5 ms·

Not directly relevant to the article, but it's probably a public service to have this here: If you're in the U.S., do not consent to a search! Ever! If the pol

Not directly relevant to the article, but it's probably a public service to have this here: If you're in the U.S., do not consent to a search! Ever! If the police ask permission to search you, your car, or your house, say "I do not consent to a search". Followed by, "Am I being detained?" If the answer is "No, you are not being detained." then leave immediately (unless at your house, in which case go inside and lock the door). Police are good at making you feel as if you have to consent. They might say, "We're going to search your car now." Makes it seem like you don't have a choice and it's happening one way or another, yeah? Well it's not the case. That was your cue to say, "I do not consent to a search". Saying "I do not consent to a search" might prevent a search or make evidence obtained during that [illegal] search inadmissible. Or it might be found that the police had probable cause or other reason to make the search legal, in which case you lost nothing. Record + immediately upload such an interaction if you can. As an aside, I appreciate like 90% of the work the police do.

sneak 5y ago
Police are also good at making you think or feel that they're going to be worse or more suspicious if you refuse to consent to a search or refuse to answer questions. It's an INSANELY strong feeling, but it's nearly universally deceptive. Lots of cops will even go so far as to threaten, intimidate, or harass you if you don't answer their (theoretically voluntary) questions. I've actually had US border pigs physically penetrate female partners of mine traveling with me, as retaliation, because I exercised my fifth amendment right to not answer their questions upon re-entering the US. Do not consent to a search, and do not talk to the police. Sadly in the US you must actually vocalize your silence, simply standing silent has been determined by the courts (in a completely insane decision) to be a potential admission of guilt. Practice speaking the following: "I'm sorry, officer, but I must insist on affirmatively exercising my right to remain silent." More info if you need/want it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE
- gorwell 5y ago
  This is really being put to the test right now in the US with the Gabby Petito case. Where her fiance was refusing to talk to the police, exercising the 5th. The media and police kept asking, rhetorically, "If he's innocent, why wouldn't he talk to us?". I fear the progress made by the Youtube video you linked may have been wiped out by this event.
  - stjohnswarts 5y ago
    Yeah he's being tried in court of public opinion. However their van was spotted very near the body, so it ain't looking good for him.
  - throwawaylinux 5y ago
    How is that testing the right? Is the fifth amendment supposed to confer the right to be free of scrutiny or suspicion based on one's refusal to self-incriminate? If an officer stopped you in your automobile and asked if you had any drugs on your person and you said "I plead the fifth", does that alone give them probable cause to search your car? If you crossed a border and an officer asked you if you were carrying any dangerous goods and you answered "no" they might let you continue. If you answered "I plead the fifth" would they be constitutionally required to also let you continue or would they be able to discriminate based on that answer?
    - gorwell 5y ago
      What I meant is that we made progress in terms of separating "I plead the fifth" and assumed guilt in the eyes of the public. Now that's getting entangled again.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - throwawaylinux 5y ago
        Did we? If somebody exercises their right not to incriminate themselves by answering a question that significantly raises the probability they have committed a crime or have knowledge of one and are attempting to obstruct. I know the ruling class and their ruling class lawyers would like to gaslight us into not believing our lying eyes and think that pleading the fifth is a perfectly normal and totally innocent thing to do. I don't think that is progress at all. The reality is that it obviously raises very real questions about their motives. It doesn't mean they did commit a crime, it doesn't mean it is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, but it is a data point that is perfectly legitimate to judge on its merits. The fifth is to help defend against forced or coerced confessions, not to liberate a person being tried from being subject to judgement of their behavior.
- throwaway858 5y ago
  The speaker in that video wrote a book("You have the right to remain innocent") where he argues that the "right to remain silent" (5th amendment) has been eroded in the USA and gives examples of court cases where the fact that a suspect asserted his right to remain silent was taken as an admission of guilt (and was allowed to be argued as such in court). Therefore he recommends AGAINST saying anything regarding your right to remain silent, and even recommends against remaining completely mute (as this can also be used against you -- again, in contradiction with the constitution, but apparently the courts don't care). The author therefore recommends that the proper way to invoke your 5th amendment right is to actually invoke your right to council. If you are questioned by authorities and wish to remain silent, then the correct response is the exact phrase: "I want a lawyer". This effectively prevents then from further questioning you, ensuring your 5th amendment right, while also preventing them from testifying in court along the lines of "the suspect refused to answer questions and we found that to be suspicious"
  - syshum 5y ago
    >>but apparently the courts don't care The US Supreme court has a long history of disregarding the constitution in favor of legislative deference or perceived public will The 5th is just the latest in a long line of rulings that make the bill of rights looks like swiss cheese with all manner of exception, backdoors, and work arounds to ensure that government agents do not actually have to respect anyone's rights, and even if they blatantly violate them they get "qualified immunity" (a standard invented wholly by the US Supreme court) from any and all punishment for said violation
SketchySeaBeast 5y ago
> Followed by, "Am I being detained?" If the answer is "No, you are not being detained." then leave immediately (unless at your house, in which case go inside and lock the door). Your process is missing a bit of exposition here - I see lots of videos of people repeatedly asking that question and it not having a great outcome.
- hayd 5y ago
  You can do so politely rather than belligerently. Asking once or twice should be sufficient, if they don't answer but do not let you leave... clearly you are being detained.
  - metalliqaz 5y ago
    it also helps to look like you can afford a lawyer
    - NoImmatureAdHom 5y ago
      Indeed.
  - NoImmatureAdHom 5y ago
    Yeah, I think striking the difficult balance of firmly and clearly asserting your rights but also seeming to be a reasonable, sane person who's really on the cops' side--all in the heat of a stressful moment--is the key. "I appreciate your work officer, but I'm going to have to decline to consent to a search."?
- KennyBlanken 5y ago
  Yeah, the last time I asked a cop that, I was told "YES, YOU ARE." "Why?" "SUSPICIOUS BEHAVIOR, like asking if you're being deeeetaiiiiined." Lots of videos of Sovereign Citizen nutjobs screeching "am I being detained?" hasn't helped things.
  - NoImmatureAdHom 5y ago
cascom 5y ago
Classic video on the subject https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE
syshum 5y ago
>>As an aside, I appreciate like 90% of the work the police do. This would not be needed to be said if 1. There was a proper process to remove bad actors from the force 2. If we did not over criminalize society to the point that every person needs to fear the police because chances are the police could find some law or regulation you have violated to ruin your day, week or life.
- NoImmatureAdHom 5y ago
  1. There are proper processes, it's just that they're under-used and the bar for removal is too high. I agree we should be actively filtering out bad apples much more than we are. I think we should raise the bar in general--cops, like schoolteachers, are really important to our societies and therefore they should have higher status and pay, commensurate with education, than they do. 2. This is a huge problem, you're right. We should maybe have a process for reviewing laws that have been on the books for a while. Maybe an automatic sunset: Every new law has a 7-year sunset provision. In 7 years after being passed, it automatically goes away UNLESS the legislature actively does something to renew it. Also drugs, of course--end the war on drugs.
  - syshum 5y ago
    1. Depends, there are plently of Officers, and Plenty of Teachers that make decent money. This idea that we under pay all teachers, and all police is just a lie told by the public sector unions. Many of the police in my area are many 3-4x the per capital income for the region. 2. I prefer a Jefferson view that all laws should expire Automatically, forcing the legislature to renew them if they want to keep them. The number of laws that have been removed from the books absent an expire clause is pretty low. Jefferson thought the constitution itself should have to be affirmed every 19 years

sneak 5y ago

Police are also good at making you think or feel that they're going to be worse or more suspicious if you refuse to consent to a search or refuse to answer questions. It's an INSANELY strong feeling, but it's nearly universally deceptive. Lots of cops will even go so far as to threaten, intimidate, or harass you if you don't answer their (theoretically voluntary) questions. I've actually had US border pigs physically penetrate female partners of mine traveling with me, as retaliation, because I exercised my fifth amendment right to not answer their questions upon re-entering the US. Do not consent to a search, and do not talk to the police. Sadly in the US you must actually vocalize your silence, simply standing silent has been determined by the courts (in a completely insane decision) to be a potential admission of guilt. Practice speaking the following: "I'm sorry, officer, but I must insist on affirmatively exercising my right to remain silent." More info if you need/want it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE

gorwell 5y ago
This is really being put to the test right now in the US with the Gabby Petito case. Where her fiance was refusing to talk to the police, exercising the 5th. The media and police kept asking, rhetorically, "If he's innocent, why wouldn't he talk to us?". I fear the progress made by the Youtube video you linked may have been wiped out by this event.
- stjohnswarts 5y ago
  Yeah he's being tried in court of public opinion. However their van was spotted very near the body, so it ain't looking good for him.
- throwawaylinux 5y ago
  How is that testing the right? Is the fifth amendment supposed to confer the right to be free of scrutiny or suspicion based on one's refusal to self-incriminate? If an officer stopped you in your automobile and asked if you had any drugs on your person and you said "I plead the fifth", does that alone give them probable cause to search your car? If you crossed a border and an officer asked you if you were carrying any dangerous goods and you answered "no" they might let you continue. If you answered "I plead the fifth" would they be constitutionally required to also let you continue or would they be able to discriminate based on that answer?
  - gorwell 5y ago
    What I meant is that we made progress in terms of separating "I plead the fifth" and assumed guilt in the eyes of the public. Now that's getting entangled again.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - throwawaylinux 5y ago
      Did we? If somebody exercises their right not to incriminate themselves by answering a question that significantly raises the probability they have committed a crime or have knowledge of one and are attempting to obstruct. I know the ruling class and their ruling class lawyers would like to gaslight us into not believing our lying eyes and think that pleading the fifth is a perfectly normal and totally innocent thing to do. I don't think that is progress at all. The reality is that it obviously raises very real questions about their motives. It doesn't mean they did commit a crime, it doesn't mean it is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, but it is a data point that is perfectly legitimate to judge on its merits. The fifth is to help defend against forced or coerced confessions, not to liberate a person being tried from being subject to judgement of their behavior.
throwaway858 5y ago
The speaker in that video wrote a book("You have the right to remain innocent") where he argues that the "right to remain silent" (5th amendment) has been eroded in the USA and gives examples of court cases where the fact that a suspect asserted his right to remain silent was taken as an admission of guilt (and was allowed to be argued as such in court). Therefore he recommends AGAINST saying anything regarding your right to remain silent, and even recommends against remaining completely mute (as this can also be used against you -- again, in contradiction with the constitution, but apparently the courts don't care). The author therefore recommends that the proper way to invoke your 5th amendment right is to actually invoke your right to council. If you are questioned by authorities and wish to remain silent, then the correct response is the exact phrase: "I want a lawyer". This effectively prevents then from further questioning you, ensuring your 5th amendment right, while also preventing them from testifying in court along the lines of "the suspect refused to answer questions and we found that to be suspicious"
- syshum 5y ago
  >>but apparently the courts don't care The US Supreme court has a long history of disregarding the constitution in favor of legislative deference or perceived public will The 5th is just the latest in a long line of rulings that make the bill of rights looks like swiss cheese with all manner of exception, backdoors, and work arounds to ensure that government agents do not actually have to respect anyone's rights, and even if they blatantly violate them they get "qualified immunity" (a standard invented wholly by the US Supreme court) from any and all punishment for said violation

SketchySeaBeast 5y ago

> Followed by, "Am I being detained?" If the answer is "No, you are not being detained." then leave immediately (unless at your house, in which case go inside and lock the door). Your process is missing a bit of exposition here - I see lots of videos of people repeatedly asking that question and it not having a great outcome.

hayd 5y ago
You can do so politely rather than belligerently. Asking once or twice should be sufficient, if they don't answer but do not let you leave... clearly you are being detained.
- metalliqaz 5y ago
  it also helps to look like you can afford a lawyer
  - NoImmatureAdHom 5y ago
    Indeed.
- NoImmatureAdHom 5y ago
  Yeah, I think striking the difficult balance of firmly and clearly asserting your rights but also seeming to be a reasonable, sane person who's really on the cops' side--all in the heat of a stressful moment--is the key. "I appreciate your work officer, but I'm going to have to decline to consent to a search."?
KennyBlanken 5y ago
Yeah, the last time I asked a cop that, I was told "YES, YOU ARE." "Why?" "SUSPICIOUS BEHAVIOR, like asking if you're being deeeetaiiiiined." Lots of videos of Sovereign Citizen nutjobs screeching "am I being detained?" hasn't helped things.
- NoImmatureAdHom 5y ago

cascom 5y ago

Classic video on the subject https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE

syshum 5y ago

>>As an aside, I appreciate like 90% of the work the police do. This would not be needed to be said if 1. There was a proper process to remove bad actors from the force 2. If we did not over criminalize society to the point that every person needs to fear the police because chances are the police could find some law or regulation you have violated to ruin your day, week or life.

NoImmatureAdHom 5y ago
1. There are proper processes, it's just that they're under-used and the bar for removal is too high. I agree we should be actively filtering out bad apples much more than we are. I think we should raise the bar in general--cops, like schoolteachers, are really important to our societies and therefore they should have higher status and pay, commensurate with education, than they do. 2. This is a huge problem, you're right. We should maybe have a process for reviewing laws that have been on the books for a while. Maybe an automatic sunset: Every new law has a 7-year sunset provision. In 7 years after being passed, it automatically goes away UNLESS the legislature actively does something to renew it. Also drugs, of course--end the war on drugs.
- syshum 5y ago
  1. Depends, there are plently of Officers, and Plenty of Teachers that make decent money. This idea that we under pay all teachers, and all police is just a lie told by the public sector unions. Many of the police in my area are many 3-4x the per capital income for the region. 2. I prefer a Jefferson view that all laws should expire Automatically, forcing the legislature to renew them if they want to keep them. The number of laws that have been removed from the books absent an expire clause is pretty low. Jefferson thought the constitution itself should have to be affirmed every 19 years