11 ms·

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

by 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.
      - gkop 5y ago
        Would you say more about your employer suing you if you cave under pressure and unlock the laptop? That sounds to me like your employer is asking a lot of you! Or, if you are bluffing to security about the suing, why are you putting your personal safety on the line to protect your employer?
        pdimitar 5y ago
        It's a weighing of risks, really. I don't value neither airport security or my employer's secrets as highly as my own safety but will weigh in the risk as the situation develops. If I am asked to accompany them to the dark room I'll just give up, unlock the laptop, hand it to them and then quietly inform my employer's legal team that a potential security breach has occurred (after I get safely to a hotel). I really don't want to spend time in jail because of a nervous cop.
        gkop 5y ago
        Very prudent. Thanks.
        genericuser314 5y ago
        Anecdotally, I can confirm that my employer requires me to: 1.) Not allow my phone to be unlocked by fingerprint/face. 2.) Not carry USB sticks or similar portable storage devices on my person, to only transport them by courier. 3.) Not unlock my computer for anyone, including the police, unless directed to by our compliance office. Or it's breach of contract and they can reclaim part of my compensation. I don't work on anything exciting, just Big medical data.
        gkop 5y ago
        Yikes, I hope you are well paid! (Re: 1 and 3. 2 is table stakes in this day and age. In fact re: 2, would you be willing to share a scenario that calls for sneakernet by courier vs a network storage/transfer?)
  - giantg2 5y ago
    In some instances maybe, in others it might be good. It can also be a gamble. If you're afraid for your safety or they are clearly overstepping their bounds, then complying and fighting it in court is basically the only option (even though it's possible you still get screwed). Otherwise, knowing an asserting your rights can be good, but you have to hope the cop isnt unhinged, dirty, or totally incompetent.
  - letitbeirie 5y ago
    Depends on the context. If you're not on their radar, being polite and forgettable is a great way to stay that way. If you're already in custody, anything you say while being friendly can and will be used against you in court, so your vocabulary should probably be limited to the word "lawyer."
    - bentcorner 5y ago
      The problem starts when being polite and forgettable puts you on their radar. Police look in your backpack, and hey - it's a bike lock just like the one that was used to assault someone down the block a few minutes ago! You look about the right height. Which direction did you say you were coming from again? Some situations can be lose-lose. Best you can do is don't talk to the police, and if you absolutely must, say as little as possible and don't lie.
- dTal 5y ago
  This isn't some kind of cunning hack, it's literally what they're trying to accomplish by being bullies. Society needs people to stand up to the police when they exceed their legal remit, or they will continue to exceed it. I won't blame people for choosing personal convenience over the good of society, but we should be clear that that is the choice being made.
  - pdimitar 5y ago
    I am 100% clear on it and it's indeed a conscious choice towards the path of the least resistance. I don't like it anymore than you do, I am simply a realist that I can't change the reality of a lot of cops being bullies. It's a "partial hack" only insofar as it's making them drop their guard and look to finalize the interaction quicker. I've seen these people's faces up close; they are on the edge and any non-cooperation will push them to physically abuse you or even drag you to the station. So I found a way to make them not think of me as a threat, even if two of the times when it happened I had not a minute to waste. And sadly, when it comes to "people must stand up", it's never us. Always has to be somebody else. Sigh.
  - voakbasda 5y ago
    Standing up to a bully is asking to be punched in the face. Cops can make your life difficult. And they will.
  - ddingus 5y ago
    Agreed. Having faced potential costs associated with exercising rights, I must say it can go very bad, very quick. Done right, even when it does go bad, means a likely win in court. In my case, preventing warrantless home entry involved: Personal beating, like ouch! People will notice it happened to you type ouch! An evening in holding. Long walk home. (I could have gotten a ride, but was a mess mentally and just walked 10 miles. A few thousand for a defense attorney. 10 court appearances called for at expensive and tiresome times. Trial. Tort to recover fees. Personal unease for about 6 months while it all played out. Not recommended. Unless it is worth it. In my case it was more than standing on principle. Finally, public defenders are not generally what you want in rights violation type scenarios. Be ready to pay up for experienced representation. Be ready to take the ride, take the beating, pay the money, lose the time.
- polynomial 5y ago
  Are you from Tivoli?
- ddingus 5y ago
  There is a lot to be said for a little charm and candor. I do this too, and will flip the switch in a second if it looks like it will go bad. One other way to improve ones police interactions is to have one go really bad, then win in court. Happened to me, and I lack time to tell the tale fully. Basically, I came home to my family all angry. I sent everyone to their rooms, wife included lol, and stepped onto my porch to have a smoke and think it through. Sidebar: I really miss that, and am a non smoker today. Three officers walked up and made demands to enter my home, which I denied and they beat my ass and took me to jail. And it was a non trivial beating. What they expect is for people to plead down, and I took it to trial and was found not guilty. Ever since, I have great interactions...
quacked 5y ago
You're absolutely right, and it's insane that people don't realize this. So many people that want police reform in the US think that somehow we can continue to let the police be mostly made up by people with a certain political persuasion and education level, and that we can simply control them with laws and incentives.
- sethammons 5y ago
  > political persuasion and education level Sorry, I'm not following. My understanding is that the job attracts bullies and I see bullies from all political persuasions and all education levels.
  - macintux 5y ago
    I think the recently-departed administration in the U.S. has done a good job of helping bullies self-select themselves into its party.
    - quacked 5y ago
      I find that bullies can be found in equal proportions in both parties, but I do agree that the type of bully who is willing to walk the street with a gun in the name of justice does have a more welcoming home in one major party than the other.
      - aksss 5y ago
        You should talk to some homicide detectives, or even the people who deal with the day-to-day issues at the street level in downtown areas. The things they see on a regular basis are pretty mind-blowing, and not just per-incident, but cyclically and systemically. Their perspective on government policy and it’s effects are far different than ours by the nature of their jobs. That is a partial factor in how they vote and how they donate, particularly as of late. Their life experience is dealing with the disproportionately bad aspects of society, just like you probably have a disproportionately good existence. There are assumptions and biases that come from both these exposure models. And maybe it’s just a problem with their delivery, but if you hear a political party (unfortunately the loudmouth fringe more often than not) incessantly talking about how you suck, should be presumed to be an evil murderer, and advocate policies that you feel put your daily safety at further risk, you might rethink your donations and voting history as well. Not defending the bad cultures and actors whatsoever, but there’s more room for nuance in discussing the issues we have policing this large, individualistic, culturally heterogenous, heavily medicated and critically unmedicated country. The problem is a hard one, so easy simple answers should be viewed with skepticism. There is no “just do what Norway does” answer to the problem that can be made in good faith.
Consultant32452 5y ago
[flagged]
- breakingcups 5y ago
  I don't think I understand what you're trying to say. The colons aren't making it clear. What do you mean?
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    Colon notation for analogies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colon_(punctuation)#Mathematics_and_logic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colon_(punctuation)#Mathematic... It translates as "Law/Constitution is to Conservatives as Gun Free Zone signs are to Liberals".
  - edot 5y ago
    That’s the notation for an analogy. A is to B as C is to D. For example, Fins:Fish::Feet:Humans, or Green:Trees::Blue:Water.
  - mogopugh 5y ago
    "X:Y :: A:B" an anachronistic way of saying "X is to Y as A is to B". Meaning, "A and B are related to one another in a similar kind of way that X and Y are related to one another".
    - singlow 5y ago
      I don't think it's anachronistic, maybe arcane. Its a formal logic symbol which was also used by standardized test writers like the SAT. The SAT removed those questions because they were ineffective at assessment, not because the notation was out of favor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colon_(punctuation)#Mathematics_and_logic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colon_(punctuation)#Mathematic...
      - mogopugh 5y ago
        > Its a formal logic symbol I've never seen this notation used in modern mathematical logic papers. I've even had (non-US) logic phds ask me about this notation. > which was also used by standardized test writers like the SAT. The SAT removed those questions because they were ineffective at assessment, not because the notation was out of favor. Yeah, standardized tests that have since phased it out were really the only place it was used. Hence anachronistic. If you didn't take the SAT during a certain period of time there's a god chance you didn't see this notation.
oogali 5y ago
A former colleague summarized this as "you can beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride". Meaning, your exit via means of reciting legal code matters in a court room or in front of a prosecutor, but it won't get you out of the ride to the police station -- or in this case: a trip to the coercion back room.
- 35fbe7d3d5b9 5y ago
  I listened to a legal symposium once that was held by lawyers who specialize in self defense/use of force. Think "I have a concealed weapon and I killed someone in self defense - now what?" They all agreed that their clients worry far too much about being arrested. Their legal advice was unanimous: you just took someone's life, you are absolutely going to be arrested, nothing you could possibly say will change that. But if you say the wrong thing to the arresting or investigating officer, you are at risk of derailing your legal strategy. A night or two in jail won't change your life, but what you say to the police absolutely can. So shut the fuck up until your lawyer gets there, and then stay shut up until your lawyer tells you otherwise.
  - Klathmon 5y ago
    >A night or two in jail won't change your life A night or two in jail absolutely can change your life. A night or two in jail means not being able to pick your kid up from daycare or take care of pets/family, A night or two in jail means missing work without any notice. Hope your boss is understanding, because if you lose your job you're on your way to losing everything. A night or two in jail means you now need enough in savings to get your car out of the impound lot, pay bail if needed, pay for a lawyer, and have a couple of years to spend on defending yourself in court or you might actually go away for a longer time. A night or two in jail means having an arrest record, if you live in a state with "sunshine laws" you'll forever get extortion calls about how they'll remove your mugshot and information from their website for $500. That makes getting future jobs harder, or you need to spend even more time and money getting the records sealed/removed. And that's not even touching on the physical toll that being arrested and treated like sub-human has on you. Being shoved to the ground, physically thrown into a cell, fearing for your life while multiple guns are pointed at your head knowing you are one misunderstanding away from dying, getting tazed while multiple cops laugh and yell for you to stop resisting.
dnautics 5y ago
Though that's not really the point of those things in the legal code; the point is not for you to stop a cop from doing it at the point of abuse, but for you to have a legal arm to sue the fuck out of them afterwards, or to get a pass out of jail because the cops violated procedure. Yeah, it sucks for you, but it's supposed to be a deterrent to prevent cops from abusing their power in the future. Now, that obviously that is not super effective for other reasons (QI; courts - an agent of the state - being overly deferential and siding with the state; etc.).
- voakbasda 5y ago
  The problem with expecting accountability is that system will fail you at the next step: the courts. You have to survive that process too, where the judge and prosecutor will believe the cop nine times out of ten. As a sitting federal judge once said, “truth and justice have no relevance; it is a court of law.” The law will take the side of the system.
  - dnautics 5y ago
    > The law will take the side of the system >> courts - an agent of the state - being overly deferential and siding with the state I am highly cynical about this methodology but it DOES work for the group, even if it is inefficent at it (and progressively getting more inefficient). Over the long run cops learn that they can't do X or Y, except for a few "new" abuses (e.g. civil asset forfeiture) we are probably better off than we were 50 or 60 years ago. At some point if we get too inefficient about it (which we may have already crossed), though, the equilibrium change will move towards regression since it is a cat-and-mouse game to some degree; cops are clever and talk to each other to strategize against protections, too.
    - andrei_says_ 5y ago
      > cops are clever and talk to each other to strategize against protections, too. Like playing popular music while being recorded by bystanders so that the videos get taken down for copyright infringement.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
melony 5y ago
Too much of legal procedures relies on 'discretion' rather than protocol.
ALittleLight 5y ago
My first interaction with the police was in college. I had locked my bike to a bench near the student union. Might have been obnoxious, probably shouldn't have, but it was also very common for students to lock bikes to those benches. Someone from the University's parking and transportation department had come by and double locked my bike with a notice saying it would be impounded and I'd have to come by the Parking and Transportation office to pay a fee and pick it up. It didn't seem right to me that I would have to pay a fee for something that everyone did and that wasn't counter-indicated anywhere I was aware of. I did a little reading and discovered what I thought were two relevant city ordinances! I forget the exact language of the ordinances but it was something like "There needs to be a visible sign prohibiting locking bicycles in the area or to the fixtures to issue citations" and "Citations should be issued by police officers only who should be specifically named in the citation." I thought both of those applied to my situation as my citation was issued, not by an officer, but just generally by the Parking and Transportation department and there were no signs about not locking your bikes to benches. I made the case to the woman behind the desk at the parking and transportation department. She was unmoved and insisted I had to pay the fine to get my bike back. I tried arguing along the lines that taking my bike against my will and in disagreement with the law was basically theft. She countered by saying that if it was theft I should call the police. When I repeated the accusation that it was theft she slid her desk phone across to me and told me to call the police again. Writing this, it seems crazy to me that I actually did - but I found it hard to back down in the moment and thought I was in the right on a legal basis. So, I called the non-emergency number for the campus police and explained the situation. The police person told me they'd send someone by. A few minutes later a couple of cops showed up and asked to speak to me outside. I stepped outside with them and tried to explain the situation. Pretty quickly, before I even got into my legal arguments, one cop said "We got a call that you were disturbing the peace in there. That you were threatening people and acting violent." The second cop stepped extremely close to me, coming face to face in a threatening manner and asked me something like "Why are you threatening people?" It was, first, completely untrue. I had never raised my voice or been threatening. I actually enjoy such arguments and I had been having a good time trying to rescue my bike. The Parking and Transportation Department woman had been unamused and maybe a little cynical or dry, but certainly never acted like there was a threat of any kind or like I was being hostile. And, of course, ultimately, I knew they were lying because I was the one who had called them and I definitely hadn't reported myself as causing a disturbance or being violent. Realizing they wouldn't help me, I thanked the police for their service and left. From their perspective, they probably felt they had solved the problem. They got called over a problem and they made the problem go away. I've always felt the situation was a bit galling but looking back on it I see I was navigating the system the wrong way. The police are physical problem solvers, not legal arbiters, and should not be called for non-physical problems. And, maybe I was morally wrong anyway to lock my bike there.
BobbyJo 5y ago
It's also amazing the amount of people who have never dealt with cops who think it's a giant, unthinking, unfeeling blob, and make broad generalizations about how it behaves and what its flaws are. I've dealt with lots of cops for minor stuff (trespassing, traffic infractions, crashed parties), and have only had a bad experience (turned out fine anyway) once. I have several relatives who have been in and out of the system, and from my point of view, they were probably treated more fairly than they deserved. I get that that is not everyone's experience, but it makes me skeptical that the problem is somehow grand and structural and not just "some people are assholes."
- ineptech 5y ago
  Every profession has abusive people; it's a structural issue when a profession can't or won't weed them out.
  - lr4444lr 5y ago
    What profession has an effective method of weeding out abusive people?
    - Sohcahtoa82 5y ago
      This is 100% a bad faith question. And even if it's being asked in good faith, it's entirely irrelevant. It's essentially whataboutism. But I'll address it anyways. If I have an abusive co-worker in my tech job and my manager and HR refuse to do anything about it, it just makes work suck. But an abusive cop ruins lives with bullshit charges and bullshit handling of innocent people. In worst-case scenarios, they're murderers that get away with it. So yeah...it's a pretty clear distinction, and I refuse to believe you're asking this question in good faith.
      - lr4444lr 5y ago
        It's not in bad faith, but it is rhetorical: people protecting their own, at an industry or occupational level, is the rule, not the exception.
cogman10 5y ago
You can't talk yourself out of being arrested. This is why the advice of "keep your mouth shut" is the best advice out there. https://oakleylawky.com/am-i-being-detained-6-questions-you-should-ask-during-interactions-with-the-police/ https://oakleylawky.com/am-i-being-detained-6-questions-you-...
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

by 63 5y ago

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.
    - gkop 5y ago
      Would you say more about your employer suing you if you cave under pressure and unlock the laptop? That sounds to me like your employer is asking a lot of you! Or, if you are bluffing to security about the suing, why are you putting your personal safety on the line to protect your employer?
      - pdimitar 5y ago
        It's a weighing of risks, really. I don't value neither airport security or my employer's secrets as highly as my own safety but will weigh in the risk as the situation develops. If I am asked to accompany them to the dark room I'll just give up, unlock the laptop, hand it to them and then quietly inform my employer's legal team that a potential security breach has occurred (after I get safely to a hotel). I really don't want to spend time in jail because of a nervous cop.
        gkop 5y ago
        Very prudent. Thanks.
      - genericuser314 5y ago
        Anecdotally, I can confirm that my employer requires me to: 1.) Not allow my phone to be unlocked by fingerprint/face. 2.) Not carry USB sticks or similar portable storage devices on my person, to only transport them by courier. 3.) Not unlock my computer for anyone, including the police, unless directed to by our compliance office. Or it's breach of contract and they can reclaim part of my compensation. I don't work on anything exciting, just Big medical data.
        gkop 5y ago
        Yikes, I hope you are well paid! (Re: 1 and 3. 2 is table stakes in this day and age. In fact re: 2, would you be willing to share a scenario that calls for sneakernet by courier vs a network storage/transfer?)
- giantg2 5y ago
  In some instances maybe, in others it might be good. It can also be a gamble. If you're afraid for your safety or they are clearly overstepping their bounds, then complying and fighting it in court is basically the only option (even though it's possible you still get screwed). Otherwise, knowing an asserting your rights can be good, but you have to hope the cop isnt unhinged, dirty, or totally incompetent.
- letitbeirie 5y ago
  Depends on the context. If you're not on their radar, being polite and forgettable is a great way to stay that way. If you're already in custody, anything you say while being friendly can and will be used against you in court, so your vocabulary should probably be limited to the word "lawyer."
  - bentcorner 5y ago
    The problem starts when being polite and forgettable puts you on their radar. Police look in your backpack, and hey - it's a bike lock just like the one that was used to assault someone down the block a few minutes ago! You look about the right height. Which direction did you say you were coming from again? Some situations can be lose-lose. Best you can do is don't talk to the police, and if you absolutely must, say as little as possible and don't lie.
dTal 5y ago
This isn't some kind of cunning hack, it's literally what they're trying to accomplish by being bullies. Society needs people to stand up to the police when they exceed their legal remit, or they will continue to exceed it. I won't blame people for choosing personal convenience over the good of society, but we should be clear that that is the choice being made.
- pdimitar 5y ago
  I am 100% clear on it and it's indeed a conscious choice towards the path of the least resistance. I don't like it anymore than you do, I am simply a realist that I can't change the reality of a lot of cops being bullies. It's a "partial hack" only insofar as it's making them drop their guard and look to finalize the interaction quicker. I've seen these people's faces up close; they are on the edge and any non-cooperation will push them to physically abuse you or even drag you to the station. So I found a way to make them not think of me as a threat, even if two of the times when it happened I had not a minute to waste. And sadly, when it comes to "people must stand up", it's never us. Always has to be somebody else. Sigh.
- voakbasda 5y ago
  Standing up to a bully is asking to be punched in the face. Cops can make your life difficult. And they will.
- ddingus 5y ago
  Agreed. Having faced potential costs associated with exercising rights, I must say it can go very bad, very quick. Done right, even when it does go bad, means a likely win in court. In my case, preventing warrantless home entry involved: Personal beating, like ouch! People will notice it happened to you type ouch! An evening in holding. Long walk home. (I could have gotten a ride, but was a mess mentally and just walked 10 miles. A few thousand for a defense attorney. 10 court appearances called for at expensive and tiresome times. Trial. Tort to recover fees. Personal unease for about 6 months while it all played out. Not recommended. Unless it is worth it. In my case it was more than standing on principle. Finally, public defenders are not generally what you want in rights violation type scenarios. Be ready to pay up for experienced representation. Be ready to take the ride, take the beating, pay the money, lose the time.
polynomial 5y ago
Are you from Tivoli?
ddingus 5y ago
There is a lot to be said for a little charm and candor. I do this too, and will flip the switch in a second if it looks like it will go bad. One other way to improve ones police interactions is to have one go really bad, then win in court. Happened to me, and I lack time to tell the tale fully. Basically, I came home to my family all angry. I sent everyone to their rooms, wife included lol, and stepped onto my porch to have a smoke and think it through. Sidebar: I really miss that, and am a non smoker today. Three officers walked up and made demands to enter my home, which I denied and they beat my ass and took me to jail. And it was a non trivial beating. What they expect is for people to plead down, and I took it to trial and was found not guilty. Ever since, I have great interactions...

quacked 5y ago

You're absolutely right, and it's insane that people don't realize this. So many people that want police reform in the US think that somehow we can continue to let the police be mostly made up by people with a certain political persuasion and education level, and that we can simply control them with laws and incentives.

sethammons 5y ago
> political persuasion and education level Sorry, I'm not following. My understanding is that the job attracts bullies and I see bullies from all political persuasions and all education levels.
- macintux 5y ago
  I think the recently-departed administration in the U.S. has done a good job of helping bullies self-select themselves into its party.
  - quacked 5y ago
    I find that bullies can be found in equal proportions in both parties, but I do agree that the type of bully who is willing to walk the street with a gun in the name of justice does have a more welcoming home in one major party than the other.
    - aksss 5y ago
      You should talk to some homicide detectives, or even the people who deal with the day-to-day issues at the street level in downtown areas. The things they see on a regular basis are pretty mind-blowing, and not just per-incident, but cyclically and systemically. Their perspective on government policy and it’s effects are far different than ours by the nature of their jobs. That is a partial factor in how they vote and how they donate, particularly as of late. Their life experience is dealing with the disproportionately bad aspects of society, just like you probably have a disproportionately good existence. There are assumptions and biases that come from both these exposure models. And maybe it’s just a problem with their delivery, but if you hear a political party (unfortunately the loudmouth fringe more often than not) incessantly talking about how you suck, should be presumed to be an evil murderer, and advocate policies that you feel put your daily safety at further risk, you might rethink your donations and voting history as well. Not defending the bad cultures and actors whatsoever, but there’s more room for nuance in discussing the issues we have policing this large, individualistic, culturally heterogenous, heavily medicated and critically unmedicated country. The problem is a hard one, so easy simple answers should be viewed with skepticism. There is no “just do what Norway does” answer to the problem that can be made in good faith.

Consultant32452 5y ago

[flagged]

breakingcups 5y ago
I don't think I understand what you're trying to say. The colons aren't making it clear. What do you mean?
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  Colon notation for analogies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colon_(punctuation)#Mathematics_and_logic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colon_(punctuation)#Mathematic... It translates as "Law/Constitution is to Conservatives as Gun Free Zone signs are to Liberals".
- edot 5y ago
  That’s the notation for an analogy. A is to B as C is to D. For example, Fins:Fish::Feet:Humans, or Green:Trees::Blue:Water.
- mogopugh 5y ago
  "X:Y :: A:B" an anachronistic way of saying "X is to Y as A is to B". Meaning, "A and B are related to one another in a similar kind of way that X and Y are related to one another".
  - singlow 5y ago
    I don't think it's anachronistic, maybe arcane. Its a formal logic symbol which was also used by standardized test writers like the SAT. The SAT removed those questions because they were ineffective at assessment, not because the notation was out of favor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colon_(punctuation)#Mathematics_and_logic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colon_(punctuation)#Mathematic...
    - mogopugh 5y ago
      > Its a formal logic symbol I've never seen this notation used in modern mathematical logic papers. I've even had (non-US) logic phds ask me about this notation. > which was also used by standardized test writers like the SAT. The SAT removed those questions because they were ineffective at assessment, not because the notation was out of favor. Yeah, standardized tests that have since phased it out were really the only place it was used. Hence anachronistic. If you didn't take the SAT during a certain period of time there's a god chance you didn't see this notation.

oogali 5y ago

A former colleague summarized this as "you can beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride". Meaning, your exit via means of reciting legal code matters in a court room or in front of a prosecutor, but it won't get you out of the ride to the police station -- or in this case: a trip to the coercion back room.

35fbe7d3d5b9 5y ago
I listened to a legal symposium once that was held by lawyers who specialize in self defense/use of force. Think "I have a concealed weapon and I killed someone in self defense - now what?" They all agreed that their clients worry far too much about being arrested. Their legal advice was unanimous: you just took someone's life, you are absolutely going to be arrested, nothing you could possibly say will change that. But if you say the wrong thing to the arresting or investigating officer, you are at risk of derailing your legal strategy. A night or two in jail won't change your life, but what you say to the police absolutely can. So shut the fuck up until your lawyer gets there, and then stay shut up until your lawyer tells you otherwise.
- Klathmon 5y ago
  >A night or two in jail won't change your life A night or two in jail absolutely can change your life. A night or two in jail means not being able to pick your kid up from daycare or take care of pets/family, A night or two in jail means missing work without any notice. Hope your boss is understanding, because if you lose your job you're on your way to losing everything. A night or two in jail means you now need enough in savings to get your car out of the impound lot, pay bail if needed, pay for a lawyer, and have a couple of years to spend on defending yourself in court or you might actually go away for a longer time. A night or two in jail means having an arrest record, if you live in a state with "sunshine laws" you'll forever get extortion calls about how they'll remove your mugshot and information from their website for $500. That makes getting future jobs harder, or you need to spend even more time and money getting the records sealed/removed. And that's not even touching on the physical toll that being arrested and treated like sub-human has on you. Being shoved to the ground, physically thrown into a cell, fearing for your life while multiple guns are pointed at your head knowing you are one misunderstanding away from dying, getting tazed while multiple cops laugh and yell for you to stop resisting.

dnautics 5y ago

Though that's not really the point of those things in the legal code; the point is not for you to stop a cop from doing it at the point of abuse, but for you to have a legal arm to sue the fuck out of them afterwards, or to get a pass out of jail because the cops violated procedure. Yeah, it sucks for you, but it's supposed to be a deterrent to prevent cops from abusing their power in the future. Now, that obviously that is not super effective for other reasons (QI; courts - an agent of the state - being overly deferential and siding with the state; etc.).

voakbasda 5y ago
The problem with expecting accountability is that system will fail you at the next step: the courts. You have to survive that process too, where the judge and prosecutor will believe the cop nine times out of ten. As a sitting federal judge once said, “truth and justice have no relevance; it is a court of law.” The law will take the side of the system.
- dnautics 5y ago
  > The law will take the side of the system >> courts - an agent of the state - being overly deferential and siding with the state I am highly cynical about this methodology but it DOES work for the group, even if it is inefficent at it (and progressively getting more inefficient). Over the long run cops learn that they can't do X or Y, except for a few "new" abuses (e.g. civil asset forfeiture) we are probably better off than we were 50 or 60 years ago. At some point if we get too inefficient about it (which we may have already crossed), though, the equilibrium change will move towards regression since it is a cat-and-mouse game to some degree; cops are clever and talk to each other to strategize against protections, too.
  - andrei_says_ 5y ago
    > cops are clever and talk to each other to strategize against protections, too. Like playing popular music while being recorded by bystanders so that the videos get taken down for copyright infringement.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

melony 5y ago

Too much of legal procedures relies on 'discretion' rather than protocol.

ALittleLight 5y ago

My first interaction with the police was in college. I had locked my bike to a bench near the student union. Might have been obnoxious, probably shouldn't have, but it was also very common for students to lock bikes to those benches. Someone from the University's parking and transportation department had come by and double locked my bike with a notice saying it would be impounded and I'd have to come by the Parking and Transportation office to pay a fee and pick it up. It didn't seem right to me that I would have to pay a fee for something that everyone did and that wasn't counter-indicated anywhere I was aware of. I did a little reading and discovered what I thought were two relevant city ordinances! I forget the exact language of the ordinances but it was something like "There needs to be a visible sign prohibiting locking bicycles in the area or to the fixtures to issue citations" and "Citations should be issued by police officers only who should be specifically named in the citation." I thought both of those applied to my situation as my citation was issued, not by an officer, but just generally by the Parking and Transportation department and there were no signs about not locking your bikes to benches. I made the case to the woman behind the desk at the parking and transportation department. She was unmoved and insisted I had to pay the fine to get my bike back. I tried arguing along the lines that taking my bike against my will and in disagreement with the law was basically theft. She countered by saying that if it was theft I should call the police. When I repeated the accusation that it was theft she slid her desk phone across to me and told me to call the police again. Writing this, it seems crazy to me that I actually did - but I found it hard to back down in the moment and thought I was in the right on a legal basis. So, I called the non-emergency number for the campus police and explained the situation. The police person told me they'd send someone by. A few minutes later a couple of cops showed up and asked to speak to me outside. I stepped outside with them and tried to explain the situation. Pretty quickly, before I even got into my legal arguments, one cop said "We got a call that you were disturbing the peace in there. That you were threatening people and acting violent." The second cop stepped extremely close to me, coming face to face in a threatening manner and asked me something like "Why are you threatening people?" It was, first, completely untrue. I had never raised my voice or been threatening. I actually enjoy such arguments and I had been having a good time trying to rescue my bike. The Parking and Transportation Department woman had been unamused and maybe a little cynical or dry, but certainly never acted like there was a threat of any kind or like I was being hostile. And, of course, ultimately, I knew they were lying because I was the one who had called them and I definitely hadn't reported myself as causing a disturbance or being violent. Realizing they wouldn't help me, I thanked the police for their service and left. From their perspective, they probably felt they had solved the problem. They got called over a problem and they made the problem go away. I've always felt the situation was a bit galling but looking back on it I see I was navigating the system the wrong way. The police are physical problem solvers, not legal arbiters, and should not be called for non-physical problems. And, maybe I was morally wrong anyway to lock my bike there.

BobbyJo 5y ago

It's also amazing the amount of people who have never dealt with cops who think it's a giant, unthinking, unfeeling blob, and make broad generalizations about how it behaves and what its flaws are. I've dealt with lots of cops for minor stuff (trespassing, traffic infractions, crashed parties), and have only had a bad experience (turned out fine anyway) once. I have several relatives who have been in and out of the system, and from my point of view, they were probably treated more fairly than they deserved. I get that that is not everyone's experience, but it makes me skeptical that the problem is somehow grand and structural and not just "some people are assholes."

ineptech 5y ago
Every profession has abusive people; it's a structural issue when a profession can't or won't weed them out.
- lr4444lr 5y ago
  What profession has an effective method of weeding out abusive people?
  - Sohcahtoa82 5y ago
    This is 100% a bad faith question. And even if it's being asked in good faith, it's entirely irrelevant. It's essentially whataboutism. But I'll address it anyways. If I have an abusive co-worker in my tech job and my manager and HR refuse to do anything about it, it just makes work suck. But an abusive cop ruins lives with bullshit charges and bullshit handling of innocent people. In worst-case scenarios, they're murderers that get away with it. So yeah...it's a pretty clear distinction, and I refuse to believe you're asking this question in good faith.
    - lr4444lr 5y ago
      It's not in bad faith, but it is rhetorical: people protecting their own, at an industry or occupational level, is the rule, not the exception.

cogman10 5y ago

You can't talk yourself out of being arrested. This is why the advice of "keep your mouth shut" is the best advice out there. https://oakleylawky.com/am-i-being-detained-6-questions-you-should-ask-during-interactions-with-the-police/ https://oakleylawky.com/am-i-being-detained-6-questions-you-...

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]