Hacker News Reader

Comment by mikeash | Hacker News Reader

How is it "dangerous"? I'm expressing my personal opinion on a relatively obscure site on the internet. It is one of the least dangerous activities I can imagine.

View on HN

timv: the OP is warning people to avoid talking to cops. "Most cops are good" is a very common sentiment that is even inculcated in kids growing up attending public schools. This widespread common belief contributes to people speaking naively to police and thereby getting themselves in trouble. That is what I meant by dangerous. I didn't explain this in my reply to mikeash because it seemed to me that mikeash was being obtuse given the context of the OP.

Edit in reply to rosser: I agree with you there.

The good cop:bad cop ratio is utterly orthogonal to whether or not it's a terrible idea to talk to them without a lawyer present. They still have to do their jobs, and if you say something in the course of speaking with them that furthers their investigation, directly or indirectly, they're kinda obligated to pursue it.

Even if they're the nicest person you've ever met.

Your argument does not rest on most cops being good cops, it stands if some cops are good cops. So why throw in an assertion you can't back up?

You asserted that it was "dangerous" for him to bandy around such statements.

Care to back up that assertion?

"Unnecessary" and "dangerous" are quite different.

The very blog post which prompted this discussion explains the danger of assuming even impartial investigative intentions of cops, let alone "good" ones.

The word "dangerous" is not exclusively used to indicate the likelihood of physical injury. It is also widely used to describe the likelihood of any undesirable consequences. The undesirable consequence in this case is a weakening of the argument being presented.

How does it weaken the argument? No one has put forth the idea that it is ok to talk to good cops. Don't talk to cops good, bad, or indifferent in nature.

Oh but he can.

See, he's not holding himself to your standard of evidence. That would require mass mindreading, plus the ability to irrevocably demonstrate the authenticity of such.

Rather, he's backing up that statement with evidence in the reader's head, counting on most readers to reflect back on their life experience and see if his statement fits. He has faith that it will. In my case, it does: I agree. I'll even upvote him.

Because this is an informal conversation, not some nitpicky debate society. Somebody asked a question and I gave my opinion as a response.

Can we agree that it's an assertion in advance of facts?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com