4 ms·

> “My thinking is, I didn’t do anything wrong,” he said. “So whatever they look at, they won’t find that I did anything wrong.” This statement seems like a com

> “My thinking is, I didn’t do anything wrong,” he said. “So whatever they look at, they won’t find that I did anything wrong.” This statement seems like a completely backward mindset to have, especially after watching this classic advice piece on youtube [1]. [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE

mizzao 5y ago
Wow, what an insightful video. In nerdy terms, the prosecution will basically p-hack your case until they get statistical significance.
- aspenmayer 5y ago
  > the prosecution will basically p-hack your case until they get statistical significance. This is a great analogy.
Bayart 5y ago
What's backward isn't the statement, which is perfectly common sense, it's that judicial system.
musesum 5y ago
I wonder, if ever interviewed by the Police, I could just say: "No thanks, search on YouTube for 'Don't Talk to the Police' for why. Or maybe, giving that reason why I won't talk means that I'm actually talking to the police? Somewhat a tangent: when going through due diligence for Series A, my CEO said: "Remember, they are not your friends." The thing was, though, after they invested, the VC fired him. Maybe that's the difference between prosecutors and makers.
- kelnos 5y ago
  You don't need to explain why (and probably shouldn't). All you need to say is "I'm not interested in answering questions" (possibly suffixed with "without an attorney present", though that could escalate things), or "I don't consent to any searches", or whatever fits the circumstances of the interaction. Depending on the laws in your jurisdiction, your legal obligation may be no more than stating your name and possibly providing identification if requested. But don't be a dick: be respectful when you decline further interactions. Verbal (or other) aggression could give them a reason to try to force the issue, regardless of whether or not it's legal for them to do so.

mizzao 5y ago

Wow, what an insightful video. In nerdy terms, the prosecution will basically p-hack your case until they get statistical significance.

aspenmayer 5y ago
> the prosecution will basically p-hack your case until they get statistical significance. This is a great analogy.

Bayart 5y ago

What's backward isn't the statement, which is perfectly common sense, it's that judicial system.

musesum 5y ago

I wonder, if ever interviewed by the Police, I could just say: "No thanks, search on YouTube for 'Don't Talk to the Police' for why. Or maybe, giving that reason why I won't talk means that I'm actually talking to the police? Somewhat a tangent: when going through due diligence for Series A, my CEO said: "Remember, they are not your friends." The thing was, though, after they invested, the VC fired him. Maybe that's the difference between prosecutors and makers.

kelnos 5y ago
You don't need to explain why (and probably shouldn't). All you need to say is "I'm not interested in answering questions" (possibly suffixed with "without an attorney present", though that could escalate things), or "I don't consent to any searches", or whatever fits the circumstances of the interaction. Depending on the laws in your jurisdiction, your legal obligation may be no more than stating your name and possibly providing identification if requested. But don't be a dick: be respectful when you decline further interactions. Verbal (or other) aggression could give them a reason to try to force the issue, regardless of whether or not it's legal for them to do so.