12 ms·
Don’t Talk to Police (2012) [video]
- entelechy0 3y ago[dead]
- throwawaywu 3y agoAlso don't talk to federal agents. Lying to a federal agent is a felony, and often times they don't have enough evidence for the original crime, but by talking to you they get evidence of you lying
- SV_BubbleTime 3y agoMichael Flynn has entered the chat. If you can, get past his ideology and that he was a Trump guy, the actual process of what happened to him and what he was charged with is pretty crazy. He was very stupid for talking to agents without a lawyer. But, they went in and got him to lie about something that wasn’t a crime, and he didn’t actually do. Also on the front page of HN right now: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36367147 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36367147
- tptacek 3y agoAs a member of President Trump's transition team, Flynn made a pair of direct diplomatic requests to Russia's ambassador to the United States (Russia complied with both requests). Later, during an FBI counterintelligence investigation centering on Russia, Flynn lied twice about having had those diplomatic conversations at all. The case was later dropped because the entire overarching investigation (Crossfire Hurricane) --- which did not center on Flynn --- was dropped. Flynn is a cut-and-dried example of how 18 USC 1001 can make sense. He wasn't entrapped. He hung himself out to dry. It's a great example of the logic of this thread and the post: don't talk to federal agents, because if you're an idiot and try to bullshit your way past basic facts of their investigation, they'll convict you for it.
- SV_BubbleTime 3y ago[flagged]
- vore 3y agoSo... what is it?
- mcny 3y agoI think this case is the prime example why lying to a federal agent ought to not be a crime at all. Why should I go to prison and have a felony if Michael Flynn doesn’t have to? If I have to go to prison, so does Michael Flynn.
- jfengel 3y agoMichael Flynn has a friend with the power to pardon. You do not. Do not optimize the rules as if you and he were in the same class.
- jackmott 3y ago[dead]
- jackmott 3y ago[dead]
- HyperSane 3y agoMichael Flynn is literally a traitor to the US.
- asylteltine 3y ago[dead]
- SV_BubbleTime 3y agoYou should read the Durham Report.
- HyperSane 3y ago[dead]
- Sniffnoy 3y agoIt's worse than that -- often their MO is to deliberately get people rattled so they say something false (that the FBI already knew was false), then charge them for that. It's stupid, but it's currently the [courts' interpretation of] the law. (The written law has a materiality requirement, but this has been interpreted so loosely as to be irrelevant.) https://www.popehat.com/2017/12/04/everybody-lies-fbi-edition/ https://www.popehat.com/2017/12/04/everybody-lies-fbi-editio...
- kkielhofner 3y agoWith this law on the books they often operate under the same practice/advice you hear given to attorneys in court: "only ask questions you already know the answer to". In many/most cases if they're asking questions they already know the truth behind at least some of them. They are attempting to leverage you into cooperating against co-conspirators or at least be able to hit you with a felony for misleading/false statements in the event the original investigation doesn't pan out to charges.
- jimbob45 3y agoIs there no Miranda equivalent for federal agents?
- Spooky23 3y agoThere is, so you have the right to remain silent. The difference is that federal law makes it illegal to lie to a federal agent. Lying to the police is dumb in general because it can be used against you. In the federal sense it’s dumber as it is a felony in of itself. This is often cited as an abuse of power etc. I think there’s a lot of nuance.
- raincom 3y agoJust being silent is not enough: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36371237#36375516 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36371237#36375516
- kevin_thibedeau 3y agoThis is how Martha Stewart got sent to the klink, not for insider trading.
- wiseowise 3y ago[flagged]
- Aerbil313 3y agoDo you know anything about other countries? I’d love to hear.
- _dain_ 3y agoUK version of Miranda warning is >You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something that you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence. More info: https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/advice_information/police-powers-of-arrest-2/ https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/advice_information/pol... This video is one of my bugbears. It gets posted every now and then on Reddit and other places, upvoted a lot, and nobody in the comments points out how dangerous it is to rely on some of this advice outside of the US. You can really land yourself in trouble if you aren't aware of the differences between American legal system and your home country's, even when they're both based on common law. Just another side effect of American cultural imperialism.
- Johnny555 3y agoIs there any country where it's advantageous to speak more than required to the police? (I'm sure there are some countries where you're required to speak more than in the USA where you're legally allowed not to speak at all without a lawyer)
- Matheus28 3y agoIn the UK, adverse inference may be drawn from silence in certain circumstances. In fact, they will usually say: > You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.
- willeh 3y agoGenerally your refusing to answer can be used against you, ensuring that you are properly represented of course isn't
- raincom 3y agoBeria's law: 'show me the man and I'll show you the crime'. That's how they get you.
- LgWoodenBadger 3y agoCivil rights are a core educational experience that is sorely and fundamentally lacking in the US educational system.
- hartator 3y ago> lacking in the US educational system In most other countries, cops can ask for your ID and basic questions and detain you if you are not complying.
- hknmtt 3y agothey most certainly cannot detain you without a cause. in the context of what you wrote, if you do not have your id, which is not mandatory to carry, they can detain you for 48 hours in order to establish your identity, but if they fail they have to let you go.
- cwillu 3y agoYou agree that they can detain you for something that isn't mandatory.
- hknmtt 3y agoyou can identify yourself with myriad of other documents - official or not. you can also explain your identity verbally and it might suffice.
- _dain_ 3y agoDid you miss the part where he said "in other countries"?
- ajuc 3y agoHow law is actually used matters much more than these technicalities. USA has one of the highest incarceration rates in the world, police brutality and police murdering people is a bigger concern than in most places where people have to show ID on cue. This is one of these "liberty cargo cult" rights, like the right to bear arms or not having 1 unique identifier. It sounds nice in theory, but in practice it doesn't really help in the rare cases for which it was designed, and it makes things harder on the happy path.
- maerF0x0 3y agoHis book is a good read: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/30532856-you-have-the-right-to-remain-innocent https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/30532856-you-have-the-ri... He actually updates his stance a touch from the content in the video. Particularly in not just invoking your 5th amendment (the right not self incriminate), but also the 6th (the right to a lawyer before being interrogated) Also this is not a "if you have nothing to hide" kind of conversation, see another top item on HN today: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36367147 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36367147 ( People Can Be Convinced They Committed a Crime That Never Happened (psychologicalscience.org) )
- AlbertCory 3y agoThe cops say, "if you have nothing to hide" and also "if you don't come in, I can't help you." Fortunately, Daryl saw through the latter one and didn't come in. Yes, it's another plug for one of my Substack articles: https://albertcory50.substack.com/p/baby-please-dont-go https://albertcory50.substack.com/p/baby-please-dont-go
- PaulHoule 3y agoNote cops are trained to assume that cagey people could be guilty. (1) I wonder if this guy wants to make more work for himself and people in his profession, and (2) Black and White people might get very different results from this and other advice.
- mplanchard 3y agoNo matter who you are, talking to the police is a bad idea. This is a constant piece of advice from every lawyer AND POLICE OFFICER I’ve ever known. I have several cops in my family, and they all advise to never talk to the cops.
- everybodyknows 3y ago[flagged]
- CrampusDestrus 3y agoWay to purpusefully misunderstand a very simple proposition
- tzs 3y agoThere is a lot of evidence that it is not such a simple proposition. I've seen the submitted video discussed on a variety of internet forums over the years, and in most of them there were in fact a large number of people who take it as really meaning that you should never talk to police without your lawyer present. E.g., you are walking down the street, and see two people arguing, one of then shoots the other, and then runs away. A police officer who was nearby hears the shot, comes over, and asks you which way the shooter ran. A lot of people say they would not answer that question without first consulting a lawyer. Or you are in a building that collapses in an earthquake. You make it out but several people do not. Some police arrive, and manage to retrieve several people. They ask some of the people who were in the building if anyone of them know of anyone else who was in the building and is not accounted for. A lot of people say they would need to consult their lawyer before answering. But there are also a lot of people who say it doesn't apply in those situations. They think it means don't talk to them when you are being questioned as a potential suspect. Given the empirically observed divergence on people's understanding of what "don't ever talk to police without a lawyer" means it is perfectly reasonable to ask questions like everybodyknows asked.
- 2023throwawayy 3y agoOne of the best videos on the internet. A true classic with great advice.
- dang 3y agoRelated. Others? Don't Talk to the Police - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23390344 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23390344 - June 2020 (6 comments) Don't Talk to the Police – James Duane - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19717507 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19717507 - April 2019 (4 comments) Don't Talk to the Police (2012) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15886628 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15886628 - Dec 2017 (165 comments) Don't talk to the police [video] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6001859 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6001859 - July 2013 (37 comments) Don't talk to the police - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=219758 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=219758 - June 2008 (35 comments)
- hknmtt 3y agoremember, the police's sole purpose is to punish crime, not to prevent it. they don't care who they punish as long as they can add your number to their statistics. they are NOT your friends. that's just childhood brainwashing.
- einpoklum 3y agoThe police' main purpose is to protect the social order internally, by enforcing social relations (foremost being property and the authority of state institutions). As for punishing crime - technically, the police is not supposed to decide whether crimes have been committed, nor to meet out out punishment for them. Really is a different thing, of course - but even then, the punishment is for police-undesirable behavior.
- mrweasel 3y agoNot sure what the English term is, but Denmark operates with the "three separations of power". Parliament makes the laws, the police enforce them and the judicial system punished. The police, for good and bad, is never suppose to decide whether or not a law is right or wrong, how it's punished and to what extend. If the police have become a punishing force, or even make the rules, then something has gone very wrong. Now even in civilized societies things sometimes goes wrong, e.g. the parliament provides police with too broad a framework to operate within, in an attempt to be "tough on crime" or attempt to dictate the framework of the judicial system to ensure a minimum sentencing. It's just rare that the police force itself is to blame. Blame mostly falls back to the people writing the laws.
- hyperman1 3y agoThe USA police is a bit of an exception here, being overly militarized, not kept in check by judges and politicians, and historically having a side job of fugitive slave catchers. Around the world, the core job of the police is more: Restore the public peace. They can forgive transgressions in public if you demonstrate further disturbance of peace will cease. They have to maintain a reasonable level of fairness, or they get overrun by vigilantes. But as long as the illusion of fairness holds good enough, they can and will crush powerless people in the wheels of justice.
- ghoogl 3y ago[dead]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- seattle_spring 3y agoAs an extremely relevant and related topic, it's Shut the Fuck Up Friday [1], time to review the script! [1] https://youtu.be/sgWHrkDX35o https://youtu.be/sgWHrkDX35o
- Aerbil313 3y agoHaha. First time submitting a link (and it blowing up, it’s on page 4!). I’m in wonder how I did unleash all this stream of comments, as my eyes are fixed on the karma point, reloading the page, watching it increase like it never did before, despising myself for that at the same time for falling to the gamification and thinking it’s time to nuke my HN account.
- AlecSchueler 3y agoA friend of mine recently had quite a bad experience asking the police for help with directions as he was traveling through the Netherlands. He was trying to figure out where he was using the map on a bus stop and approached a nearby police car to ask for assistance. They demanded his ID which he was not carrying at the time. He explained that it was in his bag at the place where he was staying and they said he needed to be able to identify himself, so they arrested him on the spot and he was not free again until the following morning. As a result he missed a ferry and had to spend the money booking another one.
- netule 3y agoIt's strange, but you must be able to identify yourself if you're over the age of 14 [1] in The Netherlands. Having lived in the US for 20 years now, this also seems a bit draconian to me, but I didn't think much of it while growing up over there. [1]: https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/paspoort-en-identiteitskaart/vraag-en-antwoord/wat-is-de-identificatieplicht https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/paspoort-en-identit...
- a2tech 3y agoThat would definitely be surprising for most Americans. Many of us (like my wife) never carry id unless they plan on driving.
- __rito__ 3y agoThis is very strange for an Indian, too. We do not carry ID unless we are driving (driving license), using long-distance transport, or going to vote. Always carrying ID is such a strange idea!
- WirelessGigabit 3y agoEven in the US it's weird. I arrived on a passport + visa. No requirement to carry it. Got a driver license. No requirement to carry that either, unless I'm driving. But now that I have a Green Card I need to carry it at all times. At least until I get citizenship. I live in a state that allows for having my driver license on my phone.
- paulpauper 3y agothis again? it is good advice sometimes, but also good advice if you want a long ride to the station because you refused to identify yourself and give information.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- dccoolgai 3y agoRecent case in point: Walt Nauta, who got charged along with Trump. Had he just kept his mouth shut, he probably wouldn't have been charged, but they got him dead-to-rights saying stuff they're pretty sure they can prove he was lying about. And this is it "working the way it should". The darker version is a Federal Agent says you told him something you didn't even say because it helps the case he's building. He asks you to repeat it on record and when you balk, he threatens you with a felony for "lying to a federal agent". Don't ever do it, even if it's an investigation you're sympathetic to. If _your_ lawyer is there taking notes, they know there's less shenanigans they can pull.
- kkielhofner 3y ago> The darker version is a Federal Agent says you told him something you didn't even say because it helps the case he's building. He asks you to repeat it on record and when you balk, he threatens you with a felony for "lying to a federal agent". This is shown in a scene from "Wolf of Wall Street"[0]. In this case the main agent gets his partner to come to within earshot of Jordan Belfort and asks Jordan to repeat his bribery offer. Testimony from one FBI agent is good, testimony from two is better. [0] - https://youtu.be/3IKbkjs8xd0?t=46 https://youtu.be/3IKbkjs8xd0?t=46
- dccoolgai 3y agoIt's a little worse than that even - in that example, I think the feds are just trying to get him to repeat something _he said_. The way it works, is they meet with you alone: You say "A, B, C". They take some notes and write down "D, E, F" because it's what they want to hear or what they wish you said. A few weeks later, they present you with a written statement to sign that says "D, E, F". You protest "but I didn't say that, I said A, B, C!" And then they threaten you: either sign the statement or we charge you with lying to a Federal Agent (a felony). According to my Father in-law (an attorney with decades of experience), it happens way more than anyone would like to admit.
- raincom 3y agoThat’s another reason to have a lawyer present to take notes, so that federal agents don’t get away with their legally protected lying on their reports.
- RadixDLT 3y agowhat if you get into an accident, should you still give the police details?
- rad_gruchalski 3y agoThe answer in the title. Never talk to the police.
- mindslight 3y agoThat sounds like a good way to end up paying for an accident that you weren't actually at fault for. The fifth amendment doesn't apply to civil cases, and police reports are a large part of how insurance companies assign blame. If "never talk to the police" sounds like a reasonable hard and fast rule to you, it's probably best that you just follow it. It's a good first brush. But attorneys aren't magic. It's possible to judge your situation, recall facts, and represent your rights without saying things that further implicate you, or that can be misconstrued. Especially when dealing with relatively low stakes situations like a minor traffic accident, where hiring an attorney is basically equivalent to having lost. If it's the kind of traffic accident that you're likely at fault for or someone went to the hospital or substances are involved, then you do indeed need to shut the fuck up.
- crooked-v 3y ago> That sounds like a good way to end up paying for an accident that you weren't actually at fault for. The defense against that isn't talking to the police, it's having a good dashcam.
- avgcorrection 3y agoI might assume as much just from the prejudice of watching American cops in the fictional media. The ones who are portrayed as protagonists/good guys are often obsessed assholes who will do whatever it takes to solve the case, ranging from manipulating witnesses to doing borderline illegal things. Then their bozo superior gets in the way because they don’t see how, actually, in this case it would be totally worth it to do something without proper procedure, and actually being a maverick cop who just follows his gut is perfectly good and okay. They only remain “the good guys” because they happen to catch the bad guys.
- hollywood_court 3y agoI was raised by career long LEOs. My mother and father and all 3 of my stepfathers were LEOs. They always told me to never speak to the police. Every interaction with a police officer is inviting trouble into your life. They exist to monetize your mistakes. They have no legal obligation to assist you in any manner.
- paulpauper 3y agowhat if you are asked to identify yourself such as for a speeding ticket or a Terry stop. I don't think it's clear cut.
- mplanchard 3y agoThis is clear cut. There are situations where you are legally obligated to interact with the police, like providing your identification at a traffic stop. In any other situation, you should avoid interaction with the police.
- tyingq 3y ago> This is clear cut. Sort of. So you're pulled over for a brake light that's out. Then, they start asking "Where are you coming from?", "Why are you here?", "Do you live near here? (when they already have your address)", "If you're coming from that far, why don't you have luggage?" etc. I guess you can try to give as terse an answer as possible without coming across as rude? Saying nothing is your right, but they have lots of power to generate consequences if they don't like it.
- green_man_lives 3y agoThe real answer is that there is no actual way to win. You are at their mercy and it is really 100% up to what they choose to do.
- mplanchard 3y ago
- boringuser2 3y agoI have a simple script that I have constructed to deal with the police when/if I ever get questioned. I feel it strikes a good balance between the potential ways of approaching this. While I would like to be helpful to your investigation, in order to ensure my rights are protected, I cannot speak with you without a lawyer present. I appreciate your patience and understanding. In my mind, this balances being respectful, dealing with potential follow-ups in the vein of "only a guilty person would say that", shutting down potential conversation, etc. If anyone has good edits, I'm all ears.
- mplanchard 3y agoAs noted in another thread, it is probably worth adding an explicit statement that you’re invoking your right to remain silent.
- boringuser2 3y agoIn that case, I'd amend it like so. While I would like to be helpful to your investigation, in order to ensure my rights are protected, I must invoke my right to be silent without a lawyer present. I appreciate your patience and understanding. I feel like there's some additional potential verbiage modification that can be made to make it more clear to the officer that you're trying to protect your rights and apologize for any inconvenience, but I can't put my finger on it. I think being cordial and respectful will deal with many potential negative side-effects of this approach. Granted, I'm trying to amolierate the side-effect of this frustrating an officer you're interacting with or triggering their sense that you're actually guilty, causing yourself a greater headache. It's not about what's right, it's about what's effective.
- mplanchard 3y agoI think this is a reasonable approach. I would personally not add the additional apologies though, in case that winds up being spun in court later somehow. Something like “I am invoking my 5th amendment right to remain silent and will not answer any questions without a lawyer present” is sufficient. Most cops will be fine with this. They know the game a lot better than you. They’re not asking you questions to try to have a pleasant interaction with you. They’re fishing for things they can nab you on, and they know it. So, showing that you also know the game and clamming up isn’t necessarily unexpected or viewed as being rude. Of course, you could always get a real prick who gets offended and tries to hassle you for it, in which case maybe your approach is the better one, but I suspect someone like that is going to cause problems regardless of how nicely you phrase it.
- lurquer 3y agoHappily for the State, no matter how many times you give this obvious advice, people will still blab away and incriminate themselves. Ha. Even in a thread such as this peopled by highly educated types, you see comment after comment expressing some disbelief with this obvious advice. This advice precedes the 5th am, incidentally. So long as you live in a system where the State has the burden of proof, it is NEVER beneficial to say ANYTHING to a cop. But, like I said, many folks don’t understand this. So, lawyers and prisons and judges will always have a job. I suppose it’s like a senior programmer advising a noob not to create a pointer object using ‘new()’ within a frequently called function… but, folks will do it anyway. Oh well.
- qawwads 3y agoHow does that translate to internal investigations? Should you talk to HR? If you're in school, should you talk to the principal?
- maxgashkov 3y agoRegular reminder that this is strictly true for the US. For other countries YMMV by following this approach. E.g. it's generally a bad idea to shut up completely once you're in a police station in Japan, as they may hold you up for 23 days w/o pressing charges and allowing you to communicate with the outside world.
- joeman1000 3y agoThis guy is too much of a showman for me to trust him and take him seriously. It’s all coloured by the years of conniving he’s done as a criminal defence lawyer. He may have a point but I’d rather read about it.
- chayesfss 3y ago[dead]
- kar5pt 3y agoSo many non-lawyers giving legal advice in this thread...