanation is much more ambiguous than the Dutch:
"These officials [police] may not ask to see proof of identity without giving a reason. " https://www.government.nl/topics/identification-documents/co...
Whereas in the Dutch version:
"De politie mag alleen uw identificatiebewijs vragen als daar een goede reden voor is." Translation: "The police may only ask for your identification if there's a good reason to do so" Typical.
I would lodge a complaint: https://www.politie.nl/onderwerpen/klacht-over-de-politie-in... (page in Dutch)
Carrying a passport is a legal requirement in many countries, especially common for tourists. But if I accidentally left it in my hotel? I don't think I would get arrested on the spot. Worst case they'd take me to the hotel so I could produce it.
I suspect there is more to this story - i.e. they had a reason to think he was an illegal immigrant or on drugs or something - of course that reason could be something racist or completely unfounded, but I presume they don't just arrest anyone who forgets their ID.
I suspect there is more to this story - i.e. they had a reason to think he was an illegal immigrant or on drugs or something - of course that reason could be something racist or completely unfounded, but I presume they don't just arrest anyone who forgets their ID.
That is very stupid.
[deleted]
Note cops are trained to assume that cagey people could be guilty. (1) I wonder if this guy wants to make more work for himself and people in his profession, and (2) Black and White people might get very different results from this and other advice.
No matter who you are, talking to the police is a bad idea. This is a constant piece of advice from every lawyer AND POLICE OFFICER I’ve ever known. I have several cops in my family, and they all advise to never talk to the cops.
While you have the right to remain silent, I remember reading somewhere that you have to actively invoke that right (by stating something like "I invoke my 5th amendment right to remain silent") for your silence to be considered an invocation of that right, and not merely suspicious behavior, an implicit admission of guilt, or obstruction of justice.
This is actually reprehensible, since invoking a right should mean actually engaging in it (e.g. remaining silent), with no explanation necessary.
Another topic that everybody should know about is juror nullification.
This is actually reprehensible, since invoking a right should mean actually engaging in it (e.g. remaining silent), with no explanation necessary.
Another topic that everybody should know about is juror nullification.
>by stating something like "I invoke my 5th amendment right to remain silent"
This needs to be rather structured as well as the cops can ignore your statement unless it has a proper syntax and names the 5th element directly. Example: "give me a lawyer dog" doesn't cut it (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/true-crime/wp/2017/11/02...)
This needs to be rather structured as well as the cops can ignore your statement unless it has a proper syntax and names the 5th element directly. Example: "give me a lawyer dog" doesn't cut it (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/true-crime/wp/2017/11/02...)
> While you have the right to remain silent, I remember reading somewhere that you have to actively invoke that right (by stating something like "I invoke my 5th amendment right to remain silent") for your silence to be considered an invocation of that right, and not merely suspicious behavior, an implicit admission of guilt, or obstruction of justice.
This is, as I ubderstand it, incorrect on multiple levels. First, all you need to do is shut up to exercise the right. Second, no matter how you frame exercising the right, police can and will treat it as suspicious.
You may be confusing the right to remain silent with the right to have counsel present during questioning, which must be explicilty invoked for questioning without counsel present and its fruits to be excluded. They are separate, but related (as invoking the right to counsel also narrows the ways police can pressure you to waive the rightbto remain silent without legally tainting anything they get out of it.)
This is, as I ubderstand it, incorrect on multiple levels. First, all you need to do is shut up to exercise the right. Second, no matter how you frame exercising the right, police can and will treat it as suspicious.
You may be confusing the right to remain silent with the right to have counsel present during questioning, which must be explicilty invoked for questioning without counsel present and its fruits to be excluded. They are separate, but related (as invoking the right to counsel also narrows the ways police can pressure you to waive the rightbto remain silent without legally tainting anything they get out of it.)
> First, all you need to do is shut up to exercise the right.
Actually, as I understand it, SCOTUS has said that merely being silent is not the same as invoking your Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. I think this jurisprudence is complete bananapants, but the argument is that you have to explicitly and unambiguously invoke your Fifth Amendment right for it to kick in, and being silent isn't an unambiguous invocation.
Actually, as I understand it, SCOTUS has said that merely being silent is not the same as invoking your Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. I think this jurisprudence is complete bananapants, but the argument is that you have to explicitly and unambiguously invoke your Fifth Amendment right for it to kick in, and being silent isn't an unambiguous invocation.
Correct.
You MUST EXPLICITLY invoke your fifth amendment right against self-incrimination.
(Okay, there may be some edge cases where invoking the fifth is implied, but SCOTUS has merely acknowledged that these edge cases could exist, but to my knowledge has never given rules for when it applies. Better safe than sorry.)
e: see Salinas v Texas[0] for example
[0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/12-246#writing...
You MUST EXPLICITLY invoke your fifth amendment right against self-incrimination.
(Okay, there may be some edge cases where invoking the fifth is implied, but SCOTUS has merely acknowledged that these edge cases could exist, but to my knowledge has never given rules for when it applies. Better safe than sorry.)
e: see Salinas v Texas[0] for example
[0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/12-246#writing...
In a courtroom, yes.
https://www.nytimes.com/1973/07/18/archives/krough-pleads-5t...
https://www.nytimes.com/1973/07/18/archives/krough-pleads-5t...
> This is, as I ubderstand it, incorrect on multiple levels. First, all you need to do is shut up to exercise the right.
Incorrect. The police can continue interrogation if you sit quietly.
Also, it’s possible to revoke your assertion of the 5th after you have invoked it. If the police say you did, and you say you didn’t, who do you think the courts will believe?
As such, most legal advice I have heard is to simply say “I am not speaking until I get a lawyer.” It is unambiguous during interrogation, and it’ll stand up well during any suppression hearings.
> Second, no matter how you frame exercising the right, police can and will treat it as suspicious.
“You can beat the time but you can’t beat the ride.”
If you are in a position where you are invoking these rights you are already considered suspicious. You may be arrested. You might be tried. But keep your eye on the prize: your goal is to not get convicted.
Incorrect. The police can continue interrogation if you sit quietly.
Also, it’s possible to revoke your assertion of the 5th after you have invoked it. If the police say you did, and you say you didn’t, who do you think the courts will believe?
As such, most legal advice I have heard is to simply say “I am not speaking until I get a lawyer.” It is unambiguous during interrogation, and it’ll stand up well during any suppression hearings.
> Second, no matter how you frame exercising the right, police can and will treat it as suspicious.
“You can beat the time but you can’t beat the ride.”
If you are in a position where you are invoking these rights you are already considered suspicious. You may be arrested. You might be tried. But keep your eye on the prize: your goal is to not get convicted.
> Another topic that everybody should know about is juror nullification.
Jurors who are aware of jury nullification are routinely dismissed.
Jurors who are aware of jury nullification are routinely dismissed.
Nope, this is a commonly repeated falsehood.
Judges really don’t want to reduce the jury pool unless they really really need to. If they cut everyone who had seen CGP Grey’s video on Jury Nullification they’d unnecessarily thin the pool.
The way they do it is by specifically asking if you have any beliefs that would lead you to convict/acquit someone even if the evidence pointed to the opposite outcome. The question even tells you that Jury Nullification (making a false verdict) is a thing that’s possible to do. They want to know if you’re planning on doing it.
If you’re called for a murder trial and say “I don’t think murder is immoral” or “If the guy’s been accused, let him hang!” then yes, you’ll get out of jury duty. You’ll also look like a huge asshole in front of a bunch of people from your community.
And that’s how they get ya. Unless you have some really out-there views, or are willing to commit to acting like you do, you can’t get out of jury duty by going “I know about Jury Nullification!”
Judges really don’t want to reduce the jury pool unless they really really need to. If they cut everyone who had seen CGP Grey’s video on Jury Nullification they’d unnecessarily thin the pool.
The way they do it is by specifically asking if you have any beliefs that would lead you to convict/acquit someone even if the evidence pointed to the opposite outcome. The question even tells you that Jury Nullification (making a false verdict) is a thing that’s possible to do. They want to know if you’re planning on doing it.
If you’re called for a murder trial and say “I don’t think murder is immoral” or “If the guy’s been accused, let him hang!” then yes, you’ll get out of jury duty. You’ll also look like a huge asshole in front of a bunch of people from your community.
And that’s how they get ya. Unless you have some really out-there views, or are willing to commit to acting like you do, you can’t get out of jury duty by going “I know about Jury Nullification!”
Is it indeed routine to ask prospective jurors if they are aware of the term?
Anecdata: I can see how it might be possible, based on my own jury duty callup last month. Hundreds in the waiting room, when individual trials did "go to jury", a secondary lottery chose from the hundreds a batch of more than 60 to go for interview. So, the lawyers would be further weeding out some 80%.
Anecdata: I can see how it might be possible, based on my own jury duty callup last month. Hundreds in the waiting room, when individual trials did "go to jury", a secondary lottery chose from the hundreds a batch of more than 60 to go for interview. So, the lawyers would be further weeding out some 80%.
> Is it indeed routine to ask prospective jurors if they are aware of the term?
It probably varies, but it isn't routine where I live. I've been called for voire dire and subsequent selection a few times, and haven't ever been asked about nullification.
(I think the majority of people get excluded based on whether the trial's schedule would be an unreasonable hardship/imposition, voluntarily disclosed conflicts of interest, etc.)
It probably varies, but it isn't routine where I live. I've been called for voire dire and subsequent selection a few times, and haven't ever been asked about nullification.
(I think the majority of people get excluded based on whether the trial's schedule would be an unreasonable hardship/imposition, voluntarily disclosed conflicts of interest, etc.)
Lawyer: "Are you aware of the phrase 'juror nullification?'"
Potential juror: "I am now!"
Potential juror: "I am now!"
I saw this happen in a real trial.
It's more complicated than just saying "jury nullification." You have to explain your beliefs.
It's more complicated than just saying "jury nullification." You have to explain your beliefs.
When agents interrogate people in their custody, yes, miranda rights are read to the detained. What about non-custodial interviews? People are asked to come for interviews without being detained. In such cases, one is not read miranda rights. This is where people get trapped by the law enforcement: non-custodial interviews/interrogations are often conducted at home/work/private offices, even police stations. For more, Berghuis v. Thompkins, Salinas v. Texas
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berghuis_v._Thompkins
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berghuis_v._Thompkins
> Note cops are trained to assume that cagey people could be guilty.
You don't need training for that. Most everyone assumes that a cagey person is hiding something :-/
You don't need training for that. Most everyone assumes that a cagey person is hiding something :-/
what if you get into an accident, should you still give the police details?
The answer in the title. Never talk to the police.
That sounds like a good way to end up paying for an accident that you weren't actually at fault for. The fifth amendment doesn't apply to civil cases, and police reports are a large part of how insurance companies assign blame.
If "never talk to the police" sounds like a reasonable hard and fast rule to you, it's probably best that you just follow it. It's a good first brush.
But attorneys aren't magic. It's possible to judge your situation, recall facts, and represent your rights without saying things that further implicate you, or that can be misconstrued. Especially when dealing with relatively low stakes situations like a minor traffic accident, where hiring an attorney is basically equivalent to having lost.
If it's the kind of traffic accident that you're likely at fault for or someone went to the hospital or substances are involved, then you do indeed need to shut the fuck up.
If "never talk to the police" sounds like a reasonable hard and fast rule to you, it's probably best that you just follow it. It's a good first brush.
But attorneys aren't magic. It's possible to judge your situation, recall facts, and represent your rights without saying things that further implicate you, or that can be misconstrued. Especially when dealing with relatively low stakes situations like a minor traffic accident, where hiring an attorney is basically equivalent to having lost.
If it's the kind of traffic accident that you're likely at fault for or someone went to the hospital or substances are involved, then you do indeed need to shut the fuck up.
> That sounds like a good way to end up paying for an accident that you weren't actually at fault for.
The defense against that isn't talking to the police, it's having a good dashcam.
The defense against that isn't talking to the police, it's having a good dashcam.
One of the best videos on the internet. A true classic with great advice.
So many non-lawyers giving legal advice in this thread...
This guy is too much of a showman for me to trust him and take him seriously. It’s all coloured by the years of conniving he’s done as a criminal defence lawyer. He may have a point but I’d rather read about it.
I might assume as much just from the prejudice of watching American cops in the fictional media.
The ones who are portrayed as protagonists/good guys are often obsessed assholes who will do whatever it takes to solve the case, ranging from manipulating witnesses to doing borderline illegal things. Then their bozo superior gets in the way because they don’t see how, actually, in this case it would be totally worth it to do something without proper procedure, and actually being a maverick cop who just follows his gut is perfectly good and okay.
They only remain “the good guys” because they happen to catch the bad guys.
The ones who are portrayed as protagonists/good guys are often obsessed assholes who will do whatever it takes to solve the case, ranging from manipulating witnesses to doing borderline illegal things. Then their bozo superior gets in the way because they don’t see how, actually, in this case it would be totally worth it to do something without proper procedure, and actually being a maverick cop who just follows his gut is perfectly good and okay.
They only remain “the good guys” because they happen to catch the bad guys.
How does that translate to internal investigations? Should you talk to HR? If you're in school, should you talk to the principal?
remember, the police's sole purpose is to punish crime, not to prevent it. they don't care who they punish as long as they can add your number to their statistics. they are NOT your friends. that's just childhood brainwashing.
The USA police is a bit of an exception here, being overly militarized, not kept in check by judges and politicians, and historically having a side job of fugitive slave catchers.
Around the world, the core job of the police is more: Restore the public peace. They can forgive transgressions in public if you demonstrate further disturbance of peace will cease.
They have to maintain a reasonable level of fairness, or they get overrun by vigilantes. But as long as the illusion of fairness holds good enough, they can and will crush powerless people in the wheels of justice.
Around the world, the core job of the police is more: Restore the public peace. They can forgive transgressions in public if you demonstrate further disturbance of peace will cease.
They have to maintain a reasonable level of fairness, or they get overrun by vigilantes. But as long as the illusion of fairness holds good enough, they can and will crush powerless people in the wheels of justice.
You have to be more specific than "around the world" here. I grew up in a country where the "core job of the police" is to extort bribes. My guess is that's pretty similar to the experience of the majority of the people living today.
Corrupt law enforcement is hardly a US invention. That's frankly just silly. In fact US police are... middle of the pack at worst. It's true that there are some policy implications in the US that seem weird, in particular the level of weaponry deployed and the politicization of activist slogans like "Defund", but if anything that speaks to police behavior in the US being more criticized and more constrained.
America is fine, basically. Yes, cops are empowered bullies who do bad things. But that's been true for thousands of years. We're farther down the path to trying to fix that, not behind.
America is fine, basically. Yes, cops are empowered bullies who do bad things. But that's been true for thousands of years. We're farther down the path to trying to fix that, not behind.
It's so funny reading this after scrolling past a bunch of Western Europeans (what I assume you mean by "around the world", since that's almost always what's meant) talking about how they can be arrested for not carrying identification on them at all times. As an American, it sounds like your judges and politicians haven't even tried to keep them in check.
Unfortunately it is a mixed bag in Western Europe.
As I am above 30 and I look as I am now, adult, well off person, I most likely would not even have to have ID on me even when I am not in my native country.
That said, when I was 20-something and had short haircut not having ID even in my native country could cause trouble.
There are also places where Police is quite easy going like medium cities around 100k. Mostly they have enough work not to care for small infractions and are not overworked with amount of shitty people.
In small cities it might be bad because they might not have anything to do so they would hunt you down on some silly stuff.
In big cities it might be bad because they have so many shitty people to deal with so they just assume you are shithead as well and treat you like one by default.
There are also places where rich people live and if you look like you don't belong, guess what, even if you look well off adult they might ask bunch of questions and Id if you don't look like you belong in the neighborhood.
As I am above 30 and I look as I am now, adult, well off person, I most likely would not even have to have ID on me even when I am not in my native country.
That said, when I was 20-something and had short haircut not having ID even in my native country could cause trouble.
There are also places where Police is quite easy going like medium cities around 100k. Mostly they have enough work not to care for small infractions and are not overworked with amount of shitty people.
In small cities it might be bad because they might not have anything to do so they would hunt you down on some silly stuff.
In big cities it might be bad because they have so many shitty people to deal with so they just assume you are shithead as well and treat you like one by default.
There are also places where rich people live and if you look like you don't belong, guess what, even if you look well off adult they might ask bunch of questions and Id if you don't look like you belong in the neighborhood.
> a bunch of Western Europeans (what I assume […] As an American, it sounds like your judges and politicians haven't even tried to keep them in check.
Wait, what? You don’t know if this is a Western European thing but you just took that “from the rest of the world”? I guess I could do the same: (1) I’m not from America (the majority here), (2) I haven’t experienced bully police asking for id, so (3) I’ll just assume that that’s an American thing. How funny!
Wait, what? You don’t know if this is a Western European thing but you just took that “from the rest of the world”? I guess I could do the same: (1) I’m not from America (the majority here), (2) I haven’t experienced bully police asking for id, so (3) I’ll just assume that that’s an American thing. How funny!
As a white American I also haven't really had any bad experiences with cops, it's something commonly referred to as "privilege". If you'd like to read about other peoples experiences with police in Western Europe, here's the start of that thread https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36372948
Oh, so you were referring to a story from a place in Western Europe, concretely. You see I was dumb enough to go by your comment itself
> what I assume you mean by "around the world", since that's almost always what's meant
Were you just say “I’ll assume Western Europe based on nothing”.
> If you'd like to read about other peoples experiences with police in Western Europe
What do you mean “other”? I haven’t said where I’m from.
> what I assume you mean by "around the world", since that's almost always what's meant
Were you just say “I’ll assume Western Europe based on nothing”.
> If you'd like to read about other peoples experiences with police in Western Europe
What do you mean “other”? I haven’t said where I’m from.
It's funny, I always hear about how US police are militarized, but then when I go to Europe I see actual military soldiers carrying assault rifles while doing what seems to me like police duty all over the place in major cities. That's not something I see here.
“No one likes a cop until they need one”. Cops are not inherently your foe, but that does not imply that they are in any way inherently your friend, even when you are part of the “in group”.
In the US the relatively recent shift to use of the term “law enforcement” both reflects and drives a self-destructive nature in the broad culture.
Your insightful point, “The police's sole purpose is to punish crime, not to prevent it” has several implications.
First is that even if you have a positive view of the cops (and if you are not in an “out group” you should) you still should follow this advice. If you’re not chatting with your next door neighbor the cop at a bbq, what you are is an unpleasant barrier to getting their job done with a minimum of hassle. Like you think of Jira or Confluence.
Another implication is to understand that their role, in cultural norm, in who it attracts to the job, and simply the cumulative impact of what they are exposed to, drives what I will euphemistically call “destructive impact”. We need cops like we need the weather, but that doesn’t mean we don’t take steps to deal with the destructive force of storms, and even to minimize storm generation.
Unfortunately the US is in a phase where they think the more brutality the better. In that the cops correctly reflect what they are asked to do.
In the US the relatively recent shift to use of the term “law enforcement” both reflects and drives a self-destructive nature in the broad culture.
Your insightful point, “The police's sole purpose is to punish crime, not to prevent it” has several implications.
First is that even if you have a positive view of the cops (and if you are not in an “out group” you should) you still should follow this advice. If you’re not chatting with your next door neighbor the cop at a bbq, what you are is an unpleasant barrier to getting their job done with a minimum of hassle. Like you think of Jira or Confluence.
Another implication is to understand that their role, in cultural norm, in who it attracts to the job, and simply the cumulative impact of what they are exposed to, drives what I will euphemistically call “destructive impact”. We need cops like we need the weather, but that doesn’t mean we don’t take steps to deal with the destructive force of storms, and even to minimize storm generation.
Unfortunately the US is in a phase where they think the more brutality the better. In that the cops correctly reflect what they are asked to do.
> Cops are not inherently your foe
From a game theoretical POV this is false; no good can come from speaking to them, and only bad can.
From a game theoretical POV this is false; no good can come from speaking to them, and only bad can.
How is that true? I've submitted some lost property reports on a local police box, and at least once they've found it. Clearly a positive outcome.
Say someone is robbing houses in the neighborhood. If I tell the cops as much as I know, maybe they find the perp before my house is robbed.
I won’t categorically say the opposite, but I think your statement is overwrought. If someone murdered your spouse, or tried to run you down with a car, who are you going to call?
In the first case at least they are surely going to suspect you, so you should still be careful. But “no good can come of it”?
In the first case at least they are surely going to suspect you, so you should still be careful. But “no good can come of it”?
My attorney. They can speak to the police on my behalf, which would likely be necessary in the first scenario (though it would yield no benefit to me).
In the latter case, I would not call them at all.
What good would police contact do in either of those cases? In each instance they cannot help me.
In the latter case, I would not call them at all.
What good would police contact do in either of those cases? In each instance they cannot help me.
If someone tried to run me down with a car, what good can the police do? Arrest the person before they try to kill me again, that's what. Keeping me from dying is definitely "helping me".
Unlikely. In the case you describe without additional evidence they would have no basis for an arrest (otherwise you could have anyone arrested arbitrarily by accusing them of same). The police would likely only involve themselves if they actually succeeded in running you down. Even if there were video surveillance available they aren't going to go get a warrant and review the tapes because some guy came in accusing someone. It's simply not how that works.
The police (in the USA) are reactive and respond after crimes are committed, not before (unless they are responding to social disorder requests, which is generally unrelated to crime). Even then they choose which crimes they deem worthy of responding to (the classic example being rape victims being dissuaded from proceeding with making a police report).
Most people have a mistaken mental model of how police actually function. Most police officers are about as non-proactive as you can get (except near the end of the month when the traffic ticket quotas are due).
The police (in the USA) are reactive and respond after crimes are committed, not before (unless they are responding to social disorder requests, which is generally unrelated to crime). Even then they choose which crimes they deem worthy of responding to (the classic example being rape victims being dissuaded from proceeding with making a police report).
Most people have a mistaken mental model of how police actually function. Most police officers are about as non-proactive as you can get (except near the end of the month when the traffic ticket quotas are due).
Trying to run me down is a crime - assault. (If they hit me, it's assault and battery.)
> From a game theoretical POV this is false;
Except we're not talking about game theory here, we're talking about reality.
Except we're not talking about game theory here, we're talking about reality.
Report a crime, get crime solved - are you saying this has never ever happened?
The police' main purpose is to protect the social order internally, by enforcing social relations (foremost being property and the authority of state institutions).
As for punishing crime - technically, the police is not supposed to decide whether crimes have been committed, nor to meet out out punishment for them. Really is a different thing, of course - but even then, the punishment is for police-undesirable behavior.
As for punishing crime - technically, the police is not supposed to decide whether crimes have been committed, nor to meet out out punishment for them. Really is a different thing, of course - but even then, the punishment is for police-undesirable behavior.
Not sure what the English term is, but Denmark operates with the "three separations of power". Parliament makes the laws, the police enforce them and the judicial system punished. The police, for good and bad, is never suppose to decide whether or not a law is right or wrong, how it's punished and to what extend.
If the police have become a punishing force, or even make the rules, then something has gone very wrong. Now even in civilized societies things sometimes goes wrong, e.g. the parliament provides police with too broad a framework to operate within, in an attempt to be "tough on crime" or attempt to dictate the framework of the judicial system to ensure a minimum sentencing. It's just rare that the police force itself is to blame. Blame mostly falls back to the people writing the laws.
If the police have become a punishing force, or even make the rules, then something has gone very wrong. Now even in civilized societies things sometimes goes wrong, e.g. the parliament provides police with too broad a framework to operate within, in an attempt to be "tough on crime" or attempt to dictate the framework of the judicial system to ensure a minimum sentencing. It's just rare that the police force itself is to blame. Blame mostly falls back to the people writing the laws.
I must've just imagined the police preventing my neighbors' home burglary in the act, and stopping the time last week a man stripped naked and tried to assault the ladies at the nail salon. I'm the brainwashed one
Civil rights are a core educational experience that is sorely and fundamentally lacking in the US educational system.
> lacking in the US educational system
In most other countries, cops can ask for your ID and basic questions and detain you if you are not complying.
In most other countries, cops can ask for your ID and basic questions and detain you if you are not complying.
How law is actually used matters much more than these technicalities.
USA has one of the highest incarceration rates in the world, police brutality and police murdering people is a bigger concern than in most places where people have to show ID on cue.
This is one of these "liberty cargo cult" rights, like the right to bear arms or not having 1 unique identifier. It sounds nice in theory, but in practice it doesn't really help in the rare cases for which it was designed, and it makes things harder on the happy path.
USA has one of the highest incarceration rates in the world, police brutality and police murdering people is a bigger concern than in most places where people have to show ID on cue.
This is one of these "liberty cargo cult" rights, like the right to bear arms or not having 1 unique identifier. It sounds nice in theory, but in practice it doesn't really help in the rare cases for which it was designed, and it makes things harder on the happy path.
they most certainly cannot detain you without a cause. in the context of what you wrote, if you do not have your id, which is not mandatory to carry, they can detain you for 48 hours in order to establish your identity, but if they fail they have to let you go.
[deleted]
wiseowise(4)
Haha. First time submitting a link (and it blowing up, it’s on page 4!). I’m in wonder how I did unleash all this stream of comments, as my eyes are fixed on the karma point, reloading the page, watching it increase like it never did before, despising myself for that at the same time for falling to the gamification and thinking it’s time to nuke my HN account.
this again? it is good advice sometimes, but also good advice if you want a long ride to the station because you refused to identify yourself and give information.
[deleted]
He actually updates his stance a touch from the content in the video. Particularly in not just invoking your 5th amendment (the right not self incriminate), but also the 6th (the right to a lawyer before being interrogated)
Also this is not a "if you have nothing to hide" kind of conversation, see another top item on HN today:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36367147 ( People Can Be Convinced They Committed a Crime That Never Happened (psychologicalscience.org) )