9 ms·

I also just remembered another anectdote. One morning (age 13) I set out to go birdwatching. I had to get up around 5am, in order to get to the estuary before s

by greedo 10y ago

I also just remembered another anectdote. One morning (age 13) I set out to go birdwatching. I had to get up around 5am, in order to get to the estuary before sunrise. I had a small backpack with all my gear, and about a mile from my home, a sheriff's deputy stopped me in his squad car. He quizzed me on what I was doing, asked to look in my backpack, and after 15 minutes, I was on my way. He was obviously surprised to see me out that early, but once he was convinced of my sincerity, I didn't warrant any further scrutiny.

clouddrover 10y ago
> He quizzed me on what I was doing, asked to look in my backpack, and after 15 minutes, I was on my way I don't know what the laws are where you live but I would guess he had no right to search your backpack without your consent. To me, what you're describing is police aggression and you must always push back against any such aggression. You should not have submitted to the search. The legal system is adversarial and you must protect yourself from the very first moment you are in any way involved with it. To quote James Duane from his book You Have the Right to Remain Innocent: "Nobody of sound mind can dispute that there is something fundamentally wrong, and intrinsically corrupt, about a legal system that encourages police officers and prosecutors to do everything in their power to persuade you and your children (no matter how young or old) to 'do the right thing' and talk - when they tell their own children the exact opposite." The book: https://www.amazon.com/You-Have-Right-Remain-Innocent/dp/1503933393/ https://www.amazon.com/You-Have-Right-Remain-Innocent/dp/150...
- TheGrumpyBrit 10y ago
  He didn't search his backpack without consent - he asked for, and was presumably given, consent. There are certainly scenarios where you should consider the police to be your adversary and enforce every right you have to its fullest extent, but choosing your battles is just as important. The police have far more rights to detain a juvenile compared to an adult, and an unaccompanied 13 year old with a backpack at 5am is out of the ordinary. The officer was already starting from a place with a reasonable assumption that the child may be lost or a runaway, in which case he can probably already take him back home (or to the station for CPS to talk to if he's completely uncooperative). Allowing a quick search to confirm that you're just pursuing a harmless hobby and are not putting yourself in any danger or likely to be reported missing a couple of hours later, seems like the easiest and fastest way to deal with that particular encounter.
  - clouddrover 10y ago
    > He didn't search his backpack without consent I never said he did. I said greedo shouldn't have given that consent. > Allowing a quick search to confirm that you're just pursuing a harmless hobby and are not putting yourself in any danger or likely to be reported missing a couple of hours later, seems like the easiest and fastest way to deal with that particular encounter. It puts you in danger of arrest and false charges. It's irrelevant what police suspect. You do not submit to them to make things 'easier' or 'faster'. Your only concern must be to protect yourself, even and especially when you're 13. Duane's book is full of examples of people who thought it would be a good idea to cooperate with police, only to find themselves charged with crimes they didn't commit and some of them ended up in jail.
    - TheGrumpyBrit 10y ago
      If you're starting from a position where the police can't take any action against you without more evidence, and they need you to provide that evidence, sure. In that case, there may be no benefit to you to cooperating. But that's not where the parent post was. He was a juvenile, carrying a rucksack, walking alone at 5am. He is already starting from a position of being detained as a potential runaway. His encounter can get better (proving that he's just a birdwatcher and being allowed on his way) or worse (if he's carrying anything he can be arrested for). If he's just carrying a camera and a pair of binoculars, it seems like its worth the risk. The officer has better things to do with his day than ferry around kids who clearly aren't runaways.
      - clouddrover 10y ago
        > In that case, there may be no benefit to you to cooperating. There's never any benefit to you in cooperating. You do the absolute minimum you are compelled by law to do, and do nothing further. I encourage you to read James Duane's book. You are the target audience.
        TheGrumpyBrit 10y ago
        In this case, failing to cooperate would almost certainly have led to him being detained as a potential runaway, and returned to his parents, or if he refused to provide any information at all, taken to the police station and turned over to Child Protective Services. In this particular scenario, it seems that cooperating was the best approach. By all means enforce your rights, but make sure you know your opponents rights too, and choose your battles carefully.
- greedo 10y ago
  I was 13, maybe 5'8, and 100lbs soaking wet. He was probably twice my size, armed with numerous weapons. Sure I could have exercised my 4th Amendment rights, but most judges would believe that he had probable cause. Expecting a 13 year old to be a constitutional lawyer (especially back in 1977) is a bit much.
  - clouddrover 10y ago
    > I was 13, maybe 5'8, and 100lbs soaking wet. He was probably twice my size, armed with numerous weapons. This is the best possible reason to know your rights. Might does not make right. > Expecting a 13 year old to be a constitutional lawyer (especially back in 1977) is a bit much. No one's expecting you to be a lawyer but it's not too high an expectation to know your rights, which is the point of Duane's book. Learning your civil rights should be part of everyone's education and it's a shame that it isn't. Police exploit that ignorance, as they did to you.
    - greedo 10y ago
      So I resist, get arrested, taken to jail. My folks woken up at 6am on a weekend to come pick me up. When my parents try to hire a lawyer, they'll be informed of how reasonable suspicion and probable cause work, for an hourly fee. All because a cop did his job by investigating a minor who from his perspective could have been a runaway or someone stealing junk. Now while I can foresee situations where a 13 year old could successfully resist a search of their body/property, but I can't see a lawyer counseling it in this situation. Then again, IANAL.
      - clouddrover 10y ago
        > So I resist, get arrested, taken to jail. You don't resist, you assert your rights. You fail to assert your rights and that will be exploited. If you get arrested for asserting your rights then you take them to court and you win. > All because a cop did his job by investigating a minor who from his perspective His perspective is irrelevant. Your only concern must be to protect yourself, which you failed to do.

by greedo 10y ago

clouddrover 10y ago

> He quizzed me on what I was doing, asked to look in my backpack, and after 15 minutes, I was on my way I don't know what the laws are where you live but I would guess he had no right to search your backpack without your consent. To me, what you're describing is police aggression and you must always push back against any such aggression. You should not have submitted to the search. The legal system is adversarial and you must protect yourself from the very first moment you are in any way involved with it. To quote James Duane from his book You Have the Right to Remain Innocent: "Nobody of sound mind can dispute that there is something fundamentally wrong, and intrinsically corrupt, about a legal system that encourages police officers and prosecutors to do everything in their power to persuade you and your children (no matter how young or old) to 'do the right thing' and talk - when they tell their own children the exact opposite." The book: https://www.amazon.com/You-Have-Right-Remain-Innocent/dp/1503933393/ https://www.amazon.com/You-Have-Right-Remain-Innocent/dp/150...

TheGrumpyBrit 10y ago
He didn't search his backpack without consent - he asked for, and was presumably given, consent. There are certainly scenarios where you should consider the police to be your adversary and enforce every right you have to its fullest extent, but choosing your battles is just as important. The police have far more rights to detain a juvenile compared to an adult, and an unaccompanied 13 year old with a backpack at 5am is out of the ordinary. The officer was already starting from a place with a reasonable assumption that the child may be lost or a runaway, in which case he can probably already take him back home (or to the station for CPS to talk to if he's completely uncooperative). Allowing a quick search to confirm that you're just pursuing a harmless hobby and are not putting yourself in any danger or likely to be reported missing a couple of hours later, seems like the easiest and fastest way to deal with that particular encounter.
- clouddrover 10y ago
  > He didn't search his backpack without consent I never said he did. I said greedo shouldn't have given that consent. > Allowing a quick search to confirm that you're just pursuing a harmless hobby and are not putting yourself in any danger or likely to be reported missing a couple of hours later, seems like the easiest and fastest way to deal with that particular encounter. It puts you in danger of arrest and false charges. It's irrelevant what police suspect. You do not submit to them to make things 'easier' or 'faster'. Your only concern must be to protect yourself, even and especially when you're 13. Duane's book is full of examples of people who thought it would be a good idea to cooperate with police, only to find themselves charged with crimes they didn't commit and some of them ended up in jail.
  - TheGrumpyBrit 10y ago
    If you're starting from a position where the police can't take any action against you without more evidence, and they need you to provide that evidence, sure. In that case, there may be no benefit to you to cooperating. But that's not where the parent post was. He was a juvenile, carrying a rucksack, walking alone at 5am. He is already starting from a position of being detained as a potential runaway. His encounter can get better (proving that he's just a birdwatcher and being allowed on his way) or worse (if he's carrying anything he can be arrested for). If he's just carrying a camera and a pair of binoculars, it seems like its worth the risk. The officer has better things to do with his day than ferry around kids who clearly aren't runaways.
    - clouddrover 10y ago
      > In that case, there may be no benefit to you to cooperating. There's never any benefit to you in cooperating. You do the absolute minimum you are compelled by law to do, and do nothing further. I encourage you to read James Duane's book. You are the target audience.
      - TheGrumpyBrit 10y ago
        In this case, failing to cooperate would almost certainly have led to him being detained as a potential runaway, and returned to his parents, or if he refused to provide any information at all, taken to the police station and turned over to Child Protective Services. In this particular scenario, it seems that cooperating was the best approach. By all means enforce your rights, but make sure you know your opponents rights too, and choose your battles carefully.
greedo 10y ago
I was 13, maybe 5'8, and 100lbs soaking wet. He was probably twice my size, armed with numerous weapons. Sure I could have exercised my 4th Amendment rights, but most judges would believe that he had probable cause. Expecting a 13 year old to be a constitutional lawyer (especially back in 1977) is a bit much.
- clouddrover 10y ago
  > I was 13, maybe 5'8, and 100lbs soaking wet. He was probably twice my size, armed with numerous weapons. This is the best possible reason to know your rights. Might does not make right. > Expecting a 13 year old to be a constitutional lawyer (especially back in 1977) is a bit much. No one's expecting you to be a lawyer but it's not too high an expectation to know your rights, which is the point of Duane's book. Learning your civil rights should be part of everyone's education and it's a shame that it isn't. Police exploit that ignorance, as they did to you.
  - greedo 10y ago
    So I resist, get arrested, taken to jail. My folks woken up at 6am on a weekend to come pick me up. When my parents try to hire a lawyer, they'll be informed of how reasonable suspicion and probable cause work, for an hourly fee. All because a cop did his job by investigating a minor who from his perspective could have been a runaway or someone stealing junk. Now while I can foresee situations where a 13 year old could successfully resist a search of their body/property, but I can't see a lawyer counseling it in this situation. Then again, IANAL.
    - clouddrover 10y ago
      > So I resist, get arrested, taken to jail. You don't resist, you assert your rights. You fail to assert your rights and that will be exploited. If you get arrested for asserting your rights then you take them to court and you win. > All because a cop did his job by investigating a minor who from his perspective His perspective is irrelevant. Your only concern must be to protect yourself, which you failed to do.