29 ms·

Formally the police can't demand a lot of stuff. Informally, they'll put you in a room and tell you that they have the legal right to keep you anywhere from 24

Formally the police can't demand a lot of stuff. Informally, they'll put you in a room and tell you that they have the legal right to keep you anywhere from 24 to 72 hours in there and they definitely can make you reconsider during that period -- to put it very mildly. Hint: some cops are really good in the skill of inflicting pain to people without lasting medical trace to prove it afterwards. Until there's true accountability and 100% transparency, these legislations and/or idealistic slogans don't mean much. Technically airport security can't make you unlock your phone in many countries as well but I've known two former colleagues who were "convinced" to do so in the airport's back room; the one where problematic passengers are held for 8-24h. So yeah, thanks for nothing -- namely for stating the ideal theoretical state of things -- but a lot of people out there need actual real-time protection, on the spot. Address that. "Raising awareness" doesn't work on ruthless cops. I guess that's a mind-blowing revelation to many Westerners.

stevespang 5y ago
Yes, just examine the concept of "qualified immunity", more B.S. jargon for "we can kill you and get away with it", which is just more evidence we live in a gestapo police state . . . .
jjk166 5y ago
You don't get justice in a police station, you get justice in a courtroom. The cops may do all sorts of things to you that they're not supposed to, and there's nothing you can do to stop them. But now you have a good chance of getting the whole case, or at least any evidence they obtain as a result of these actions thrown out the window, and potentially stand to gain from a profitable civil suit. Be compliant, be quiet, be observant, lawyer up.
- pdimitar 5y ago
  Technically you are right but 99% of us have places to be and things to do. Most will suck it up and never even mention it. I don't like it and nobody likes it, but it's very often the case. :(
- magicalist 5y ago
  > You don't get justice in a police station, you get justice in a courtroom. The cops may do all sorts of things to you that they're not supposed to, and there's nothing you can do to stop them. But now you have a good chance of getting the whole case, or at least any evidence they obtain as a result of these actions thrown out the window, and potentially stand to gain from a profitable civil suit. Much more likely that you'll be offered a plea bargain to either end it with time served or go to trial and be threatened with 15 years or whatever. Then you have to balance just having it be done against how much you want to risk a jury having a bad day, lawyer bills, and months or years of process to maybe have a moral victory when the judge says "yeah, this evidence is inadmissible". Meanwhile you're not getting a payout unless they beat you and it's on camera. The system knows how to take care of itself. edit if you'd like to know more: https://www.cato.org/commentary/prisons-are-packed-because-prosecutors-are-coercing-plea-deals-yes-its-totally-legal https://www.cato.org/commentary/prisons-are-packed-because-p...
  - kingcharles 5y ago
    I was offered release on my first court date if I plead guilty. Instead I spent over 8 years in a county jail waiting for justice.
- zionic 5y ago
  >The cops may do all sorts of things to you that they're not supposed to, and there's nothing you can do to stop them. Well, this isn't strictly true. But it's a quick way to get to 5 stars.
driverdan 5y ago
This is why the first thing you should always do is invoke your right to a lawyer. Be polite but don't say anything without a lawyer present.
DennisP 5y ago
Seems this case isn't so much about what the police can do in the interrogation room, as what evidence is admissible in court. It's quite easy to enforce the provision that they can't tell juries you refused to hand over a password. That's a moot point if you do reveal your password, but coercion is a separate issue we could try to address, which would be pointless to address if they could get you convicted simply because you refused.
austincheney 5y ago
> some cops are really good… That’s why you ask for a defense attorney. Police even tell you this in your Maranda rights. If they fail read you your rights prior to detainment any thing they get in response to their questions or requests cannot be used against you.
- Floegipoky 5y ago
  > If they fail read you your rights prior to detainment any thing they get in response to their questions or requests cannot be used against you. That's not true in theory or practice. They are supposed to issue a Miranda warning at the time of arrest or prior to interrogation; detainment is not arrest, asking questions is not interrogation. If they pull you over and ask how fast you were going, if you confess to speeding it is admissible. Even when Miranda violations do occur, if they're not on video they can lie about it. Police are allowed to lie about most things and they're trained to lie, it's probably their most-used tactic. Since they're human, once they step outside the truth it's tempting to remain there, especially if it benefits them. The word of police is generally accepted by the court as fact unless evidence directly contradicts them and that evidence is not suppressed.
  - austincheney 5y ago
    If you are not under arrest then all you have to do is ask to leave. When this is somehow confusing you are free to request an attorney at any time.
63 5y ago
It's crazy to me the amount that people who have never dealt with the cops think "I'll just show them x legal code so they can see they don't have the right to do that." Turns out, they don't care. For minor infractions, they'll use whatever intimidation and coercion they want, then make you feel lucky for letting you out because they didn't feel like prosecuting. In most circumstances, the word of the person with the most power is law, regardless of what the actual law says, and usually that's the guy in the uniform with the gun.
- pdimitar 5y ago
  Yep. My philosophy is to always cooperate (unless they ask for something super egregious) and show myself as friendly. This immediately reduces the alarms in their heads. I even say things like "sure guys, here are my docs, here are the contents of my backpack, hope you catch the guy you are after" and smile. Very often the mere fact that you are not trouble makes them pay less attention and the whole thing ends really quickly.
  - shwoopdiwoop 5y ago
    This is terrible advice.
    - thehappypm 5y ago
      It is and it isn't, there are circumstances where the best outcome is to be helpful and compliant, and other circumstances where you'll want to protect yourself from search.
      - pdimitar 5y ago
        Absolutely, if I travel with a company laptop and I am asked to unlock it I'll outright refuse and cite that I can and will be sued by my employer if I unlock it, and will direct the airport security to my employer's legal team. I don't want to open myself up for litigation so I'll definitely put up a fight in this case.
kspacewalk2 5y ago
>Hint: some cops are really good in the skill of inflicting pain to people without lasting medical trace to prove it afterwards. Sorry, I don't buy that this happens with any kind of frequency in the 21st century United States, such that a person could reasonably expect this to happen to them. Do you have more than ambiguous innuendo to back up this claim?
- pdimitar 5y ago
  What you "buy" makes no difference to what happened to people out there. Believe what you will.
  - kspacewalk2 5y ago
    I don't believe your argument even rises to the level of being anecdata. It's a tier or two below.
    - pdimitar 5y ago
      It's not an argument. It's a stated observation. You can question it until the end of time, won't change something that already happened. Why are we doing this at all? You add absolutely nothing to the discussion, except maybe question if I haven't imagined things.
      - kspacewalk2 5y ago
        I simply observed that, without a lot of elaboration, it is you with your claims that added nothing to the discussion, despite appearing to do so. Saying wild things with no elaboration and evidence is worse than adding nothing, in fact. It's subtracting, or detracting from the conversation. Discussions in higher-quality forums sometimes involve calling out such lazy third-person maybe-accounts presented as valid discussion items. You're getting salty for being called out and say "I don't care". Fine, you don't care. This, however, is not your personal page, it's a public discussion where claims are challenged. When I reply to your comment, I'm not necessarily replying to "you", I'm contributing to the overall discussion that others read, and make their own conclusions from all of it. And I don't think there's any reason whatsoever for a dispassionate observer who may not be aware of how things are in the US these days to come away thinking that US cops ubiquitously and habitually torture detainees by beating them.
legutierr 5y ago
> I've known two former colleagues who were "convinced" to do so in the airport's back room; the one where problematic passengers are held for 8-24h. What country(ies)?
- pdimitar 5y ago
  USA and Netherlands. Draw your own conclusions. :P
remram 5y ago
And without breaking the law, the threat of spending 24-72h locked in that room is already a big one.
tomlin 5y ago
A lot of people think that standing on the constitution is a blocker for all negative possibilities. As we see with the Gabby Petito case, Brian Laundries parents did more harm to their case by pleading their constitutional rights. In other words, it makes it impossible to live in your neighbourhood or communities you frequent afterwards
- rootusrootus 5y ago
  There’s very little you can do when the internet mob comes for you. Staying silent was likely their least bad option.
clarge1120 5y ago
Men can address that.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
giantg2 5y ago
I feel like it's only a matter of time until enough people get screwed by the system, see the blatant hypocrisy, realize that this is an oligarchy, and the system collapses. Maybe I'm just an optimist. One thing that individuals do have power to do (but will be fought vehemently on) is jury nullification. Sadly, most don't know this, and/or are easily manipulated into believing the people in power. 2-10% of incarcerated individuals are completely innocent. This doesn't even include people who are convicted after having rights violated or other technicalities.
- NoGravitas 5y ago
  The tricky bit about jury nullification is that you must hide your knowledge of jury nullification from the DA in order to get on the jury. And if you lie in order to do so, then you can just be thrown off the jury and replaced with an alternate.
  - giantg2 5y ago
    True, some jurisdictions will even charge you if you lie during selection. Some jurisdictions don't ask about it though.
Asooka 5y ago
The fact is also the police in the USA are one of the least bullyish. The right to refuse to speak without a lawyer present isn't part of most of the first world's police code. It's one of the areas where the USA is absolutely the best at respecting people's rights and freedoms and I wish you all the luck in the world in pushing for even better Police Reform, since holding you guys as a symbol of how to do things right is extremely helpful in pushing for reform in other parts of the world.
underscore_ku 5y ago
we are talking about democracies not shitholes like russia, china, iran etc
ziddoap 5y ago
>So yeah, thanks for nothing -- namely for stating the ideal theoretical state of things -- but a lot of people out there need actual real-time protection, on the spot. I don't understand why you would be upset that an organization that spends most of its time with court-related battles is, once again, dealing with court-related things. Should the EFF be putting boots on the ground in some sort of vigilante project that defends people in real time? What is the alternative you're suggesting the EFF do, if doing things in court is only worth a "thanks for nothing"? >Until there's true accountability and 100% transparency Where would this come from do you think? Because I'm thinking we start at the courts, but it seems like you might have other ideas. The EFF can't fix everything, especially not in airport backrooms of other various countries. But that does not mean there efforts are a waste.
- pdimitar 5y ago
  The only thing I'll say is that all of this has been parroted to death, ever since the 70s, and I am not seeing an improvement anywhere. People love this fuzzy feeling that they are "spreading awareness" and that "we must start somewhere" but historically, I've lived long enough to not see those make any difference so far. But I really don't want to debate. I came to state anecdotal evidence + opinion. Neither of which is an indisputable fact and I have not claimed otherwise.
  - ziddoap 5y ago
    There is a vast difference between reaching the supreme court with your amicus briefs and "spreading awareness" in a blog post. They also aren't mutually exclusive. >But I really don't want to debate. I came to state anecdotal evidence + opinion. This is always funny to read. Write a strongly worded opinion, but refuse to engage with others. >but historically, I've lived long enough to not see those make any difference so far. Out of curiosity, in your long lived life, how many times have you seen amicus briefs written to the supreme court defending 5th amendment rights?
    - pdimitar 5y ago
      Funny -- only if you don't know what the words mean. Both are not strictly facts so any discussion around them is bound to derail into... exactly what's going on here.
2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
> Hint: some cops are really good in the skill of inflicting pain to people without lasting medical trace to prove it afterwards. What a useless statement. Some? Out of how many? Do you have a source?
mschuster91 5y ago
> Technically airport security can't make you unlock your phone in many countries as well but I've known two former colleagues who were "convinced" to do so in the airport's back room; the one where problematic passengers are held for 8-24h. Which is why I refuse to travel outside of the Schengen area. Even if I'd really like to visit the US one day once corona passes, there is absolutely no way I'll consent to essentially a digital striptease search with orifice controls. Our digital devices - smartphones and laptops especially - are mirrors of our minds and our thoughts. Border control and police are not allowed to use torture to get access to our minds, they should not be given the power to circumvent that by accessing our phones. > "Raising awareness" doesn't work on ruthless cops. I guess that's a mind-blowing revelation to many Westerners. No wonder, given that - the US has its pupils pledge allegiance to the country every single day - authority and police are consistently shown as "the good guys" who don't have to respect rules in all forms of media and culture that don't originate from people of color and immigrants (like rap/hip hop) - protests against said police overreach and abuse (as well as other forms of social injustice) are downplayed to outright vilified in mass media, and police abuse itself is ignored until protests turn extremely large and/or violent (such as with the George Floyd/BLM protests) - anything "left wing" is branded "communist", and "communist" itself is branded as the devil - not just in the US but also across wide swaths of Europe.
- pdimitar 5y ago
  > Which is why I refuse to travel outside of the Schengen area. Even if I'd really like to visit the US one day once corona passes, there is absolutely no way I'll consent to essentially a digital striptease search with orifice controls. Same here. I am curious about the USA but after reading and hearing a bunch of stories... really, no thanks. I know chances are slim but I still don't want to risk it. > No wonder, given that... Yeah. USA has a really strong propaganda system and it's a shame that even on HN, where people should be more critical thinkers, this is not widely recognized.
  - mschuster91 5y ago
    > USA has a really strong propaganda system and it's a shame that even on HN, where people should be more critical thinkers, this is not widely recognized. That's the fault of "American exceptionalism". At least one positive thing happened as a result of the 45th - Americans can no longer deny that their nation is immune from falling into the hands of a proto-fascist and a gang of cronies and goons in his wake. Anyway, the list of points is (sans the pledge) applicable across most countries in the Western world... partially because a lot of our culture is US-influenced (social networks, but first and foremost Hollywood's media industry) and because our media isn't much better. Germany's most influential BILD tabloid is a rag that spreads authoritarianism and right-wing ideology, and the cop show Tatort consistently has peak TV attendance rates.
testfoobar 5y ago
You can beat the rap, but not the ride. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Freddie_Gray https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Freddie_Gray Edit: Just to be clear, this is an illustrative example. Not a flippant response. Gray should not have died in police custody.
ajsnigrutin 5y ago
That's why you need a good lawyer, to bring your story to the public, sue the damn police department and get justice! And then the cop gets 2 weeks of paid suspension, taxpayers pay you 20k in 'damages', and your lawyer costs only 35k.
- avs733 5y ago
  the one part of this I will defend is taxpayers footing the bill. Frankly, the government employs cops on our behalf and they act on behalf of the population. This type of behavior is part of the American culture of policing, it is not 'individual bad actors'. We should bear the cost of them acting improperly. I vehemently object to us creating a culture where police are expected to behave in this way but then are personally responsible when they get caught doing what is expected. Cops should pay the criminal costs for their actions, but the liability belongs to those who employ them and empower them - us.
  - ajsnigrutin 5y ago
    But we didn't employ bad cops... we employed cops, they just turned bad. If I hire a plumber, to fix my sink, and the plumber rapes my neighbor and burns his/her house, why should I pay for the damages? If a cop rapes someone, again, why should I pay?
    - avs733 5y ago
      Because your analogy is faulty. If you call a plumbing company and they send a plumber who nursery’s you, you would damn sure sue the plumbing company. The police would handle the plumber as a criminal matter.
BiteCode_dev 5y ago
Any interaction with authorities should be legally required to be recorded. If you are held for 72h, there should be 72 hours of videos, not one minute less.
kingcharles 5y ago
I held out until the police threatened my wife and then I broke.
refurb 5y ago
How does transparency help? If cops have a legal right to hold you for 72 hours that doesn’t change if more transparency happens.
- pdimitar 5y ago
  Well, I mean, transparency means that footage of the cells of arrested people don't routinely disappear due to "technical glitches" as it regularly happens in my country. :(
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

stevespang 5y ago

Yes, just examine the concept of "qualified immunity", more B.S. jargon for "we can kill you and get away with it", which is just more evidence we live in a gestapo police state . . . .

jjk166 5y ago

You don't get justice in a police station, you get justice in a courtroom. The cops may do all sorts of things to you that they're not supposed to, and there's nothing you can do to stop them. But now you have a good chance of getting the whole case, or at least any evidence they obtain as a result of these actions thrown out the window, and potentially stand to gain from a profitable civil suit. Be compliant, be quiet, be observant, lawyer up.

pdimitar 5y ago
Technically you are right but 99% of us have places to be and things to do. Most will suck it up and never even mention it. I don't like it and nobody likes it, but it's very often the case. :(
magicalist 5y ago
> You don't get justice in a police station, you get justice in a courtroom. The cops may do all sorts of things to you that they're not supposed to, and there's nothing you can do to stop them. But now you have a good chance of getting the whole case, or at least any evidence they obtain as a result of these actions thrown out the window, and potentially stand to gain from a profitable civil suit. Much more likely that you'll be offered a plea bargain to either end it with time served or go to trial and be threatened with 15 years or whatever. Then you have to balance just having it be done against how much you want to risk a jury having a bad day, lawyer bills, and months or years of process to maybe have a moral victory when the judge says "yeah, this evidence is inadmissible". Meanwhile you're not getting a payout unless they beat you and it's on camera. The system knows how to take care of itself. edit if you'd like to know more: https://www.cato.org/commentary/prisons-are-packed-because-prosecutors-are-coercing-plea-deals-yes-its-totally-legal https://www.cato.org/commentary/prisons-are-packed-because-p...
- kingcharles 5y ago
  I was offered release on my first court date if I plead guilty. Instead I spent over 8 years in a county jail waiting for justice.
zionic 5y ago
>The cops may do all sorts of things to you that they're not supposed to, and there's nothing you can do to stop them. Well, this isn't strictly true. But it's a quick way to get to 5 stars.

driverdan 5y ago

This is why the first thing you should always do is invoke your right to a lawyer. Be polite but don't say anything without a lawyer present.

DennisP 5y ago

Seems this case isn't so much about what the police can do in the interrogation room, as what evidence is admissible in court. It's quite easy to enforce the provision that they can't tell juries you refused to hand over a password. That's a moot point if you do reveal your password, but coercion is a separate issue we could try to address, which would be pointless to address if they could get you convicted simply because you refused.

austincheney 5y ago

> some cops are really good… That’s why you ask for a defense attorney. Police even tell you this in your Maranda rights. If they fail read you your rights prior to detainment any thing they get in response to their questions or requests cannot be used against you.

Floegipoky 5y ago
> If they fail read you your rights prior to detainment any thing they get in response to their questions or requests cannot be used against you. That's not true in theory or practice. They are supposed to issue a Miranda warning at the time of arrest or prior to interrogation; detainment is not arrest, asking questions is not interrogation. If they pull you over and ask how fast you were going, if you confess to speeding it is admissible. Even when Miranda violations do occur, if they're not on video they can lie about it. Police are allowed to lie about most things and they're trained to lie, it's probably their most-used tactic. Since they're human, once they step outside the truth it's tempting to remain there, especially if it benefits them. The word of police is generally accepted by the court as fact unless evidence directly contradicts them and that evidence is not suppressed.
- austincheney 5y ago
  If you are not under arrest then all you have to do is ask to leave. When this is somehow confusing you are free to request an attorney at any time.

63 5y ago

It's crazy to me the amount that people who have never dealt with the cops think "I'll just show them x legal code so they can see they don't have the right to do that." Turns out, they don't care. For minor infractions, they'll use whatever intimidation and coercion they want, then make you feel lucky for letting you out because they didn't feel like prosecuting. In most circumstances, the word of the person with the most power is law, regardless of what the actual law says, and usually that's the guy in the uniform with the gun.

pdimitar 5y ago
Yep. My philosophy is to always cooperate (unless they ask for something super egregious) and show myself as friendly. This immediately reduces the alarms in their heads. I even say things like "sure guys, here are my docs, here are the contents of my backpack, hope you catch the guy you are after" and smile. Very often the mere fact that you are not trouble makes them pay less attention and the whole thing ends really quickly.
- shwoopdiwoop 5y ago
  This is terrible advice.
  - thehappypm 5y ago
    It is and it isn't, there are circumstances where the best outcome is to be helpful and compliant, and other circumstances where you'll want to protect yourself from search.
    - pdimitar 5y ago
      Absolutely, if I travel with a company laptop and I am asked to unlock it I'll outright refuse and cite that I can and will be sued by my employer if I unlock it, and will direct the airport security to my employer's legal team. I don't want to open myself up for litigation so I'll definitely put up a fight in this case.

kspacewalk2 5y ago

>Hint: some cops are really good in the skill of inflicting pain to people without lasting medical trace to prove it afterwards. Sorry, I don't buy that this happens with any kind of frequency in the 21st century United States, such that a person could reasonably expect this to happen to them. Do you have more than ambiguous innuendo to back up this claim?

pdimitar 5y ago
What you "buy" makes no difference to what happened to people out there. Believe what you will.
- kspacewalk2 5y ago
  I don't believe your argument even rises to the level of being anecdata. It's a tier or two below.
  - pdimitar 5y ago
    It's not an argument. It's a stated observation. You can question it until the end of time, won't change something that already happened. Why are we doing this at all? You add absolutely nothing to the discussion, except maybe question if I haven't imagined things.
    - kspacewalk2 5y ago
      I simply observed that, without a lot of elaboration, it is you with your claims that added nothing to the discussion, despite appearing to do so. Saying wild things with no elaboration and evidence is worse than adding nothing, in fact. It's subtracting, or detracting from the conversation. Discussions in higher-quality forums sometimes involve calling out such lazy third-person maybe-accounts presented as valid discussion items. You're getting salty for being called out and say "I don't care". Fine, you don't care. This, however, is not your personal page, it's a public discussion where claims are challenged. When I reply to your comment, I'm not necessarily replying to "you", I'm contributing to the overall discussion that others read, and make their own conclusions from all of it. And I don't think there's any reason whatsoever for a dispassionate observer who may not be aware of how things are in the US these days to come away thinking that US cops ubiquitously and habitually torture detainees by beating them.

legutierr 5y ago

> I've known two former colleagues who were "convinced" to do so in the airport's back room; the one where problematic passengers are held for 8-24h. What country(ies)?

pdimitar 5y ago
USA and Netherlands. Draw your own conclusions. :P

remram 5y ago

And without breaking the law, the threat of spending 24-72h locked in that room is already a big one.

tomlin 5y ago

A lot of people think that standing on the constitution is a blocker for all negative possibilities. As we see with the Gabby Petito case, Brian Laundries parents did more harm to their case by pleading their constitutional rights. In other words, it makes it impossible to live in your neighbourhood or communities you frequent afterwards

rootusrootus 5y ago
There’s very little you can do when the internet mob comes for you. Staying silent was likely their least bad option.

clarge1120 5y ago

Men can address that.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

giantg2 5y ago

I feel like it's only a matter of time until enough people get screwed by the system, see the blatant hypocrisy, realize that this is an oligarchy, and the system collapses. Maybe I'm just an optimist. One thing that individuals do have power to do (but will be fought vehemently on) is jury nullification. Sadly, most don't know this, and/or are easily manipulated into believing the people in power. 2-10% of incarcerated individuals are completely innocent. This doesn't even include people who are convicted after having rights violated or other technicalities.

NoGravitas 5y ago
The tricky bit about jury nullification is that you must hide your knowledge of jury nullification from the DA in order to get on the jury. And if you lie in order to do so, then you can just be thrown off the jury and replaced with an alternate.
- giantg2 5y ago
  True, some jurisdictions will even charge you if you lie during selection. Some jurisdictions don't ask about it though.

Asooka 5y ago

The fact is also the police in the USA are one of the least bullyish. The right to refuse to speak without a lawyer present isn't part of most of the first world's police code. It's one of the areas where the USA is absolutely the best at respecting people's rights and freedoms and I wish you all the luck in the world in pushing for even better Police Reform, since holding you guys as a symbol of how to do things right is extremely helpful in pushing for reform in other parts of the world.

underscore_ku 5y ago

we are talking about democracies not shitholes like russia, china, iran etc

ziddoap 5y ago

>So yeah, thanks for nothing -- namely for stating the ideal theoretical state of things -- but a lot of people out there need actual real-time protection, on the spot. I don't understand why you would be upset that an organization that spends most of its time with court-related battles is, once again, dealing with court-related things. Should the EFF be putting boots on the ground in some sort of vigilante project that defends people in real time? What is the alternative you're suggesting the EFF do, if doing things in court is only worth a "thanks for nothing"? >Until there's true accountability and 100% transparency Where would this come from do you think? Because I'm thinking we start at the courts, but it seems like you might have other ideas. The EFF can't fix everything, especially not in airport backrooms of other various countries. But that does not mean there efforts are a waste.

pdimitar 5y ago
The only thing I'll say is that all of this has been parroted to death, ever since the 70s, and I am not seeing an improvement anywhere. People love this fuzzy feeling that they are "spreading awareness" and that "we must start somewhere" but historically, I've lived long enough to not see those make any difference so far. But I really don't want to debate. I came to state anecdotal evidence + opinion. Neither of which is an indisputable fact and I have not claimed otherwise.
- ziddoap 5y ago
  There is a vast difference between reaching the supreme court with your amicus briefs and "spreading awareness" in a blog post. They also aren't mutually exclusive. >But I really don't want to debate. I came to state anecdotal evidence + opinion. This is always funny to read. Write a strongly worded opinion, but refuse to engage with others. >but historically, I've lived long enough to not see those make any difference so far. Out of curiosity, in your long lived life, how many times have you seen amicus briefs written to the supreme court defending 5th amendment rights?
  - pdimitar 5y ago
    Funny -- only if you don't know what the words mean. Both are not strictly facts so any discussion around them is bound to derail into... exactly what's going on here.

2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago

> Hint: some cops are really good in the skill of inflicting pain to people without lasting medical trace to prove it afterwards. What a useless statement. Some? Out of how many? Do you have a source?

mschuster91 5y ago

> Technically airport security can't make you unlock your phone in many countries as well but I've known two former colleagues who were "convinced" to do so in the airport's back room; the one where problematic passengers are held for 8-24h. Which is why I refuse to travel outside of the Schengen area. Even if I'd really like to visit the US one day once corona passes, there is absolutely no way I'll consent to essentially a digital striptease search with orifice controls. Our digital devices - smartphones and laptops especially - are mirrors of our minds and our thoughts. Border control and police are not allowed to use torture to get access to our minds, they should not be given the power to circumvent that by accessing our phones. > "Raising awareness" doesn't work on ruthless cops. I guess that's a mind-blowing revelation to many Westerners. No wonder, given that - the US has its pupils pledge allegiance to the country every single day - authority and police are consistently shown as "the good guys" who don't have to respect rules in all forms of media and culture that don't originate from people of color and immigrants (like rap/hip hop) - protests against said police overreach and abuse (as well as other forms of social injustice) are downplayed to outright vilified in mass media, and police abuse itself is ignored until protests turn extremely large and/or violent (such as with the George Floyd/BLM protests) - anything "left wing" is branded "communist", and "communist" itself is branded as the devil - not just in the US but also across wide swaths of Europe.

pdimitar 5y ago
> Which is why I refuse to travel outside of the Schengen area. Even if I'd really like to visit the US one day once corona passes, there is absolutely no way I'll consent to essentially a digital striptease search with orifice controls. Same here. I am curious about the USA but after reading and hearing a bunch of stories... really, no thanks. I know chances are slim but I still don't want to risk it. > No wonder, given that... Yeah. USA has a really strong propaganda system and it's a shame that even on HN, where people should be more critical thinkers, this is not widely recognized.
- mschuster91 5y ago
  > USA has a really strong propaganda system and it's a shame that even on HN, where people should be more critical thinkers, this is not widely recognized. That's the fault of "American exceptionalism". At least one positive thing happened as a result of the 45th - Americans can no longer deny that their nation is immune from falling into the hands of a proto-fascist and a gang of cronies and goons in his wake. Anyway, the list of points is (sans the pledge) applicable across most countries in the Western world... partially because a lot of our culture is US-influenced (social networks, but first and foremost Hollywood's media industry) and because our media isn't much better. Germany's most influential BILD tabloid is a rag that spreads authoritarianism and right-wing ideology, and the cop show Tatort consistently has peak TV attendance rates.

testfoobar 5y ago

You can beat the rap, but not the ride. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Freddie_Gray https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Freddie_Gray Edit: Just to be clear, this is an illustrative example. Not a flippant response. Gray should not have died in police custody.

ajsnigrutin 5y ago

That's why you need a good lawyer, to bring your story to the public, sue the damn police department and get justice! And then the cop gets 2 weeks of paid suspension, taxpayers pay you 20k in 'damages', and your lawyer costs only 35k.

avs733 5y ago
the one part of this I will defend is taxpayers footing the bill. Frankly, the government employs cops on our behalf and they act on behalf of the population. This type of behavior is part of the American culture of policing, it is not 'individual bad actors'. We should bear the cost of them acting improperly. I vehemently object to us creating a culture where police are expected to behave in this way but then are personally responsible when they get caught doing what is expected. Cops should pay the criminal costs for their actions, but the liability belongs to those who employ them and empower them - us.
- ajsnigrutin 5y ago
  But we didn't employ bad cops... we employed cops, they just turned bad. If I hire a plumber, to fix my sink, and the plumber rapes my neighbor and burns his/her house, why should I pay for the damages? If a cop rapes someone, again, why should I pay?
  - avs733 5y ago
    Because your analogy is faulty. If you call a plumbing company and they send a plumber who nursery’s you, you would damn sure sue the plumbing company. The police would handle the plumber as a criminal matter.

BiteCode_dev 5y ago

Any interaction with authorities should be legally required to be recorded. If you are held for 72h, there should be 72 hours of videos, not one minute less.

kingcharles 5y ago

I held out until the police threatened my wife and then I broke.

refurb 5y ago

How does transparency help? If cops have a legal right to hold you for 72 hours that doesn’t change if more transparency happens.

pdimitar 5y ago
Well, I mean, transparency means that footage of the cells of arrested people don't routinely disappear due to "technical glitches" as it regularly happens in my country. :(

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]