Comment by Johnny555 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by Johnny555 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

"This is true. If a local cop doesn't like what you're telling him, it's a lot more difficult for him to charge you with a felony, though."

Is it? How hard would it be for him to "find" enough drugs in your car to charge you with felony possession? Or charge you with assault against a police officer? (what assault? The one that he and his colleagues just "witnessed" while you claim you were handcuffed to a chair - who is the jury going to believe? You or 5 uniformed police officers who "saw" the whole thing?) Better hope you don't "steal" his gun and end up dead in a self-defense shooting.

There's a lot that a local cop can do to make your life miserable if he's not bound by law (or ethics)

Don't count on police cameras to keep you safe since they can "malfunction" when the video they capture may be inconvenient like "officials say all seven dashboard cameras in the police cruisers coincidentally malfunctioned." (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/03/26/...)

Those are all just as good as justifications for why to cooperate. If you believe the officers you are dealing with are willing use illegal practices to make your life difficult when you talk to them, what's to stop them from doing the same if you don't cooperate?

But what if you didn't do what they want you to confess to? Or what if they want you to admit that a friend or family member did something that you know they didn't do? Do you just confess to make it easier on yourself?

If you think you are being targeted as a suspect, that's one thing. If they are asking you simple questions (which is what a lot of this is about, people think they are helping law enforcement, when really they are being targeted) and you believe the law enforcement officers you are speaking of are willing to break the law on little provocation, your decision as to whether to cooperate or not should be more nuanced. Try not to say much without a witness of some sort, preferably a lawyer, but also try not to upset them. At that point are basically the same as mobsters, so act accordingly.

So basically, you're screwed because the fox is guarding the henhouse.

This is one place where ubiquitous surveillance can be a good thing - police cameras (body cams, dash cams, and police station cams) should be unalterable (with footage signed by a neutral 3rd party with civilian oversight) and non-disablable, if a police camera is turned off or is blocked, it should send out an "officer assistance" signal by radio, and courts should view police actions skeptically when they happen outside of camera view.

Release of footage can still be governed by the courts to protect suspect privacy, but there's no reason that a police officer's official actions should be kept from the public.

indeed, all those Chicago cops using their blacksite didn't seem to have any trouble doing what they please to their victims, including murdering them.

Unclear why this is getting downvoted, I googled and found reputable sources verifying the OP's claim. [0]

[0] http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/feb/24/chicago-polic...

I imagine because if you are going to make a polarizing claim like that, you should include a reputable citation, not require everyone who reads your comment to have to research whether it's true if they aren't familiar.

I thought it was big news a while back, but now it's old news. Not unimportant, but not the sort of thing that sounds so controversial that it must be cited every time.

Well, you don't necessarily need to cite it, but linking it to a real event and not an opinion by appending "as has been reported in the past" or even just "as we've seen" will take it from what appears to be a snide remark to the those ignorant of those events to something they may want to investigate further. It was just communicated more poorly than it could have been, and now we're all wasting our time on this rather than something more useful. :/

Reply on news.ycombinator.com