Hacker News Reader

Comment by tzs | Hacker News Reader

Hypothetical: you are visiting a zoo. You see a bear get out of its enclosure, grab a baby human, and run away. You are the only witness who saw which direction the bear ran.

A police officer comes running up and asks where the bear went.

Question: Do you tell him, or do you say that you will not talk without a lawyer present?

I've asked people on Reddit similar questions when this video has come up there, and a lot of them say they would not talk without a lawyer, based on the video.

I'm curious how many here feel that way.

View on HN

If you re-word that to say "dingo" instead of "bear", I think you'll realize that reddit was probably right.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Azaria_Chamberlain

I have no words. That's just ... altogether incredible.

I know this isn’t Reddit, but:

‘Maybe the dingo ate your ba-by!’

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghCTZF61ey0

The problem is, saying anything may cause you a world of hurt (e.g., obviously since you know so much you were the one who set the bear free) and will bring you absolutely no benefits, whereas saying nothing carefully is safe.

Yes, there is that minor detail of your conscience, but then again, in a society that's so dangerously crazy, that allows the police-judicial complex so much freedom to harm so many innocents, or harmless or most-harmless "clueless" (as used in http://www.amazon.com/Arrest-Proof-Yourself-Ex-Cop-Reveals-A...), just how much duty do you owe to those who are not kin or close friends? Given the possible consequences of using my guns in defense of others, no matter how legitimately or legally, I've had to make this decision ahead of time, and it has to be that limited.

As the government gets ever more predatory, I suspect we're getting an education in why various more "primitive" societies are that way, why family, clan and tribe are so very important in them.

I have debated that with other people.

If you have important evidence to solve a crime like that (missing children is a great example), the best thing to do is give your evidence to the police in as anonymous a fashion as possible, and also try to give strong signals that the evidence is credible.

The complaints people have with the system is that it incentivizes silence. I think most people don't advocate "don't talk to the police" because they want to see innocent people harmed (as in your example). It's precisely because they don't want to see innocent people harmed by police whose incentives, frankly, don't match up with "trying to find innocence".

Missing unattended baby, and I was the only witness? I want nothing to do with that. I'd point in the correct direction then run in the opposite direction, as presumably everybody else was doing (because hey, escaped bear).

If we replaced police officer with federal agent, I would probably not talk. Making false statements[0] and all.

[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Making_false_statements

I think there's a difference between: "Hey, did you see which direction [insert bad situation that just happened that the police can help with] went!?"

and

"Do you know how fast you were going?"

…except that answering any questions at all by the police now means that the police can accuse you of some unrelated crime and use your silence at that point against you.

This is going to be a rough one, but in the hypothetical situation provided, how?

I am guessing the angle would be something related to why you and the baby were the only two people present if you were not the parent. If you were the parent, then I would be concerned about being blamed for somehow purposely causing the incident. Aside from the police I would be worried about the parents and any civil case they might try to bring in some misguided attempt to find someone to blame in their grief.

These are probably unlikely concerns, but I can imagine them and I don't like them. If there were other people around then these issues would be mitigated... but I would also feel no pressure to talk to anyone.

Sadly, they're probably more likely than we give them credit for; and it's really unfortunate.

Let's say that you tell the officer: "The baby ran off with the bear that way." According to this case, you have now waved your 5th amendment rights. Now let's say, instead of running after the bear, the officer asks you "where did you hide the baby?"

Now, if you're smart, you would keep your mouth shut. You're innocent and anything you say can and will be used against you, in the event that the officer doesn't or refuses to believe you. But, according to this case, if you do keep your mouth shut then the officer can now offer as evidence to the court the fact that once he asked you specifically about the location of the baby, you didn't answer.

The prosecutor will then, legally, stand before a jury begging the question "why didn't he just answer the question? Obviously because he is guilty." Now you're the guy last seen with a missing baby who refused to say where the baby was. You're obviously guilty.

I, for one, will never speak to another on duty officer again except to the extent required by law.

Ok, so how does that work. You're stopped on the road, what do you do? You don't just sit there in the care not saying one word right?

>except to the extent required by law.

Depending on the state and situation, you are required to by law to answer certain questions. I would answer these questions and otherwise ask if I am free to go.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com