[HN Gopher] Don't Talk to Police (2012) [video]
___________________________________________________________________
Don't Talk to Police (2012) [video]
Author : Aerbil313
Score : 203 points
Date : 2023-06-17 15:48 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.youtube.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.youtube.com)
| paulpauper wrote:
| this again? it is good advice sometimes, but also good advice if
| you want a long ride to the station because you refused to
| identify yourself and give information.
| [deleted]
| lurquer wrote:
| Happily for the State, no matter how many times you give this
| obvious advice, people will still blab away and incriminate
| themselves.
|
| Ha. Even in a thread such as this peopled by highly educated
| types, you see comment after comment expressing some disbelief
| with this obvious advice.
|
| This advice precedes the 5th am, incidentally. So long as you
| live in a system where the State has the burden of proof, it is
| NEVER beneficial to say ANYTHING to a cop.
|
| But, like I said, many folks don't understand this. So, lawyers
| and prisons and judges will always have a job.
|
| I suppose it's like a senior programmer advising a noob not to
| create a pointer object using 'new()' within a frequently called
| function... but, folks will do it anyway. Oh well.
| RadixDLT wrote:
| what if you get into an accident, should you still give the
| police details?
| rad_gruchalski wrote:
| The answer in the title. Never talk to the police.
| qawwads wrote:
| How does that translate to internal investigations? Should you
| talk to HR? If you're in school, should you talk to the
| principal?
| boringuser2 wrote:
| I have a simple script that I have constructed to deal with the
| police when/if I ever get questioned. I feel it strikes a good
| balance between the potential ways of approaching this.
|
| _While I would like to be helpful to your investigation, in
| order to ensure my rights are protected, I cannot speak with you
| without a lawyer present. I appreciate your patience and
| understanding._
|
| In my mind, this balances being respectful, dealing with
| potential follow-ups in the vein of "only a guilty person would
| say that", shutting down potential conversation, etc.
|
| If anyone has good edits, I'm all ears.
| mplanchard wrote:
| As noted in another thread, it is probably worth adding an
| explicit statement that you're invoking your right to remain
| silent.
| boringuser2 wrote:
| In that case, I'd amend it like so.
|
| _While I would like to be helpful to your investigation, in
| order to ensure my rights are protected, I must invoke my
| right to be silent without a lawyer present. I appreciate
| your patience and understanding._
|
| I feel like there's some additional potential verbiage
| modification that can be made to make it more clear to the
| officer that you're trying to protect your rights and
| apologize for any inconvenience, but I can't put my finger on
| it. I think being cordial and respectful will deal with many
| potential negative side-effects of this approach.
|
| Granted, I'm trying to amolierate the side-effect of this
| frustrating an officer you're interacting with or triggering
| their sense that you're actually guilty, causing yourself a
| greater headache. It's not about what's right, it's about
| what's effective.
| mplanchard wrote:
| I think this is a reasonable approach. I would personally
| not add the additional apologies though, in case that winds
| up being spun in court later somehow.
|
| Something like "I am invoking my 5th amendment right to
| remain silent and will not answer any questions without a
| lawyer present" is sufficient.
|
| _Most_ cops will be fine with this. They know the game a
| lot better than you. They're not asking you questions to
| try to have a pleasant interaction with you. They're
| fishing for things they can nab you on, and they know it.
| So, showing that you also know the game and clamming up
| isn't necessarily unexpected or viewed as being rude.
|
| Of course, you could always get a real prick who gets
| offended and tries to hassle you for it, in which case
| maybe your approach is the better one, but I suspect
| someone like that is going to cause problems regardless of
| how nicely you phrase it.
| boringuser2 wrote:
| The reason why I don't like that approach is because it
| is the approach of a career criminal. The cops wouldn't
| be wrong to hassle you in this interaction.
|
| An apology goes a long way. Reading some of your other
| posts, I fear you're too indignant. I'm not, I only want
| to do what would produce the best possible outcome. I
| don't care about anything else and I have no righteous
| sentiment in this scenario.
| mplanchard wrote:
| It's also the approach of most police and lawyers, i.e.
| anyone who is familiar with the criminal justice system.
| I've mentioned it elsewhere, but I got this advice from
| my relatives who are themselves police, both state and
| federal.
|
| Edit: and the police would absolutely be wrong to hassle
| you in this situation! It's a right. If you don't
| exercise it for yourself, nobody will do it for you.
| avgcorrection wrote:
| I might assume as much just from the prejudice of watching
| American cops in the fictional media.
|
| The ones who are portrayed as protagonists/good guys are often
| obsessed assholes who will do whatever it takes to solve the
| case, ranging from manipulating witnesses to doing borderline
| illegal things. Then their bozo superior gets in the way because
| they don't see how, actually, in this case it would be totally
| worth it to do something without proper procedure, and actually
| being a maverick cop who just follows his gut is perfectly good
| and okay.
|
| They only remain "the good guys" because they happen to catch the
| bad guys.
| wiseowise wrote:
| [flagged]
| ofslidingfeet wrote:
| *Especially in the US
| Aerbil313 wrote:
| Do you know anything about other countries? I'd love to hear.
| _dain_ wrote:
| UK version of Miranda warning is
|
| _> You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your
| defence if you do not mention when questioned something that
| you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given
| in evidence._
|
| More info: https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/advice_infor
| mation/pol...
|
| This video is one of my bugbears. It gets posted every now
| and then on Reddit and other places, upvoted a lot, and
| nobody in the comments points out how dangerous it is to rely
| on some of this advice outside of the US. You can really land
| yourself in trouble if you aren't aware of the differences
| between American legal system and your home country's, even
| when they're both based on common law. Just another side
| effect of American cultural imperialism.
| Johnny555 wrote:
| Is there any country where it's advantageous to speak more than
| required to the police? (I'm sure there are some countries
| where you're required to speak more than in the USA where
| you're legally allowed not to speak at all without a lawyer)
| pawelmurias wrote:
| There are countries where the policy can beat up with
| impunity or let you off for minor infractions. In the past in
| the Ukraine they also took bribes at every opportunity.
| mrweasel wrote:
| > Is there any country where it's advantageous to speak more
| than required to the police
|
| I think it's more a "why would it be problematic?" and not so
| much if it's advantageous. Unless you're guilty, but then
| it's normally advantageous in the sense that your punishment
| often reduced when you admit guilt.
| OscarCunningham wrote:
| I've heard that in Japan conviction rates at trial are
| something like 98%. So presumably you don't lose anything by
| trying to convince the cops of your innocence.
| freetime2 wrote:
| Japan also allows police to detain suspects for long
| periods without filing charges or providing access to an
| attorney. [1] So in practice you may have no choice but to
| talk to the police (or even confess).
|
| [1] https://apjjf.org/2020/13/IbusukiRepeta.html
| Matheus28 wrote:
| In the UK, adverse inference may be drawn from silence in
| certain circumstances. In fact, they will usually say:
|
| > You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your
| defence if you do not mention when questioned something which
| you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given
| in evidence.
| lepus wrote:
| Just one example is it's the norm to ask police for
| directions in Japan.
| rjh29 wrote:
| You need to carry a passport if you're a tourist in Japan.
| Although I did forget once and nobody cared, it isn't
| guaranteed.
| freetime2 wrote:
| Police in Japan also go door-to-door introducing themselves
| to residents, gathering basic info (what is your job, how
| many people living here, etc), sharing details about recent
| crime in the neighborhood, etc. [1] While it is supposedly
| voluntary, I think just about everyone complies.
|
| I personally have always played along as the police are
| always very friendly when making rounds, and wish to
| maintain that friendly relationship. I also consider myself
| a beneficiary of the low crime rates here, and consider
| participation to be a civic responsibility.
|
| http://www.accessj.com/2013/02/police-home-visits.html
| willeh wrote:
| Generally your refusing to answer can be used against you,
| ensuring that you are properly represented of course isn't
| sgjohnson wrote:
| Everywhere. In every non 3rd world country you have a right to
| not incriminate yourself.
|
| "I do not recall" and "I refuse to answer" translates well into
| a lot of languages.
|
| The first time when you should talk about your case, if ever,
| is in court, during the trial.
| flangola7 wrote:
| This isn't accurate, adverse inference can be drawn from
| silence in many first world western nations.
| sgjohnson wrote:
| "adverse inference" is still nothing when it comes to
| making a case and is still infinitely better than perhaps
| missing an important detail and then having discrepancies
| between your own testimonies.
| ghoogl wrote:
| [dead]
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| dang wrote:
| Related. Others?
|
| _Don 't Talk to the Police_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23390344 - June 2020 (6
| comments)
|
| _Don 't Talk to the Police - James Duane_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19717507 - April 2019 (4
| comments)
|
| _Don 't Talk to the Police (2012)_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15886628 - Dec 2017 (165
| comments)
|
| _Don 't talk to the police [video]_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6001859 - July 2013 (37
| comments)
|
| _Don 't talk to the police_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=219758 - June 2008 (35
| comments)
| belter wrote:
| Don't Talk to the Police Part 2 - https://youtu.be/tIt-l2YmH8M
| ccooffee wrote:
| This was a really disappointing video. It is a 30 minute
| infomercial for a book that constantly says "what if <x>?
| well, you'll have to read the book".
| seattle_spring wrote:
| As an extremely relevant and related topic, it's Shut the Fuck Up
| Friday [1], time to review the script!
|
| [1] https://youtu.be/sgWHrkDX35o
| entelechy0 wrote:
| [dead]
| raincom wrote:
| Beria's law: 'show me the man and I'll show you the crime'.
| That's how they get you.
| dccoolgai wrote:
| Recent case in point: Walt Nauta, who got charged along with
| Trump. Had he just kept his mouth shut, he probably wouldn't have
| been charged, but they got him dead-to-rights saying stuff
| they're pretty sure they can prove he was lying about. And this
| is it "working the way it should".
|
| The darker version is a Federal Agent says you told him something
| you didn't even say because it helps the case he's building. He
| asks you to repeat it on record and when you balk, he threatens
| you with a felony for "lying to a federal agent".
|
| Don't ever do it, even if it's an investigation you're
| sympathetic to. If _your_ lawyer is there taking notes, they know
| there's less shenanigans they can pull.
| asylteltine wrote:
| [dead]
| kkielhofner wrote:
| > The darker version is a Federal Agent says you told him
| something you didn't even say because it helps the case he's
| building. He asks you to repeat it on record and when you balk,
| he threatens you with a felony for "lying to a federal agent".
|
| This is shown in a scene from "Wolf of Wall Street"[0]. In this
| case the main agent gets his partner to come to within earshot
| of Jordan Belfort and asks Jordan to repeat his bribery offer.
| Testimony from one FBI agent is good, testimony from two is
| better.
|
| [0] - https://youtu.be/3IKbkjs8xd0?t=46
| Aerbil313 wrote:
| Haha. First time submitting a link (and it blowing up, it's on
| page 4!). I'm in wonder how I did unleash all this stream of
| comments, as my eyes are fixed on the karma point, reloading the
| page, watching it increase like it never did before, despising
| myself for that at the same time for falling to the gamification
| and thinking it's time to nuke my HN account.
| Garrrrrr wrote:
| reposting good videos gets you a long way I guess. 'karma'
| isn't very real here or anywhere
| Aerbil313 wrote:
| I didn't have much of an intention of boosting my karma btw.
| I just saw this video linked on HN today in another thread.
| LgWoodenBadger wrote:
| Civil rights are a core educational experience that is sorely and
| fundamentally lacking in the US educational system.
| hartator wrote:
| > lacking in the US educational system
|
| In most other countries, cops can ask for your ID and basic
| questions and detain you if you are not complying.
| ajuc wrote:
| How law is actually used matters much more than these
| technicalities.
|
| USA has one of the highest incarceration rates in the world,
| police brutality and police murdering people is a bigger
| concern than in most places where people have to show ID on
| cue.
|
| This is one of these "liberty cargo cult" rights, like the
| right to bear arms or not having 1 unique identifier. It
| sounds nice in theory, but in practice it doesn't really help
| in the rare cases for which it was designed, and it makes
| things harder on the happy path.
| hknmtt wrote:
| they most certainly cannot detain you without a cause. in the
| context of what you wrote, if you do not have your id, which
| is not mandatory to carry, they can detain you for 48 hours
| in order to establish your identity, but if they fail they
| have to let you go.
| _dain_ wrote:
| Did you miss the part where he said "in other countries"?
| cwillu wrote:
| You agree that they can detain you for something that isn't
| mandatory.
| throwawaywu wrote:
| Also don't talk to federal agents.
|
| Lying to a federal agent is a felony, and often times they don't
| have enough evidence for the original crime, but by talking to
| you they get evidence of you lying
| Sniffnoy wrote:
| It's worse than that -- often their MO is to deliberately get
| people rattled so they say something false (that the FBI
| already knew was false), then charge them for that. It's
| stupid, but it's currently the [courts' interpretation of] the
| law. (The written law has a materiality requirement, but this
| has been interpreted so loosely as to be irrelevant.)
|
| https://www.popehat.com/2017/12/04/everybody-lies-fbi-editio...
| kkielhofner wrote:
| With this law on the books they often operate under the same
| practice/advice you hear given to attorneys in court: "only
| ask questions you already know the answer to".
|
| In many/most cases if they're asking questions they already
| know the truth behind at least some of them. They are
| attempting to leverage you into cooperating against co-
| conspirators or at least be able to hit you with a felony for
| misleading/false statements in the event the original
| investigation doesn't pan out to charges.
| SV_BubbleTime wrote:
| _Michael Flynn has entered the chat._
|
| If you can, get past his ideology and that he was a Trump guy,
| the actual process of what happened to him and what he was
| charged with is pretty crazy.
|
| He was very stupid for talking to agents without a lawyer. But,
| they went in and got him to lie about something that wasn't a
| crime, and he didn't actually do.
|
| Also on the front page of HN right now:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36367147
| tptacek wrote:
| As a member of President Trump's transition team, Flynn made
| a pair of direct diplomatic requests to Russia's ambassador
| to the United States (Russia complied with both requests).
| Later, during an FBI counterintelligence investigation
| centering on Russia, Flynn lied twice about having had those
| diplomatic conversations at all. The case was later dropped
| because the entire overarching investigation (Crossfire
| Hurricane) --- which did not center on Flynn --- was dropped.
|
| Flynn is a cut-and-dried example of how 18 USC 1001 can make
| sense. He wasn't entrapped. He hung himself out to dry. It's
| a great example of the logic of this thread and the post:
| don't talk to federal agents, because if you're an idiot and
| try to bullshit your way past basic facts of their
| investigation, they'll convict you for it.
| SV_BubbleTime wrote:
| [flagged]
| vore wrote:
| So... what is it?
| mcny wrote:
| I think this case is the prime example why lying to a
| federal agent ought to not be a crime at all. Why should
| I go to prison and have a felony if Michael Flynn doesn't
| have to? If I have to go to prison, so does Michael
| Flynn.
| jfengel wrote:
| Michael Flynn has a friend with the power to pardon. You
| do not. Do not optimize the rules as if you and he were
| in the same class.
| jackmott wrote:
| [dead]
| jackmott wrote:
| [dead]
| HyperSane wrote:
| Michael Flynn is literally a traitor to the US.
| asylteltine wrote:
| [dead]
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| This is how Martha Stewart got sent to the klink, not for
| insider trading.
| jimbob45 wrote:
| Is there no Miranda equivalent for federal agents?
| Spooky23 wrote:
| There is, so you have the right to remain silent. The
| difference is that federal law makes it illegal to lie to a
| federal agent.
|
| Lying to the police is dumb in general because it can be used
| against you. In the federal sense it's dumber as it is a
| felony in of itself.
|
| This is often cited as an abuse of power etc. I think there's
| a lot of nuance.
| maerF0x0 wrote:
| His book is a good read:
| https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/30532856-you-have-the-ri...
|
| He actually updates his stance a touch from the content in the
| video. Particularly in not just invoking your 5th amendment (the
| right not self incriminate), but also the 6th (the right to a
| lawyer before being interrogated)
|
| Also this is not a "if you have nothing to hide" kind of
| conversation, see another top item on HN today:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36367147 ( People Can Be
| Convinced They Committed a Crime That Never Happened
| (psychologicalscience.org) )
| AlbertCory wrote:
| The cops say, "if you have nothing to hide" and also "if you
| don't come in, I can't help you." Fortunately, Daryl saw
| through the latter one and didn't come in.
|
| Yes, it's another plug for one of my Substack articles:
|
| https://albertcory50.substack.com/p/baby-please-dont-go
| hollywood_court wrote:
| I was raised by career long LEOs. My mother and father and all 3
| of my stepfathers were LEOs.
|
| They always told me to never speak to the police. Every
| interaction with a police officer is inviting trouble into your
| life.
|
| They exist to monetize your mistakes. They have no legal
| obligation to assist you in any manner.
| paulpauper wrote:
| what if you are asked to identify yourself such as for a
| speeding ticket or a Terry stop. I don't think it's clear cut.
| mplanchard wrote:
| This is clear cut. There are situations where you are legally
| obligated to interact with the police, like providing your
| identification at a traffic stop. In any other situation, you
| should avoid interaction with the police.
| tyingq wrote:
| > This is clear cut.
|
| Sort of. So you're pulled over for a brake light that's
| out. Then, they start asking "Where are you coming from?",
| "Why are you here?", "Do you live near here? (when they
| already have your address)", "If you're coming from that
| far, why don't you have luggage?" etc.
|
| I guess you can try to give as terse an answer as possible
| without coming across as rude? Saying nothing is your
| right, but they have lots of power to generate consequences
| if they don't like it.
| green_man_lives wrote:
| The real answer is that there is no actual way to win.
| You are at their mercy and it is really 100% up to what
| they choose to do.
| mplanchard wrote:
| While it is true that you are physically at their mercy,
| provided you survive your encounter with the police (not
| by any means a guarantee in this country), you CANNOT be
| incriminated in a court of law for invoking your right to
| remain silent. You CAN be incriminated in a court of law
| for literally anything else you say. The winning move is
| clearly not to give them any more ammunition than they
| already have.
| tyingq wrote:
| I think we all understand that part. It's the part where
| they can say anything happened and it's suddenly your
| word against theirs. So, irritating them can have
| consequences.
|
| The tactic feels fine for an interrogation room, where's
| everything is on camera. In the outside world, it's
| trickier.
| mplanchard wrote:
| Yeah that is true, although most police have bodycams
| these days, and they've also got a recording going from
| their car, so there's generally going to be some evidence
| in your favor. It is also always a good idea to start
| recording at least audio on your phone before talking to
| police.
|
| A lot of people seem to think that not answering
| questions is going to aggravate the officer, and that's
| not generally true in my experience. Assuming you're
| asserting your rights calmly and not being belligerent,
| it's well within the normal scope of behavior that they
| expert to encounter.
| CottonMcKnight wrote:
| That WAS true, until Scalia et al eviscerated the
| protections of the 5th Amendment if you invoke it after
| you start talking. Then (according to the majority
| opinion of the Court), your subsequent invocation of the
| 5th Amendment CAN be used as evidence against you.
| mplanchard wrote:
| But it is clear cut! You don't have to answer any of
| those questions. You only need to provide your
| identification and registration.
|
| Remember it's not a normal social interaction. They use
| the fact that it feels rude to refuse to answer questions
| to get you to incriminate yourself. They're playing a
| game, and so you need to understand the rules. Not
| answering is not being rude. Invoke your 5th amendment
| right and shut up.
| egberts1 wrote:
| It is clear cut because when you obtained your driver's
| license, you have had already signed and agreed to reveal
| your name on a "traffic" stop because you are on public
| road with intent for commerce (or not).
|
| Walking on the sidewalk, your D/L, not so much unless you
| were operating a vehicle, registered or not.
| thethimble wrote:
| It seems like there's a practical approach and a
| literalist approach here. I never understood the
| insistence of "don't talk to the police" in relation to
| the questions above. If you can give the "right" answers,
| why wouldn't you?
|
| I understand how this might be compromising fundamental
| rights, but at the same time I just want to get home. Is
| this wrong?
| AlbertCory wrote:
| You need to watch the videos.
| mplanchard wrote:
| The problem is that you don't know what the cop is doing.
| They might just be pulling you over for the reasons they
| stated, or they might be investigating some crime in the
| area and looking for suspicious people. Even a right or
| true answer can incriminate you in a certain light.
| Everything you say can potentially bite you in the ass
| later.
|
| Better to be a little inconvenienced and take longer to
| get home than say something that can later be used in a
| court of law to implicate you in something you had no
| knowledge of.
|
| I really want to emphasize that ALL of my police family
| gives this same advice.
| credit_guy wrote:
| > Everything you say can potentially bite you in the ass
| later.
|
| Even if they didn't read you your Miranda rights before?
| My knowledge of legal affairs comes only from movies, but
| I got the impression that things you say before they read
| you Miranda can't be used against you. Are all the movies
| wrong?
| mplanchard wrote:
| They do not need to read you your Miranda rights to
| question you, no. They only read you your rights if you
| are being detained. But they are free to use anything you
| say before or after if for some reason you wind up in
| court.
|
| Here's a corroborating source:
| https://www.lawinfo.com/resources/criminal-defense/when-
| must...
|
| Movies are often really wrong about lots of things in the
| criminal justice system.
| credit_guy wrote:
| Thanks for the link. It makes sense.
|
| Hopefully I will never need to put my newly acquired
| knowledge to a test.
| thethimble wrote:
| Thanks for the continued insistence!
| mplanchard wrote:
| Haha I don't know if this is sarcastic, but I get it if
| so. Someone else said I was too indignant.
|
| I apologize if I'm coming on strong. I've talked to one
| of my uncles in particular, who was a police officer for
| a long time and who now works for DHS, about the tactics
| that he'd use once he stopped people to try to get them
| to admit to something he could arrest them for. He
| obviously always felt like he was just doing his job: if
| he could get them to incriminate themselves, then he just
| nabbed a criminal. But he'd do a lot of really tricky
| stuff! And there are a _lot_ of things that are
| technically illegal that they can get you in if they're
| suspicious of you for some reason.
|
| Anyway as a result this a thing that I feel pretty
| strongly about :)
| AlbertCory wrote:
| I think the standard cop questions, "Do you know how fast
| you were going?" and "do you know why I stopped you?" are
| also invitations for you to incriminate yourself.
|
| A polite "No idea, officer" is your answer.
| autoexec wrote:
| > A polite "No idea, officer" is your answer.
|
| That can also be used against you since you're admitting
| that you were not paying attention to your speed. It also
| means you lose the ability to claim that any speed the
| officer says you were traveling at is wrong, since you,
| by your own admission, wouldn't know any better.
|
| "You tell me" might be a better answer.
| [deleted]
| krapp wrote:
| >A polite "No idea, officer" is your answer.
|
| You just admitted to reckless driving. You're not allowed
| to not know the speed limit or your own speed while
| driving - the speedometer is right in front of you, and
| the officer knows exactly where the last speed limit sign
| you passed was. And if you recant on that in any way, if
| you even seem slightly uncertain, you just admitted to
| lying to an officer.
|
| This is why the rule is "never talk to police," not
| "never talk to police unless you think you're clever."
| AlecSchueler wrote:
| A friend of mine recently had quite a bad experience asking the
| police for help with directions as he was traveling through the
| Netherlands.
|
| He was trying to figure out where he was using the map on a bus
| stop and approached a nearby police car to ask for assistance.
|
| They demanded his ID which he was not carrying at the time. He
| explained that it was in his bag at the place where he was
| staying and they said he needed to be able to identify himself,
| so they arrested him on the spot and he was not free again until
| the following morning. As a result he missed a ferry and had to
| spend the money booking another one.
| netule wrote:
| It's strange, but you must be able to identify yourself if
| you're over the age of 14 [1] in The Netherlands. Having lived
| in the US for 20 years now, this also seems a bit draconian to
| me, but I didn't think much of it while growing up over there.
|
| [1]: https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/paspoort-en-
| identit...
| AlecSchueler wrote:
| True, I don't think of it much now that I've been living here
| for a few years. But it's scary how easily someone can be
| caught out while traveling through the NL from one part of
| Schengen to another where these rules don't apply.
| morsch wrote:
| It's the same in Germany, but I still wouldn't expect the
| police to ask for my ID when asking for directions. The fact
| that you need to be able to identify yourself when asked
| doesn't mean that they are supposed to ask for it for every
| interaction.
| [deleted]
| atomflunder wrote:
| IANAL, but 99% sure that the situation in Germany is that
| you have to identify yourself (give name, birthday,
| (address?)), but you /don't/ have to carry (or show) your
| government issued ID at all times.
| hashier wrote:
| I actually recently asked a German police person the
| exact same question if I have to have my ID/passport with
| me at all times. The answer was "no, you just need to own
| one or the other".
|
| I always thought as well that there is "Ausweispflicht"
| (ID carrying obligatory) in Germany.
| c4mpute wrote:
| Ausweispflicht means that you have to own a Reisepass or
| Personalausweis, not carry any of them.
| morsch wrote:
| You don't have to carry it, no. But if you don't carry
| your ID (or equivalent) and they have a reason to ask for
| it (e.g. you are a suspect of a crime), they can require
| you to take them wherever you keep your ID or to the
| station.
|
| I figured it worked the same in the Netherlands, but from
| what I can tell it's true that you always need to carry
| it and you can get fined if you don't. So quite a bit
| more strict. That sucks.
|
| https://de.m.wikibooks.org/wiki/Rechte_und_Pflichten_im_U
| mga... (German)
| gymbeaux wrote:
| I could give a damn about 2A/the right to bear arms, but if I
| had to ID myself to police for asking for directions...
| jameshart wrote:
| Please complete the sentence for me. How does this thought
| end?
| HyperSane wrote:
| He would be angry at such a stupid law.
| dudefeliciano wrote:
| i would agree if someone is suspected of committing or
| witnessing a crime but to require ID for simply asking
| directions, and then getting arrested, seems like exactly the
| kind of overreach that gives a bad image to cops.
| rjh29 wrote:
| Chances are there is more to the story here. We're getting
| third-hand information after all.
| [deleted]
| a2tech wrote:
| That would definitely be surprising for most Americans. Many
| of us (like my wife) never carry id unless they plan on
| driving.
| jameshart wrote:
| ... or entering a bar, or buying alcohol, or purchasing
| allergy medicine
| WirelessGigabit wrote:
| What kind of allergy medicine requires ID? I only know of
| pseudo-epinephrine (not to be confused with the as-
| strong-as-homeopathics phenylephrine), which is cold
| medicine.
| jameshart wrote:
| Claritin D and Zyrtec D are sold for allergy relief, and
| contain pseudoephedrine.
| Spivak wrote:
| And technically you don't have to have your ID on your
| person when driving. In some states you might be issued a
| fine if you make the officer mad but it's not a _crime_ and
| you won 't be arrested.
| JoyfulTurkey wrote:
| I feel weird without it and I always carry my ID in the US,
| even when just going for a walk around the neighborhood.
|
| Not hard for me since it's in my wallet and I use one of
| those slim wallets and don't carry many other cards and
| don't stash receipts in the bill area like some people do.
| WirelessGigabit wrote:
| Even in the US it's weird. I arrived on a passport + visa.
| No requirement to carry it. Got a driver license. No
| requirement to carry that either, unless I'm driving _. But
| now that I have a Green Card I need to carry it at all
| times. At least until I get citizenship.
|
| _ I live in a state that allows for having my driver
| license on my phone.
| jrmg wrote:
| As someone who also lived on a visa in the US, I think
| you were required to carry it at all times like your
| green card. It's just never enforced.
| __rito__ wrote:
| This is very strange for an Indian, too.
|
| We do not carry ID unless we are driving (driving license),
| using long-distance transport, or going to vote.
|
| Always carrying ID is such a strange idea!
| wegwerp wrote:
| Honestly, lots of us Dutchies leave the house from time to
| time without ID. I don't even think to carry it when I go
| running, or to the gym. And most of the time if you interact
| with the police while out without your ID it isn't really a
| problem.
|
| But that is of course only reliably true if you're Dutch. The
| right kind of Dutch, too. Autochtoon used to be considered
| the polite term. (I always found it rather menacing
| personally.)
|
| If you have contact with a police agent and you're speaking
| English or are brown, yeah, better have that ID.
|
| Of course anyone can be in the wrong place at the wrong time
| - maybe the agents the OP's friend approached were conducting
| surveillance and interpreted an approach by a stranger
| without ID as suspicious under the circumstances. But I have
| also simply seen lots of differences in how police decide to
| enforce the law based on whom they are dealing with.
| abashedtemplate wrote:
| your mind has been corrupted by US propaganda
| HyperSane wrote:
| What does the US have to do with The Netherlands required
| people to have ID at all times?
| hluska wrote:
| You set up an entirely new account to insult someone's
| thought process? That's very weak. Particularly because
| the conversation is about a totally different country.
| yieldcrv wrote:
| Its interesting how generic "travel" advice is incompatible
| with so many countries
|
| the generic advice is "leave your passport locked at the
| hotel so you dont get it stolen by pickpockets"
|
| but also "never not have your passport on you because the
| local government wants to check it at any time"
|
| how do you all reconcile that on a day to day basis?
| paulpauper wrote:
| Traveling to foreign lands entails different rules and
| customs, which means new possible risks. Too many people
| think that their values or rules are universal. I think
| this is a major cognitive blind spot. It's like traveling
| to foreign lands with their different rules and customs is
| not such a smart idea, overall. Error on the side of
| caution.
| yieldcrv wrote:
| or just don't think your values and rules are universal
|
| travel frequently changes my aspirations from being
| exposed to things that I didnt know were options
|
| there are a lot of developed nations out there now, I
| dont know where your frame of reference is from, but some
| of those developed nations are very far ahead of
| superpowers in a variety of ways that could be beneficial
| to you
| krisoft wrote:
| > it's like traveling to foreign lands with their
| different rules and customs is not such a smart idea,
| overall.
|
| Jeez. That is the reason why it is a good idea. Go out,
| and learn how similar or different other places are. Do
| you want to always experience the same old, same old?
| Yeah it causes an inconvenience sometimes, and good times
| at others.
| rjh29 wrote:
| > too many people think that their values or rules are
| universal.
|
| That's why travelling is good?
| WheatMillington wrote:
| That is a bleak point of view.
| AlecSchueler wrote:
| I think we're just in this strange zone here in the EU,
| where we all enjoy freedom of movement but the penalties
| for not understanding the subtle differences between
| states can be quite a shock if you're caught out.
| savvo wrote:
| Your passport is not the only form of ID; a driving licence
| is easily kept in a wallet, pocket, money belt, ...
| culopatin wrote:
| A foreign drivers license is only valid when accompanied
| by a passport.
| HyperSane wrote:
| Keep your passport in a hidden pocket no easily reachable
| by pickpockets.
| lambertsimnel wrote:
| Although that helps to deal with pickpockets, can't
| thieves still demand your passport at gunpoint/knife-
| point, if they know the police require you to carry it?
| aziaziazi wrote:
| In my experience the general advice is : "Always carry with
| you a copy printed of your passport while leaving the
| original locked at the hotel".
| culopatin wrote:
| This is useless in any real situation. Gives you a false
| sense of security but no one will take a copy seriously.
| yieldcrv wrote:
| agreed, looks like its down to "just have your passport
| on you at all times as a primary form of ID"
| robador wrote:
| This pisses me off to no small amount (as a Dutchman). Yes, the
| law says you have to be able to identity yourself, but you can
| only be asked if there's a good reason. Not a lawyer, but
| asking for directions is very much not a good reason (even when
| not speaking Dutch).
|
| Interestingly the English explanation is much more ambiguous
| than the Dutch:
|
| "These officials [police] may not ask to see proof of identity
| without giving a reason. "
| https://www.government.nl/topics/identification-documents/co...
|
| Whereas in the Dutch version:
|
| "De politie mag alleen uw identificatiebewijs vragen als daar
| een goede reden voor is." Translation: "The police may only ask
| for your identification if there's a good reason to do so"
| Typical.
|
| I would lodge a complaint:
| https://www.politie.nl/onderwerpen/klacht-over-de-politie-in...
| (page in Dutch)
| HyperSane wrote:
| That is very stupid.
| rjh29 wrote:
| Carrying a passport is a legal requirement in many countries,
| especially common for tourists. But if I accidentally left it
| in my hotel? I don't think I would get arrested on the spot.
| Worst case they'd take me to the hotel so I could produce it.
|
| I suspect there is more to this story - i.e. they had a reason
| to think he was an illegal immigrant or on drugs or something -
| of course that reason could be something racist or completely
| unfounded, but I presume they don't just arrest anyone who
| forgets their ID.
| hknmtt wrote:
| remember, the police's sole purpose is to punish crime, not to
| prevent it. they don't care who they punish as long as they can
| add your number to their statistics. they are NOT your friends.
| that's just childhood brainwashing.
| einpoklum wrote:
| The police' main purpose is to protect the social order
| internally, by enforcing social relations (foremost being
| property and the authority of state institutions).
|
| As for punishing crime - technically, the police is not
| supposed to decide whether crimes have been committed, nor to
| meet out out punishment for them. Really is a different thing,
| of course - but even then, the punishment is for police-
| undesirable behavior.
| mrweasel wrote:
| Not sure what the English term is, but Denmark operates with
| the "three separations of power". Parliament makes the laws,
| the police enforce them and the judicial system punished. The
| police, for good and bad, is never suppose to decide whether
| or not a law is right or wrong, how it's punished and to what
| extend.
|
| If the police have become a punishing force, or even make the
| rules, then something has gone very wrong. Now even in
| civilized societies things sometimes goes wrong, e.g. the
| parliament provides police with too broad a framework to
| operate within, in an attempt to be "tough on crime" or
| attempt to dictate the framework of the judicial system to
| ensure a minimum sentencing. It's just rare that the police
| force itself is to blame. Blame mostly falls back to the
| people writing the laws.
| hyperman1 wrote:
| The USA police is a bit of an exception here, being overly
| militarized, not kept in check by judges and politicians, and
| historically having a side job of fugitive slave catchers.
|
| Around the world, the core job of the police is more: Restore
| the public peace. They can forgive transgressions in public if
| you demonstrate further disturbance of peace will cease.
|
| They have to maintain a reasonable level of fairness, or they
| get overrun by vigilantes. But as long as the illusion of
| fairness holds good enough, they can and will crush powerless
| people in the wheels of justice.
| some_random wrote:
| It's so funny reading this after scrolling past a bunch of
| Western Europeans (what I assume you mean by "around the
| world", since that's almost always what's meant) talking
| about how they can be arrested for not carrying
| identification on them at all times. As an American, it
| sounds like your judges and politicians haven't even tried to
| keep them in check.
| avgcorrection wrote:
| > a bunch of Western Europeans (what I assume [...] As an
| American, it sounds like your judges and politicians
| haven't even tried to keep them in check.
|
| Wait, what? You don't know if this is a Western European
| _thing_ but you just took that "from the rest of the
| world"? I guess I could do the same: (1) I'm not from
| America (the majority here), (2) I haven't experienced
| bully police asking for id, so (3) I'll just _assume_ that
| that's an American thing. How funny!
| some_random wrote:
| As a white American I also haven't really had any bad
| experiences with cops, it's something commonly referred
| to as "privilege". If you'd like to read about other
| peoples experiences with police in Western Europe, here's
| the start of that thread
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36372948
| ozim wrote:
| Unfortunately it is a mixed bag in Western Europe.
|
| As I am above 30 and I look as I am now, adult, well off
| person, I most likely would not even have to have ID on me
| even when I am not in my native country.
|
| That said, when I was 20-something and had short haircut
| not having ID even in my native country could cause
| trouble.
|
| There are also places where Police is quite easy going like
| medium cities around 100k. Mostly they have enough work not
| to care for small infractions and are not overworked with
| amount of shitty people.
|
| In small cities it might be bad because they might not have
| anything to do so they would hunt you down on some silly
| stuff.
|
| In big cities it might be bad because they have so many
| shitty people to deal with so they just assume you are
| shithead as well and treat you like one by default.
|
| There are also places where rich people live and if you
| look like you don't belong, guess what, even if you look
| well off adult they might ask bunch of questions and Id if
| you don't look like you belong in the neighborhood.
| modeless wrote:
| It's funny, I always hear about how US police are
| militarized, but then when I go to Europe I see actual
| military soldiers carrying assault rifles while doing what
| seems to me like police duty all over the place in major
| cities. That's not something I see here.
| neural_thing wrote:
| You have to be more specific than "around the world" here. I
| grew up in a country where the "core job of the police" is to
| extort bribes. My guess is that's pretty similar to the
| experience of the majority of the people living today.
| ajross wrote:
| Corrupt law enforcement is hardly a US invention. That's
| frankly just silly. In fact US police are... middle of the
| pack at worst. It's true that there are some _policy_
| implications in the US that seem weird, in particular the
| level of weaponry deployed and the politicization of activist
| slogans like "Defund", but if anything that speaks to police
| behavior in the US being more criticized and more
| constrained.
|
| America is fine, basically. Yes, cops are empowered bullies
| who do bad things. But that's been true for thousands of
| years. We're _farther_ down the path to trying to fix that,
| not behind.
| gumby wrote:
| "No one likes a cop until they need one". Cops are not
| inherently your foe, but that does not imply that they are in
| any way inherently your friend, even when you are part of the
| "in group".
|
| In the US the relatively recent shift to use of the term "law
| enforcement" both reflects and drives a self-destructive nature
| in the broad culture.
|
| Your insightful point, "The police's sole purpose is to punish
| crime, not to prevent it" has several implications.
|
| First is that even if you have a positive view of the cops (and
| if you are not in an "out group" you should) you still should
| follow this advice. If you're not chatting with your next door
| neighbor the cop at a bbq, what you are is an unpleasant
| barrier to getting their job done with a minimum of hassle.
| Like you think of Jira or Confluence.
|
| Another implication is to understand that their role, in
| cultural norm, in who it attracts to the job, and simply the
| cumulative impact of what they are exposed to, drives what I
| will euphemistically call "destructive impact". We need cops
| like we need the weather, but that doesn't mean we don't take
| steps to deal with the destructive force of storms, and even to
| minimize storm generation.
|
| Unfortunately the US is in a phase where they think the more
| brutality the better. In that the cops correctly reflect what
| they are asked to do.
| sneak wrote:
| > _Cops are not inherently your foe_
|
| From a game theoretical POV this is false; no good can come
| from speaking to them, and only bad can.
| mavhc wrote:
| Report a crime, get crime solved - are you saying this has
| never ever happened?
| tharne wrote:
| > From a game theoretical POV this is false;
|
| Except we're not talking about game theory here, we're
| talking about reality.
| GolDDranks wrote:
| How is that true? I've submitted some lost property reports
| on a local police box, and at least once they've found it.
| Clearly a positive outcome.
| gumby wrote:
| I won't categorically say the opposite, but I think your
| statement is overwrought. If someone murdered your spouse,
| or tried to run you down with a car, who are you going to
| call?
|
| In the first case at least they are surely going to suspect
| you, so you should still be careful. But "no good can come
| of it"?
| sneak wrote:
| My attorney. They can speak to the police on my behalf,
| which would likely be necessary in the first scenario
| (though it would yield no benefit to me).
|
| In the latter case, I would not call them at all.
|
| What good would police contact do in either of those
| cases? In each instance they cannot help me.
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| If someone tried to run me down with a car, what good can
| the police do? Arrest the person before they try to kill
| me again, that's what. Keeping me from dying is
| definitely "helping me".
| sneak wrote:
| Unlikely. In the case you describe without additional
| evidence they would have no basis for an arrest
| (otherwise you could have anyone arrested arbitrarily by
| accusing them of same). The police would likely only
| involve themselves if they actually succeeded in running
| you down. Even if there were video surveillance available
| they aren't going to go get a warrant and review the
| tapes because some guy came in accusing someone. It's
| simply not how that works.
|
| The police (in the USA) are reactive and respond after
| crimes are committed, not before (unless they are
| responding to social disorder requests, which is
| generally unrelated to crime). Even then they choose
| which crimes they deem worthy of responding to (the
| classic example being rape victims being dissuaded from
| proceeding with making a police report).
|
| Most people have a mistaken mental model of how police
| actually function. Most police officers are about as non-
| proactive as you can get (except near the end of the
| month when the traffic ticket quotas are due).
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| Trying to run me down _is_ a crime - assault. (If they
| hit me, it 's assault and battery.)
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| Say someone is robbing houses in the neighborhood. If I
| tell the cops as much as I know, maybe they find the perp
| before _my_ house is robbed.
| HyperSane wrote:
| Even if your spouse or child was murdered and you know the
| identity of the killer? This is a very silly statement.
| sneak wrote:
| What benefit would I see from talking to the police in
| the scenario you describe?
| PaulHoule wrote:
| Note cops are trained to assume that cagey people could be
| guilty. (1) I wonder if this guy wants to make more work for
| himself and people in his profession, and (2) Black and White
| people might get very different results from this and other
| advice.
| mplanchard wrote:
| No matter who you are, talking to the police is a bad idea.
| This is a constant piece of advice from every lawyer AND POLICE
| OFFICER I've ever known. I have several cops in my family, and
| they all advise to never talk to the cops.
| everybodyknows wrote:
| [flagged]
| fknorangesite wrote:
| Instead, please comment in good faith.
| mavhc wrote:
| Maybe if you text them that doesn't count as talking
| CrampusDestrus wrote:
| Way to purpusefully misunderstand a very simple proposition
| tzs wrote:
| There is a lot of evidence that it is not such a simple
| proposition.
|
| I've seen the submitted video discussed on a variety of
| internet forums over the years, and in most of them there
| were in fact a large number of people who take it as
| really meaning that you should _never_ talk to police
| without your lawyer present.
|
| E.g., you are walking down the street, and see two people
| arguing, one of then shoots the other, and then runs
| away. A police officer who was nearby hears the shot,
| comes over, and asks you which way the shooter ran. A lot
| of people say they would not answer that question without
| first consulting a lawyer.
|
| Or you are in a building that collapses in an earthquake.
| You make it out but several people do not. Some police
| arrive, and manage to retrieve several people. They ask
| some of the people who were in the building if anyone of
| them know of anyone else who was in the building and is
| not accounted for. A lot of people say they would need to
| consult their lawyer before answering.
|
| But there are also a lot of people who say it doesn't
| apply in those situations. They think it means don't talk
| to them when you are being questioned as a potential
| suspect.
|
| Given the empirically observed divergence on people's
| understanding of what "don't ever talk to police without
| a lawyer" means it is perfectly reasonable to ask
| questions like everybodyknows asked.
| mplanchard wrote:
| Yeah I guess a lot of lawyers and criminal justice
| advocates are really trying to get the point across that
| you should never talk to the police in a situation in
| which you could incriminate yourself, but which
| situations that entails is much muddier and hard to
| convey. I think it's probably better on balance for
| people to bias more towards "never talk to the police,"
| given how often people self-incriminate and how the vast
| majority of most people's interactions with police are at
| traffic stops.
|
| But of course it's a thing with nuance. If you're being
| questioned for no obvious reason, being questioned at a
| traffic stop, or being questioned really about anything
| other than a crime you were the victim of, it's probably
| best to stay silent. Of course here "questioned" is doing
| a lot of work. It in my mind doesn't apply to the kind of
| "which way did he go," or "are there people still inside"
| kinds of requests for quick information to help the
| officer do something entirely unrelated to you.
|
| But if a police officer is focusing on you and asking you
| questions, I'd say that's when the advice kicks in for
| sure.
| c4mpute wrote:
| You should call the police. But preferrably in a way that
| cannot be traced back to you. Unfortunately, there aren't
| any phone booths anymore...
| mplanchard wrote:
| Sure, in case it's necessary, the advice above applies
| mostly in regards to talking to or being questioned by the
| police in situations where they are acting in their
| official capacity and in which you are not directly seeking
| their immediate assistance. It also applies when talking to
| police who are not acting in their official capacity about
| any real or alleged crime that you may be involved in in
| any way, no matter how tangentially.
| everybodyknows wrote:
| And what about witnessing a crime committed against some
| complete stranger? Considering separately both the cases
| of a crime in progress, and one recently completed?
|
| Also considering whether the crime is accidental e.g.
| hit-and-run, or professional, financially-motivated
| actors. Recall that among the latter class are the white-
| collar criminals capable of retaliation against
| witnesses, and the reason we have white-collar
| whistleblower protection laws.
| mplanchard wrote:
| Yeah exactly. There's enough nuance here that it would be
| really nice to have a lawyer around to help you.
|
| My take though is that there's a difference between being
| questioned by the police and a police officer asking you
| for directions or asking "which way did he go" while
| chasing someone or something like that.
|
| If I were a witness to a crime against someone else and
| was giving a statement, I would absolutely insist on
| having a lawyer present.
|
| If I were a witness to an ongoing crime against someone
| else and could point the police in the right direction to
| stop it, I would of course do so.
| boringuser2 wrote:
| [flagged]
| kmoser wrote:
| While you have the right to remain silent, I remember reading
| somewhere that you have to actively invoke that right (by
| stating something like "I invoke my 5th amendment right to
| remain silent") for your silence to be considered an invocation
| of that right, and not merely suspicious behavior, an implicit
| admission of guilt, or obstruction of justice.
|
| This is actually reprehensible, since invoking a right should
| mean actually engaging in it (e.g. remaining silent), with no
| explanation necessary.
|
| Another topic that everybody should know about is juror
| nullification.
| Sargos wrote:
| >by stating something like "I invoke my 5th amendment right
| to remain silent"
|
| This needs to be rather structured as well as the cops can
| ignore your statement unless it has a proper syntax and names
| the 5th element directly. Example: "give me a lawyer dog"
| doesn't cut it (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/true-
| crime/wp/2017/11/02...)
| sgjohnson wrote:
| > Another topic that everybody should know about is juror
| nullification.
|
| Jurors who are aware of jury nullification are routinely
| dismissed.
| everybodyknows wrote:
| Is it indeed routine to ask prospective jurors if they are
| aware of the term?
|
| Anecdata: I can see how it might be possible, based on my
| own jury duty callup last month. Hundreds in the waiting
| room, when individual trials did "go to jury", a secondary
| lottery chose from the hundreds a batch of _more than 60_
| to go for interview. So, the lawyers would be further
| weeding out some 80%.
| kmoser wrote:
| Lawyer: "Are you aware of the phrase 'juror
| nullification?'"
|
| Potential juror: "I am now!"
| woodruffw wrote:
| > Is it indeed routine to ask prospective jurors if they
| are aware of the term?
|
| It probably varies, but it isn't routine where I live.
| I've been called for voire dire and subsequent selection
| a few times, and haven't ever been asked about
| nullification.
|
| (I think the majority of people get excluded based on
| whether the trial's schedule would be an unreasonable
| hardship/imposition, voluntarily disclosed conflicts of
| interest, etc.)
| AlbertCory wrote:
| I saw this happen in a real trial.
|
| It's more complicated than just saying "jury
| nullification." You have to explain your beliefs.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > While you have the right to remain silent, I remember
| reading somewhere that you have to actively invoke that right
| (by stating something like "I invoke my 5th amendment right
| to remain silent") for your silence to be considered an
| invocation of that right, and not merely suspicious behavior,
| an implicit admission of guilt, or obstruction of justice.
|
| This is, as I ubderstand it, incorrect on multiple levels.
| First, all you need to do is shut up to exercise the right.
| Second, no matter how you frame exercising the right, police
| can and will treat it as suspicious.
|
| You may be confusing the right to remain silent with the
| right to have counsel present during questioning, which must
| be explicilty invoked for questioning without counsel present
| and its fruits to be excluded. They are separate, but related
| (as invoking the right to counsel also narrows the ways
| police can pressure you to waive the rightbto remain silent
| without legally tainting anything they get out of it.)
| owenmarshall wrote:
| > This is, as I ubderstand it, incorrect on multiple
| levels. First, all you need to do is shut up to exercise
| the right.
|
| Incorrect. The police can continue interrogation if you sit
| quietly.
|
| Also, it's possible to revoke your assertion of the 5th
| after you have invoked it. If the police say you did, and
| you say you didn't, who do you think the courts will
| believe?
|
| As such, most legal advice I have heard is to simply say "I
| am not speaking until I get a lawyer." It is unambiguous
| during interrogation, and it'll stand up well during any
| suppression hearings.
|
| > Second, no matter how you frame exercising the right,
| police can and will treat it as suspicious.
|
| "You can beat the time but you can't beat the ride."
|
| If you are in a position where you are invoking these
| rights you are already considered suspicious. You may be
| arrested. You might be tried. But keep your eye on the
| prize: your goal is to not get _convicted_.
| jcranmer wrote:
| > First, all you need to do is shut up to exercise the
| right.
|
| Actually, as I understand it, SCOTUS has said that merely
| being silent is not the same as invoking your Fifth
| Amendment right to remain silent. I think this
| jurisprudence is complete bananapants, but the argument is
| that you have to explicitly and unambiguously invoke your
| Fifth Amendment right for it to kick in, and being silent
| isn't an unambiguous invocation.
| ccooffee wrote:
| Correct.
|
| You MUST EXPLICITLY invoke your fifth amendment right
| against self-incrimination.
|
| (Okay, there may be some edge cases where invoking the
| fifth is implied, but SCOTUS has merely acknowledged that
| these edge cases could exist, but to my knowledge has
| never given rules for when it applies. Better safe than
| sorry.)
|
| e: see Salinas v Texas[0] for example
|
| [0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/12-246#
| writing...
| PaulHoule wrote:
| In a courtroom, yes.
|
| https://www.nytimes.com/1973/07/18/archives/krough-
| pleads-5t...
| 2023throwawayy wrote:
| One of the best videos on the internet. A true classic with great
| advice.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-06-17 23:03 UTC)