Hacker News Reader

Comment by int_19h | Hacker News Reader

I think the point is that police etc should not behave in such a way that many people immediately assume that an encounter would likely be antagonistic.

Basically, if you're afraid to go ask a police officer for help (which, apparently, is fairly common among black people in US, for example), then something is very wrong about police, and needs to be fixed.

View on HN

Thank you, this is exactly what I meant in the ancestor post.

It's a difficult situation, because different people have different opinions on what the role of law enforcement should be in proactively addressing upcoming behavior that they believe may develop to be criminal. By engaging in targeted mass surveillance in ahead of a suspected protest, the police in this situation is literally preparing for a confrontation, contributing to an antagonistic relationship between (this slice of) the community and the police.

I don't believe this approach is productive, but I recognize some people hold a different opinion. However, when this approach causes knock-on chilling effects and reduces the likelihood that people needing help will call upon police [1], I believe it's a detriment to the health of society.

[1] http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/09/police-v...

It's worse than that. Some prominent lawyers advise that everyone should never talk to the police.

Which is very good advice, but it's because of the fact that testimony given to a police officer can only ever be used against you (it's hearsay otherwise). Not to mention that if someone slips up and accidentally tells a lie in the middle of a testimony, that instills doubt in the entire testimony ("I didn't kill her, I've never killed anyone, I've never even used a gun, I wasn't in the area that night" sounds fine until the last part if it turns out you were in that suburb that night).

Basically, to a lawyer a client talking to the police is giving the prosecution ammunition. Not to mention that nobody (not even the supreme court) can claim to know every federal law that applies to a person at a particular time (there was a quote for that but I can't find it on my phone right now).

Which is very good advice, but [..]

Wrong conjunction? It seems like you're explaining why it is good advice, not offering an opposing view.

I think you have given a perfect illustration of the GGP's assertion that "if you're afraid to go ask a police officer for help [..] then something is very wrong about police". This is a good example where the law sets up the police as antagonists against the general population.

My point with the "but" was that the reason why lawyers advise this is not because police are trying to harm you. It's because in general, people are very bad at law and providing testimony. So maybe I should've clarified that -- the police are not at fault for doubting flawed testimony.

To be fair, police do engage in manipulative tactics in questioning, but that's kinda their job. The job of the person being interrogated is to ask for your lawyer and say nothing else.

It's good to keep in mind how police are incentivized. They are paid to arrest suspects and close cases. Whether or not they nab the wrong person hardly matters to them. So although they generally may not intend to harm you they will gladly do so if it increases the numbers on which they are graded. And if you happen to have some cash on you when you make the mistake of talking to them then there is the bonus opportunity of asset forfeiture.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com