5 ms·

> "But... if we happen to run into her on the street, we’re gonna be asking her some questions without you present." That sure sounds like intended harassment

by zyxley 10y ago

> "But... if we happen to run into her on the street, we’re gonna be asking her some questions without you present." That sure sounds like intended harassment to me.

openmosix 10y ago
It does not seem a threat either. The police can stop you anytime, ask you anything and it's your right to say no. "I'm gonna ask you questions" does not sound so terrifying to me :)
- zyxley 10y ago
  If they already know they will get nowhere with it, then there is no purpose to it but harassment.
  - openmosix 10y ago
    "If they already know they will get nowhere with it" - we are still putting a lot of thoughts in their mind. They have asked for a meeting in person. Everything else is wild speculation.
    - zyxley 10y ago
      They already refused to talk to her lawyer. There is every reason to assume that any subject they would bring up in person is one that could easily affect her negatively, as they would have zero reason not to share any benign subject ("we're doing a background check on someone who knows you", "we'd like to have you appear as an expert witness", etc) with her lawyer.
- geofft 10y ago
  If you trust your ability to say "no" to the police and have them respect that, your experience is not universal.
- tacojuan 10y ago
  Last I checked, the FBI doesn't patrol the streets. Unless they're, uh... harassing you.
- fiatmoney 10y ago
  The police cannot legally "stop" you absent cause to detain you.
  - spacemanmatt 10y ago
    Look up Terry stops. They can make up any reason after the fact, and routinely do. Your 4th amendment rights, on analysis, do not exist for any practical purpose.
    - fiatmoney 10y ago
      Oh, agree. But "just to chat" is not a legal reason, and the FBI in particular would have a fun time justifying hanging around watching for "furtive movements". That's why the first question out of their mouth when stopped in all those fun youtube videos is "am I being detained". They of course can detain you, but it establishes that it is a detention.
- GauntletWizard 10y ago
  There's good reason to believe that the FBI repeatedly calling upon your places of residence is harassment [1][2]. At the same time, trying to contact someone peaceably and privately is a reasonable action; It is only because of past abuses that we are suspicious of their every minor action. There's a balance somewhere in there, but I'm not going to pass judgement on either party here. It's not clear that they weren't structured to be threatening, and it's not clear that the author isn't being paranoid. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Edgar_Hoover https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Edgar_Hoover [2]https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/11/fbis-suicide-letter-dr-martin-luther-king-jr-and-dangers-unchecked-surveillance https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/11/fbis-suicide-letter-dr...
rhino369 10y ago
Finding someone to ask them a question is not harassment. They were probably testing to see if the attorney would invoke the right to remain silent. edit: Really her attorney did a terrible job. If the attorney knew the client didn't want to talk to FBI, she should have handled it way differently. edit2: Man even if the attorney didn't know the client wanted to stay silent, if you hear "we uh… need her to clear up her involvement or… uh… potential involvement in a matter" you assert the 5th and wait for the subpoena--and then fight it.
- zyxley 10y ago
  > Finding someone to ask them a question is not harassment. Refusing to talk to a person's lawyer, then saying "we will be attempting to talk to this person without a lawyer present", is absolutely harassment.
  - jack9 10y ago
    I don't think so. I mean, is there precedent?
    - zyxley 10y ago
      Why not? > I mean, is there precedent? For what? FBI agents harassing people? Just look at my comment about Hemingway.
      - shimon 10y ago
        I think he meant a legal precedent defining whether the following constitutes harassment: > Refusing to talk to a person's lawyer, then saying "we will be attempting to talk to this person without a lawyer present" IANAL, but it seems like it's OK for an FBI agent to say they'd prefer to talk to someone in person without a lawyer. It's not OK for them to coerce someone into talking without a lawyer, but it doesn't seem like that has happened here. I understand the author's fears, but the real issue seems to be the largely unchecked potential of the FBI to inflict harm upon specific citizens for any reason, not their actual behavior in this case.

by zyxley 10y ago

> "But... if we happen to run into her on the street, we’re gonna be asking her some questions without you present." That sure sounds like intended harassment to me.

openmosix 10y ago

It does not seem a threat either. The police can stop you anytime, ask you anything and it's your right to say no. "I'm gonna ask you questions" does not sound so terrifying to me :)

zyxley 10y ago
If they already know they will get nowhere with it, then there is no purpose to it but harassment.
- openmosix 10y ago
  "If they already know they will get nowhere with it" - we are still putting a lot of thoughts in their mind. They have asked for a meeting in person. Everything else is wild speculation.
  - zyxley 10y ago
    They already refused to talk to her lawyer. There is every reason to assume that any subject they would bring up in person is one that could easily affect her negatively, as they would have zero reason not to share any benign subject ("we're doing a background check on someone who knows you", "we'd like to have you appear as an expert witness", etc) with her lawyer.
geofft 10y ago
If you trust your ability to say "no" to the police and have them respect that, your experience is not universal.
tacojuan 10y ago
Last I checked, the FBI doesn't patrol the streets. Unless they're, uh... harassing you.
fiatmoney 10y ago
The police cannot legally "stop" you absent cause to detain you.
- spacemanmatt 10y ago
  Look up Terry stops. They can make up any reason after the fact, and routinely do. Your 4th amendment rights, on analysis, do not exist for any practical purpose.
  - fiatmoney 10y ago
    Oh, agree. But "just to chat" is not a legal reason, and the FBI in particular would have a fun time justifying hanging around watching for "furtive movements". That's why the first question out of their mouth when stopped in all those fun youtube videos is "am I being detained". They of course can detain you, but it establishes that it is a detention.
GauntletWizard 10y ago
There's good reason to believe that the FBI repeatedly calling upon your places of residence is harassment [1][2]. At the same time, trying to contact someone peaceably and privately is a reasonable action; It is only because of past abuses that we are suspicious of their every minor action. There's a balance somewhere in there, but I'm not going to pass judgement on either party here. It's not clear that they weren't structured to be threatening, and it's not clear that the author isn't being paranoid. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Edgar_Hoover https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Edgar_Hoover [2]https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/11/fbis-suicide-letter-dr-martin-luther-king-jr-and-dangers-unchecked-surveillance https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/11/fbis-suicide-letter-dr...

rhino369 10y ago

Finding someone to ask them a question is not harassment. They were probably testing to see if the attorney would invoke the right to remain silent. edit: Really her attorney did a terrible job. If the attorney knew the client didn't want to talk to FBI, she should have handled it way differently. edit2: Man even if the attorney didn't know the client wanted to stay silent, if you hear "we uh… need her to clear up her involvement or… uh… potential involvement in a matter" you assert the 5th and wait for the subpoena--and then fight it.

zyxley 10y ago
> Finding someone to ask them a question is not harassment. Refusing to talk to a person's lawyer, then saying "we will be attempting to talk to this person without a lawyer present", is absolutely harassment.
- jack9 10y ago
  I don't think so. I mean, is there precedent?
  - zyxley 10y ago
    Why not? > I mean, is there precedent? For what? FBI agents harassing people? Just look at my comment about Hemingway.
    - shimon 10y ago
      I think he meant a legal precedent defining whether the following constitutes harassment: > Refusing to talk to a person's lawyer, then saying "we will be attempting to talk to this person without a lawyer present" IANAL, but it seems like it's OK for an FBI agent to say they'd prefer to talk to someone in person without a lawyer. It's not OK for them to coerce someone into talking without a lawyer, but it doesn't seem like that has happened here. I understand the author's fears, but the real issue seems to be the largely unchecked potential of the FBI to inflict harm upon specific citizens for any reason, not their actual behavior in this case.