Hacker News Reader

Comment by jjoonathan | Hacker News Reader

But we just got done establishing that police officers have

1) The authority to imprison you on a whim and suffer no repercussions for exercising that authority in ways that judges and other police officers agree is excessive.

2) The authority to lie about what you said or didn't say and suffer no repercussions.

There's a large cost associated with the "never talk to police" strategy, and it only starts to probabilistically pay off after you've gotten to the point of requiring complex court proceedings (which you might never have gotten to if you were more cooperative in the first place).

View on HN

They can always lie about you. Control what you have control over. If you force them to lie, maybe you can force them to lie stupidly, and that may save you some point down the line.

The point is that there is no way that talking will help you. They are trying to make a case against you.

There are many ways talking can help. It can help you avoid the police officer's discretionary punishments. It can help you avoid increased scrutiny that turns up something incriminating. It's less probable that it will help you avoid being punished due to a baldfaced lie on the part of the officer, since presumably the courts are good at filtering those out, but it's not impossible.

Once you require the services of a trial lawyer, the benefits of talking are off the table and the price of silence looks like pocket change. That's why you hear the advice "never talk to the police." Not because it's a good idea in general (try it next time you get a traffic ticket and tell me how it goes), but because it's a very bad idea in certain very specific cases, which happen to be precisely the cases seen by those giving the advice. Your prior probabilities are different, and your behavior should reflect that.

Non-cooperation is just as likely to make a cop lose interest as cooperation. When you cooperate to the degree that you're obligated to, and decline where you're not, that can cause a cop who respects the law and knows that they have no cause to move on, and I've seen it happen often. It can also piss him/her off and make them decide to try to ruin your life. The more you speak to a cop, the more likely you are to say something that you'll regret. The only indication that talking will cause the cop to let you walk away is the gentle look in his eyes.

Thinking that you can control the situation is a mistake. If the result of this police contact results in a criminal charge, you may have saved yourself from the worst possible outcome (at the time) by being silent. You can't make a cop not beat you to death by talking.

Silence is simply a dominant strategy.

> Non-cooperation is just as likely to make a cop lose interest as cooperation.

If they're in a good mood today. Maybe.

> The more you speak to a cop, the more likely you are to say something that you'll regret.

Yes. My point was that staying completely silent makes it more likely you'll piss off the cop. You'll regret that, too.

> Thinking that you can control the situation is a mistake.

Right back at you.

> You can't make a cop not beat you to death by talking.

If you can make a cop beat you to death by (in their eyes) being obstinate, the difference is immaterial.

> Silence is simply a dominant strategy.

I still don't buy it, unless the cop is already antagonized or you suspect that a judge/jury will be involved before this is all over.

I can't recommend enough watching this video. The law professor explains why you should never speak to the police. It's 46 minutes long, but every minute is pure gold.

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

This. A thousand times this.

I find it ironic that when the cop starts talking he mentions that in the US people should be thankful because they are given a Miranda warning, because, according to him, in other parts of the world like in "Spain and Italy" cops beat up citizens. Last time I check such abuse can't be seen anywhere in Europe. More cop BS.

To be fair, as an Italian living in Spain, there have been cases in recent years where "cops beat up citizens" in both countries, mostly occurring during large rallies.

Still, these occurrences are isolated cases, receive large media attention and are definitely not considered "the norm".

Don't take my comment out of context: the video refers to the context of an interrogation, questioning, stop by the police. Not a riot. The policeman follows the presentation by the lawyer regarding the 5th amendment, where it applies, and how it used, where do Miranda warning apply, etc., in line with HN link conversation. This is not a topic of riots - which is quite a different story to the OP.

Oh, it happens. In Germany as well: http://www.dw.de/preventing-police-brutality-in-germany/a-16...

But my impression is that it's rather less common than in the USA and the courts, prosecution and conservative public don't side with the police as much.

Yeah, it definitely can. I've lived in Europe all my life, and traveled over Europe since I was kid, and I've seen mainland European police openly abusing people on the street. I've seen cops randomly firing their firearms in the air as 'crowd control' (the crowd in question was three old women trying to get on a boat, this was in Greece), policing openly punching someone in the face for some remark they didn't like (again, Greece), police demanding a person's passport papers at a port and refusing to return them until UK police got involved (France), and so on.

The only countries where I've never seen any open abuse by police so far have been Britain and Germany, and I haven't spent a lot of time in Germany.

EDIT: Actually, there has recently been a famous case in Britain where a police officer shoved a citizen to the floor and the citizen died of internal injuries [0]. I didn't actually witness the abuse, but it proves that even the UK isn't immune.

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

> Last time I check such abuse can't be seen anywhere in Europe.

That sounds like wishful thinking. Where exactly did you check?

The video refers to the context of an interrogation, questioning, stop by the police. There seems to be a constant theme in the US regarding police abuse (and I'm not talking about a scenario of a riot, etc.) during these moments – that is what I refer to when I say "Last time I check such abuse can't be seen anywhere in Europe." Are there going to be cases of such police brutality? Sure. Is it as frequent as the cases in the US, absolutely not. Do take a look at the NPMSRP reports and compare that to any EU country.

This video was what I had in mind when I wrote

> the "never talk to police" strategy ... only starts to probabilistically pay off after you've gotten to the point of requiring complex court proceedings (which you might never have gotten to if you were more cooperative in the first place).

> Once you require the services of a trial lawyer, the benefits of talking are off the table and the price of silence looks like pocket change. That's why you hear the advice "never talk to the police." Not because it's a good idea in general (try it next time you get a traffic ticket and tell me how it goes), but because it's a very bad idea in certain very specific cases, which happen to be precisely the cases seen by those giving the advice. Your prior probabilities are different, and your behavior should reflect that.

This is good stuff - also why privacy is so damn important - those who don't believe in it are simply clueless, or morons, or logically both.

> try it next time you get a traffic ticket and tell me how it goes

It worked quite well, thank you. I did not say a word, gave the cop my license and registration as required by law, signed my ticket, and hired a lawyer to get it thrown out later.

Why hire a lawyer for a traffic ticket? Would that not cost more and kind of be a waste of time for everyone.

While the fine itself was negligible, a moving violation significantly increases insurance premiums. A lawyer who specializes in fighting traffic tickets is far cheaper than overpaying for insurance for the next decade.

Some people have it has a hobby. I know a guy who on principle never pays a parking or traffic ticket without dragging the whole thing through court for as long as he can. For him the time and money involved are immaterial when compared to the principal of the matter.

In Croatia you now get a 50% discount if you pay the ticket on the spot.

On the spot, like cash directly to the cop?

Are you describing a bribe?

No, not a bribe, just the new laws, see http://www.croatiaweek.com/tag/traffic-fine. And it seems to be working quite well for now.

In the US and many other countries you have an adversarial legal system [1]. Cooperating or waiving any rights seldom gives you a tactical advantage. Be polite when stopped but don't be a pushover.

I used to drive for a living and would speed all day. Every day. Not excessively or recklessly, I had over a million miles without any preventable accidents. But still I would always exceed the speed limit on a clear stretch of road by 10-30mph or so. The extra income from this more than offset the occasional legal bill. By a large margin (somewhat ironically my job's 'safety' bonuses usually covered the lawyer fees). I sped, kept my record clean, and never accepted a ticket without legal representation.

I'm not advocating that others do this or that it was smart, I'm just saying that for some people it makes mathematical sense to speed + hire lawyers versus doing the speed limit and/or accepting tickets without challenging them.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adversarial_system]

I'm glad it worked, but that isn't proof of much. We already know most cops aren't out to get you, the question is what to do when you face one of the stinkers.

I wish you the best of luck in the future, specifically with regard to the moods of the police officers who will try to speak with you.

I disagree and here is why. Even in a perfect world with perfect integrity of the police, volunteering informtion when you are the subject of an investigation is generally a bad idea.

The problem is this: "investigation" in any discipline means "finding a story that matches what I can show." This means whatever you say that matches the story will be held on to and whatever you say that doesn't match it will be easily forgotten. This is the root of confirmation bias. It's a very dangerous thing in this context.

Yes there are times to talk to the police. Give an alibi along with sources who can confirm it if that is relevant. But say as little as possible. Stick to the minimal details. The less you say, the less they are likely to grab a hold of something you said and hang you with it.

But remember: The job of the police is to arrest someone and tell a good plausible story as to why they are guilty. They are there to gather evidence. The DA is there to convince a jury. Nobody can know what really happened who wasn't there. So don't give them ideas.

It's easier for them to misremember what you said (or "misremember" what you said) when you said something then when you said nothing at all. I believe that - on most police forces - even the most problematic officers are worried about telling outright lies that might be shown to be outright lies.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com