Hacker News Reader

Comment by rPlayer6554 | Hacker News Reader

Every American should watch this video. There is no reason to talk to the police, it will pretty much never help you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE

Edit: The lawyer made a follow up video clarifying that in routine traffic stops police do have autonomy. So as long as you are reasonable and just showing the policeman you aren't a public menace is seems ok. For any other reason I'd have my lawyer on me no matter what.

Also this video specifically pertains to the 5th US constitutional amendment.

Also IANAL but the guy in the video is.

View on HN

Unfortunately, that advice isn't great, either. The police have the authority to arrest you for pissing them off. They may not be able to charge you with anything, but they can make your day a lot worse before releasing you. And there is basically nothing you can do about it.

If a police officer pulls you over and you start pulling the "I've been told never to talk to the police", you're escalating the encounter before it even starts. That's no excuse for police abusing their authority, but they've got the authority and you don't.

Lawyers have told me to use your best judgment. Cooperate as long as the police are being cooperative, and the odds are you'll go about your day with only minor aggravation. Only escalate to the "I don't talk to police" when they start getting hostile with you. This is, I'm told, what the lawyers themselves do.

This is for minor encounters, like traffic stops or ordinary questions. If you're actually taken in or you're a suspect, yeah, shut up and wait for your lawyer.

And, uh, this is the advice they give to me as a white man. It may not apply if you're somebody more likely to be subject to abuse.

None of this is good. It's very, very bad. This advice is not about fairness; it's about trying to make your life as least-worst as possible.

The lawyer made a follow up video clarifying that in routine traffic stops police do have autonomy. So as long as you are reasonable and just showing the policeman you aren't a public menace. So I can agree that is reasonable. For any other reason I'd have my lawyer on me no matter what.

Could you please link to that video?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIt-l2YmH8M

Thanks

Hard agree here. I've had two run ins with the police (in the UK - I made a mistake driving and was pulled over, and the other was just wrong place wrong time) and in both cases just being civil removed me from the situation in less than 15 minutes. If I had started parroting the "I refuse to speak to the police" line in either scenario it would have been a whole whole lot worse.

But the UK isn't the US, and staying silent wouldn't be beneficial to us, in fact it would probably make it worse.

The video is specifically about the 5th amendment to the US constitution and has nothing to do with the UK legal system.

Aggravatingly, in the US, even the most routine traffic stop frequently runs considerably more than 15 minutes. I don't know precisely what's going on. They take your driver's license and registration back to their car, presumably to run it through some kind of database.

Does that take 20 minutes? I dunno. Or maybe they're doing paperwork, or playing solitaire, or maybe just wasting your time because they can. The process is incredibly opaque. Even if it's necessary, it's unclear why, and I've never had a traffic stop that didn't feel abusive.

I'm always super placating about it in an attempt to keep it from getting even worse. Fortunately, it has only happened a very small number of times -- all of which were for minor violations that could easily have been "Hey, I saw you do X. Don't do that again." (Which actually did happen once -- for failing to turn my lights on in the daytime. Which was written on a sign. Presumably about some kind of visibility, I guess. But at least they didn't fine me over it, or take up more than 5 minutes.)

Having worked with some law enforcement records software I can say that "paperwork" (which now involves filling out electronic forms) and waiting for state database queries to come back are definitely a time suck. The officers who I know would like the process to be faster as well. Being stopped on the roadside is a dangerous situation that nobody wants to be in longer than necessary.

That's really good to know, actually. It makes the waiting a bit less aggravating to think that they're not just trying to piss me off.

Not sure where you live but 15 minutes is way long for a traffic stop. I was in a traffic accident and it took 15 minutes for the police to do everything he needed including an automated print out with my court date (hit someone at low speed from behind). Same deal when I was speeding, less than 10 mins with a full print out with pay X fine or appear on Y date. All automated.

The pot brothers at law made a video of how they got a guy off at a weed distribution plant because he kept his mouth shut. The prosecutor couldn't prove he was an employee, customer touring, or what. All because they shut up and didnt say anything.

And the ones who tried to evade responsibility by saying that they weren’t employees, just volunteers, got busted for distribution.

I had two police officers at my door a couple of years ago, turns out my neighbour had died and they wondered if I'd heard anything or not heard anything from him.

Apparently the correct advice is to refuse to say anything without a lawyer, which I'm certain would be the end of the matter. I wonder if it's lawyers (paid $500/hour or whatever) who suggest that advice.

I am pretty sure it is lawyers who are suggesting the advice but not sure if that makes it based out of greed.

If you look at it from a lawyer's perspective: The majority of my clients who speak to the police(either before or after employing me) have a large amount of trouble. So therefore it is ill advised to speak to the police.

What they are missing: All the people who spoke with police and had no problems.

It is sample bias.

The guys a lawyer yeah, but the advice isn’t to offer the cop a chance to talk with you with a lawyer; it’s to avoid talking to cops at all. Then if the cops try to force an interview anyway, that’s where the “without a lawyer” comes in; if they’re arresting you then they should have other PC and you’ll be needing a lawyer anyway.

And the whole point is that even in your case, it’s not directly beneficial to you to answer even innocuous questions about your neighbor’s death; at best it doesn’t change any suspicions on you, but at worst there is a chance that your answers could make you a person of interest when you weren’t one before.

If you have a disfunctional police force that may be the case, but when I cold shoulder my local pc (who I've spoken to a couple of times at parish council meetings about speeding issues in the village), that's clearly going to be increasing suspicions on me.

Your claim "not directly beneficial to you" is also odd. Not talking to the police and thus not finding out there's a murderer around?

Maybe it's different in third world countries where the police don't care about the public and are just a law to themselves, that's certainly not the case where I live.

Technically they don't have that right. Detainment without reasonable suspicion, and arrest without probable cause, are crimes called Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law. It is a felony punishable by up to ten years in prison. Funnily enough, if you've ever heard a cop say a variant of the phrase "you can beat the rap but not the ride", that is essentially admission of such criminal action by the cop...if they think that the evidence is sparse enough that you won't be charged with a crime, then they do not have probable cause grounds to arrest you, and by continuing with the arrest, they commit a felony.

Unfortunately, we can probably count the number of cops charged with that crime on zero hands. I'm increasingly convinced that our entire police problem in the US boils down to our incentives that we give to prosecutors which make them avoid any attempt to hold cops accountable for their crimes. I'm not sure what the solution is, but having independent prosecutors for police crimes might be a good start.

With regards to your point about cooperating until the cop starts acting adversarial, I think that advice applies to someone who is intelligent and informed about the law enough to understand when a cop is actually trying to coerce an admission. It might be good advice for you, but it might actually be terrible advice for someone else.

> I'm not sure what the solution is, but having independent prosecutors for police crimes might be a good start

It would have to be an almost entirely separate career path once you stepped into it. Once you've prosecuted a few cops, I'm sure that will follow you as a prosecutor wherever you go, and good luck hiding it. Gotta either stay in that game or advance to the point you no longer need to work with cops (become a judge I guess)

The problem is if in doing your job you piss off the wrong cops, you too become a target.

I'm a firefighter / paramedic.

Cops have arrested paramedics providing patient care on accident scenes for varying slights.

Cops have come to hospitals where their off-duty drunk buddy runs a red light and t-boned someone else, and demanded nurses do blood draws (without a warrant) of the other party looking for intoxication, and then arrested the nurse for refusing.

All groups that (rightly or wrongly, I'm making no judgment here, just observing) are considered to be "on the same side", are only on that side as long as it is not inconvenient to those cops, then they're as much a target as anyone else.

> Cops have come to hospitals where their off-duty drunk buddy runs a red light and t-boned someone else, and demanded nurses do blood draws (without a warrant) of the other party looking for intoxication, and then arrested the nurse for refusing.

If you are referring to the incident in Salt Lake City, you might be pleased to know that the nurse in question ended up getting a $500,000 settlement: https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/11/01/561337106...

edit: Oh, and the cop was fired, too.

It should be noted that the cop claimed he did nothing wrong and sued for wrongful termination for $1.5M, and the police union, representing all of their officers, supported him.

The Overton window that cops believe exists about acceptable cop behavior is unfathomably out of line with reality. That's the reason why police oppose citizen backed reviews of their conduct. Makes me wonder how many people with similar circumstances but less publicity get swept under the rug.

I think "I've put dozens of cops behind bars" would be an excellent sales pitch, as well as resume boost, for a criminal defense attorney.

Unfortunately, I am well aware that I don't know when they're trying to coerce an admission. One of the things I'm most terrified of is being asked "Do you know why I pulled you over?", and I can't think of any answer that doesn't have the potential to land me in a lot of trouble.

I feel like that question is going to be hostile no matter what. I've been told by police that they don't use it, but didn't rule out the notion that others might.

I've never had an encounter with the police worse than a basic traffic stop, so I've never really had to apply the "don't talk" advice. I hope I never do. Because I'm quite certain I'll do the wrong thing, regardless of what I do.

>"Do you know why I pulled you over?"

The only safe answer to that, period, is "No". Even if you think the cop pulled you over because you were going 100 in a 55, you still don't know, it's not ever going to be a lie, and anything else can legitimately be taken as an admission of guilt in court

> "Do you know why I pulled you over?"

His advice probably works well for himself. It is easy to tell for anyone who pulls him over from the way he talks that he is a lawyer. And a decent lawyer can make a lot of inconvenient paperwork for the police department when he's working "for free".

By the time you realize you should (have) shut up, it's already too late

A traffic stop is its own thing. You've presumably given them probable suspicion that you've committed some sort of infraction. Everything from something very innocuous like weaving within your lane to them seeing you run a red light. You're officially being detained, you're not free to go, and you have to answer their questions. Depending on your state, their questions may have to be related to the original purpose of the traffic stop unless they've got probably suspicion of some other infraction.

Nobody with a law degree has ever suggested that at a traffic stop you start off by saying you're not answering questions and to call your lawyer.

I'm sure nobody with a law degree ever said that, but that's how the advice is commonly portrayed.

Look at one of the top posts on reddit today: https://www.reddit.com/r/funny/comments/olecn5/know_your_rig...

It seems like a lot of people think that its what you should do! I personally think its dumb for a traffic stop

Even a simple traffic stop should make one cautious of what they say. E.g., when the cop says "What's your hurry?", and you say something trying to excuse your behavior, such as "I really have to go to the bathroom, sir!", you have just admitted guilt, and they will note that on the ticket and use it against you in court. I'm not saying to tell them "Sorry, I don't talk to cops", but rather don't admit to anything. Say something like, "I'm in no hurry, sir. How's your day going?". Then just take your ticket, and take your chances in court.

After some time educating myself on this manner, I ran into police while (maybe) speeding. I hit brakes as soon as I spot them to get on speed limit, and as I passed them they started to follow, stopping me shortly after.

The conversation went exactly like parent comment describes: "You must be in a hurry when you drive so fast". I, knowing they probably have no proof of my speeding, responded with "Well, I drive a car", intentionally evading anything incriminating.

They tried again a few times with "You drive always this fast?" And "Well you must have driven fast, since we saw you breaking hard when you saw us", to both of which I replied with a smile and "I drive a car".

After roughly three times I told them I drive a car, it seemed they got the hint they aint gonna get anything on me, so they gave me 10$ fine for my two weeks expired driving licence (I had no idea), for which I thanked them for letting me know.

Funny thing is, they tested me for alcohol, but regarding drug test they told they wont test me as they think I am not a drug user. That surprised me, as my two stops before I was tested for drugs. I account that to my confidence (and good mood thanks to it) during this last encounter, as the two before happened before I educated myself and was nervous.

Tldr: educate yourself to the point of being confident during traffic stop and it might go much smoother

There's a movie I saw a while back where the main character was being interrogated by police, and in the scene the suspect just kept responding "Lawyer" to any question they asked.

There's a bit of a stigma, in the U.S. at least, that if you ask for a lawyer, you must be guilty. Probably comes from too much propaganda type television.

Asking for someone who understands law to come and help you is a very smart move.

IANAL, so take this with the requisite grain of salt, but the justice system has the power to be real dicks about how the right to a lawyer has to be invoked[1]. I would go with a very explicit request for a lawyer.

[1]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/true-crime/wp/2017/11/02...

Ah, Louisiana, the state that pioneered the right to a jury trial for misdemeanors.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duncan_v._Louisiana

This is absolutely bonkers

Not sure if it also happened in a movie, but that's definitely from a scene in Better Call Saul.

If you explicitly tell the cops that you are invoking your right to remain silent and request that your attorney be present, they have to immediately stop questioning you until your attorney is present. But you don't get that by simply being silent, saying "lawyer" repeatedly, etc. You have to explicitly say it.

Apparently "I want a laywer dawg" doesnt count.

That video is great, but these guys sum it up a bit more succinctly: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgWHrkDX35o

That video is hardly the final word on the matter, nor are defense attorneys necessarily paragons of good citizenship, honesty and integrity.

If a loved one of yours is kidnapped, I imagine you'll hope the witnessess will talk to the police.

Sure I would, but that doesn't mean it's in those people's best self interest to do so.

I am not so cynical as to think it would be a bad idea or "against self interest", in most cases, to report a crime to the police.

I am cynical enough to think that a defense attorney might act like a paperclip maximizer and optimize for "nobody goes to jail, ever, whatever the consequences to society" when giving advise on a Youtube video.

One might also suspect the reason that video is so often cited is because it is so extreme, and people are biased to repost wacky "meme-like" catch phrases like "don't talk to the police" instead of more even-minded advise.

To your first point: Cops have "meme-like" thoughts and sayings as well ("9 out of 10 times, the spouse did it", etc.) that would prove the attorney's point: by involving the cops, you're going to get investigated to some degree. The more serious the crime, the more likely this is.

It's not cynical for a defense attorney to have the goal of "the people I represent never go to jail". It's literally his job. The fact that he then takes that advice out of his office and onto YouTube as part of his advertising his practice also seems reasonable.

IDK if you murder-raped 100,000 people. Due process is due process. The worse the charge the higher the level of effort I'm expecting from the cops. If they can't get charges to stick, what are they even there for?

You wrote "It's not cynical for a defense attorney to have the goal of "the people I represent never go to jail"

You are responding to something I never said. The attorney does not represent people watching the Youtube video. He isn't giving advise to clients but saying things to society at large.

I have a feeling you would not actually folllow the attorney's advise in the real world. If you saw someone being raped in front of your house would you call 911 or would you say "the Youtuber with a law degree told me not to. "

I suspect you would do the right thing and talk to the 911 operator. So why defend the video?

To respond to what you feel is your point: 911 operators are not police officers in my state (NJ). They take and log calls and information, and may hand it over to the police, but they are not responsible for investigating crimes.

I can call 911, report a crime is being committed with the intention of having the police intervene, provide no additional details beyond that, and then never speak to a police officer unless they subpoena testimony from me (and even then, issue statements through a lawyer).

This is why I'm defending the video. We live in a society, and I fully accept that while also accepting that I don't trust cops ever under any circumstances period.

Suppose the rapist drags the victim into the bushes. The cops show up, look around and say "we got a report of an attack."

I do in fact believe you are going to talk to the police and tell them where the attacker is. In fact I believe the guy who made the video will too.

Even if you're right (which I personally doubt) - that would more be a commentary on how people can be convinced to assume risk without any upside rather than a rationale of why it's a good idea to voluntarily talk to the police.

I'd argue it's more a commentary on how the lawyer making the video is pretending to be less moral than the median human being and is probably not as lacking in human decency as he is pretending to be for performative career reasons.

Though your framing in terms of pure selfishness (risk and upside to the person talking to the police without consideration for anyone else) is probably irrational unless you are also opposed to altruism.

If you generally despise altruism and are not wired for emotions like "guilt" I believe you may in fact not talk to the police in that scenario.

> is probably irrational unless you are also opposed to altruism.

No, it just means that I value my personal well-being over those of others. Maybe to an extent you dislike, but that's also part of my point - the expectation that other people should place themselves at risk for your well-being could also be interpreted as a selfish or self-entitled attitude.

And suppose the cops are actually aliens, and they take me on their starship, and head out for the skys.

They'll say, come sail away, come sail away, come sail away with me.

Stop moving the goal posts. I'm going to do exactly what I said. But by all means, find me IRL and do a rape in front of my house to see what happens. It's the only way to actually prove any of this.

</talking in this thread>

Reporting a crime where you are not the victim is a bad idea unless you can do so anonymously. The crime could be part of organized criminal activity, and organized crime is often in cahoots with, or at least has informants within, police departments. It could come back to you. This is not fantasy; I know of people in New York that his happened to.

>If a loved one of yours is kidnapped

How often do you think this happens? How often do you think police overstepping their limitations happens?

Kidnappings (and pretty much any crime imaginable) would happen a lot more if everyone listened to the advise of never talking to the police.

People can protect themselves from police oversteps without listening to extreme advise from someone suggesting we pretend we don't live in a society.

I'd think any reasonable advise would consider the probability that talking to police in any particular scenario would lead to bad outcomes vs good outcomes, but maybe that's not catchy enough to be retweeted on social networks.

Two recent episodes of the "Criminal" podcast [0] documented that it's a bad idea for even victims of kidnapping to report to police. In this case, it wasn't because the kidnappers punished the victims for reporting, but because the police themselves harmed the victims.

[0] https://thisiscriminal.com/episode-167-48-hours-6-18-21/

My blood boiled as I listened to that story.

My impression is that cops are incentivized to close the case much more than they are to find the truth, and the most prominent targets of their investigation will be friends, acquaintances, and family members, so even in the unlikely case of a loved one being kidnapped you should be very careful and probably talk to them only through a lawyer.

The real fool in that story was the Fed brother. How could an FBI agent really believe that running to the local cops was the best thing to do first? That is a complete misunderstanding of every aspect of USA criminal justice system. I don't know how that guy avoids getting drummed out of the bureau after this podcast.

[EDIT:] Some people might think prosecutors are better such "paragons" than defense attorneys. They should pray they never find out how wrong that is.

No I do not think that. Prosecutors often switch sides to being defense attorneys as a career progression .

If you think prosecutors are seedy you should feel the same about defense attorneys.

Another common "career progression" is for attorneys to become judges. Now we've established that everyone in the courtroom is "seedy". Still, citizens are often surprised by the awful performance of the USA justice system.

Anyway, the defense attorneys to whom poor people have access (public defenders and other low-cost providers) are seldom former prosecutors, so they could possibly be decent humans. That they face so many obstacles is a good sign of the priorities of the system.

If I'm a witness, I'm happy to tell them about my observations of the crime, but I will shut them down if they start asking about me and my possible involvement, even if I think it's just implied.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com