4 ms·

Talking to an informant or source. Having that recorded might make them vulnerable to retaliation or more reluctant to talk to the police because of the fear of

Talking to an informant or source. Having that recorded might make them vulnerable to retaliation or more reluctant to talk to the police because of the fear of retaliation.

rvba 2y ago
Do regular police officers even have informants?
- mandevil 2y ago
  The theory of police since Sir Robert Peel created the Met has been that the links between the police and the community they serve are the most important thing. It is the connection between the force and the people that provides them with the information to prevent crime from happening, to identify them when they have happened, and to solve them once they have been committed. So these links and friendships should be the basis for the the philosophy of policing in the past centuries. And those could indeed be compromised by being recorded. Modern American policing doesn't work, and seems to this outsider to oftentimes be more based on a military occupation force than a police living inside their own community, but this is how it is supposed to work.
SauciestGNU 2y ago
Why should someone betraying their community's trust be protected from reprisals? We've seen how the police operate our whole lives. Collaborating with occupying armies has always carried a dangerous social cost. It's absurd for a snitch to think they'd be insulated from the social costs of betraying their community.
- Larrikin 2y ago
  So if you see someone get murdered, you don't tell the police anything to help catch the murderer?
  - sneak 2y ago
    The optimal legal strategy is to never speak to the police about anything unless legally compelled to do so. So, to answer your question: Correct. Don’t talk to the police.
jrs235 2y ago
I don't buy this argument. As an informant how can I be absolutely sure it's not recording? The only way to be certain it's not recording is to not bring it to the 'meeting'.

Talking to an informant or source. Having that recorded might make them vulnerable to retaliation or more reluctant to talk to the police because of the fear of retaliation.

rvba 2y ago

Do regular police officers even have informants?

mandevil 2y ago
The theory of police since Sir Robert Peel created the Met has been that the links between the police and the community they serve are the most important thing. It is the connection between the force and the people that provides them with the information to prevent crime from happening, to identify them when they have happened, and to solve them once they have been committed. So these links and friendships should be the basis for the the philosophy of policing in the past centuries. And those could indeed be compromised by being recorded. Modern American policing doesn't work, and seems to this outsider to oftentimes be more based on a military occupation force than a police living inside their own community, but this is how it is supposed to work.

SauciestGNU 2y ago

Why should someone betraying their community's trust be protected from reprisals? We've seen how the police operate our whole lives. Collaborating with occupying armies has always carried a dangerous social cost. It's absurd for a snitch to think they'd be insulated from the social costs of betraying their community.

Larrikin 2y ago
So if you see someone get murdered, you don't tell the police anything to help catch the murderer?
- sneak 2y ago
  The optimal legal strategy is to never speak to the police about anything unless legally compelled to do so. So, to answer your question: Correct. Don’t talk to the police.

jrs235 2y ago

I don't buy this argument. As an informant how can I be absolutely sure it's not recording? The only way to be certain it's not recording is to not bring it to the 'meeting'.