Don't talk to the police [video] | Hacker News Reader

Don't talk to the police [video]

youtube.com

123 pointsNewky37 comments

I'm a college instructor. Even though my courses have nothing to do with law, I show Duane's videos to every freshmen class. I got tired of seeing good students lose their fin-aid after the local cops go around and do their annual drug task-force roundup.

For years I've been skeptical of the efficacy of police tactics and strategy. I'd say that skepticism has evolved to a default of suspicion of any police activity.

I find myself contemplating installation of bars on my doors and windows, security fencing, etc; not for fear of "normal" crime, but of errant police activity. I wish I had some statistics upon which to base that notion. I'm a fairly normal, caucasian, middle-class guy with a wife and two kids, no criminal record; and I am more fearful that I will be harmed by police criminality or ineptitude than by non-police criminals.

Here's a nice article with lots of examples why your fear is not misplaced:

http://www.salon.com/2013/07/07/%E2%80%9Cwhy_did_you_shoot_m...

Thanks. Someone submitted it, being discussed here. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6001843

Here's a documentary you might enjoy: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2125653/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1

Your fear is generally misplaced, here[0] are police misconduct stats (granted they don't count every single episode of police misconduct) and here[1] are crime stats. Certainly one episode of police misconduct is too much, but it's not nearly as high as crimes the police weren't involved in.

I think sites like HN and reddit showcase police misconduct and this leads to an exaggerated view of how prevalent it is compared to other dangers. It's similar to the MSM and sexual abuse/stranger danger.

[0]http://www.policemisconduct.net/2010-npmsrp-police-misconduc...

[1]http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/crimestats

I would take these figures with a grain of salt because I doubt any accurate statistics of police misconduct are kept.

Certainly not, but it's not even close. There were ~5,000 reports of police misconduct and ~12,000 homicides in 2010.

This may be true, but police misconduct is everywhere and most of those homicides are localized to places I don't live.

This is exactly what I was trying to say.

Of course there is a lot more non-police crime than there are reported incidents of police misconduct. What about simple mistakes? I'm not sure if buffoonery is counted as misconduct. What I'm really referring to though, is what is my own personal exposure to risk of harm? I wouldn't be surprised to find that it is more likely that police might kick my door down and shoot my dogs, either by mistake, misunderstanding, or misuse of power, than say armed burglars.

The main difference of course is that murderers occasionally go to prison for killing people. Whereas the percentage of police ever actually convicted for committing a crime while on duty is so low they might as well have immunity.

They don't count every episode and are self-reported. I have a very hard time trusting those stats.

Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=219758

A few of the other submissions of this video:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5828793

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3605918

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3266782

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3015048

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1703988

There are probably more.

Apologies, I haven't seen it here before.

It's very common for items to be posted here on a semi-regular basis. Some things just appeal to the hacker mindset, and when seen, get posted. Mostly I'm providing a link to previous discussion so people can see what HN said about the matter last time.

A timeline would be an interesting feature to add to posts, but it might be difficult to prevent abuse, without adding up down voting on each timeline item.

Ugh, 'discussion' was submitted more than 5 years ago. The world has changed since then.

If nothing else, that makes it even more interesting to see the previous discussion, and see how attitudes have changed, if at all.

Do you have an automated method of generating this list?

The last person to do that got yelled at by everyone a lot :(

I always found it very useful.

I have a script. I put in search terms, it pops out the list of items, along with estimated numbers of comments. I then, by hand, construct the reply.

It seems to me that most of the issues are a result of the jury system, where people feel that the defendant is guilty or not.

There was an example at the end where a witness claims she saw the defentant at the crime scene. Her testimony would have been ignored because it is so unsupported.

But if the defendant stated to the police that he wasn't there, he could be accused of lying and thus be more likely to be convicted.

To me, this just doesn't make sense.

They mention at one point what people say when they are stopped by the police for speeding.

"Do you know how fast you were going?" "Well... 38...40?" (In a 35 MPH zone).

I was told to always say "No, Officer, I don't know why you pulled me over". This seems to be a good idea now, as it cannot be seen as a confession. What should you say when the officer pulls you over? Can you plead the 5th and say nothing? How well does that go over?

Are you not required to know what speed you were driving at? How else would you be able to stay under the limit?

A driver obviously cannot constantly keep his/her eyes on the instruments.

No obviously not, but you should have a sense of speed enough to not deviate much from the last time you checked.

Not precise enough that I would testify against myself or against someone else.

I don't get pulled over often, but the last time that I got pulled over I told the officer that I believed I was going the speed limit. It's a subtle distinction, but it seemed to work as he had no other reason to pull me over and didn't write me a ticket.

The last time I tried that the officer angrily barked back at me, "GIVE ME A NUMBER." So YMMV, I guess.

What if you really are doing 35 and tell the officer "I was doing 35"? Surely that's perfectly fine right?

No. You're required to not exceed the speed limit.

I suppose it depends what is the intended meaning of the question - you want my average speed over the last few minutes? Since you've been following me? The latter is probably the intended meaning and, in that case, I really can't be expected to know.

Any time a cop tries to trick you into incriminating yourself by asking you a question like "Do you know how fast you were going?" where giving any answer could be bad, i'd recommend just answering the question with a question, "How fast?". If he continues to badger you, simply remain very polite and refuse to directly answer any question and pass the response requirement back to the cop.

I've heard both that you should not answer for fear of incriminating yourself, and that you should answer because not knowing how fast you're going means you're negligent and that's also a crime. (I'm neither a lawyer nor know which is the better choice)

IANAL, but the way I've had it described to me is not knowing exactly how fast you're going is not negligence, as it's always a better idea to keep your eyes on the road instead of a speedometer. Hitting people is a potentially more serious crime than speeding. I'd love to hear a lawyer's take on this, however.

Had this a couple of times in the UK. It's a new tactic here. I think they learned it from some naff US cop reality show.

Neither time was I actually speeding. It was an estimate on their part and both were in an area with a good probability of bagging a moron who confesses immediately out of confusion.

Usually results in a frustrated piggy who asks to search the vehicle[1] which you don't have to agree to, insurance check, vehicle check and a warning to drive more carefully (bear in mind 450k miles driven, 22 years, advanced and clean driving license, no insurance claims, no speeding tickets, no parking tickets ever).

[1] I have considered purchasing a large quantity of cheap sex toys on Alibaba to keep in the back to make it embarrassing for them when I do agree for a search to be made...

According to the recent Salinas v. Texas decision it's not even enough to remain silent. You have to assert your 5th amendment privilege immediately.

As described in a number of articles, 'you don't have the right to remain silent.'

Reply on news.ycombinator.com