4 ms·

>that means one of two things: 1) You are a suspect; 2) You are a possible suspect. While I suppose this is strictly true, the far more likely option for 2 is

>that means one of two things: 1) You are a suspect; 2) You are a possible suspect. While I suppose this is strictly true, the far more likely option for 2 is that you're a witness to the crime and you can therefore help that crime be solved. So, in a situation where I am approached by the police to answer questions about something I know I didn't do: 1. I talk, and it helps the police solve a case 2. I talk, and it screws me 3. I don't talk, and it contributes to a case not being solved 4. I don't talk, and it screws me I read stuff like this article and it tells you about 2, but it doesn't really put that into a broader context about the likelihood that 2 is the outcome. And there is a real decision to be made here!

Arainach 4mo ago
What would an example of #4 look like? Don't lie to the cops, but refusing to answer without a lawyer present should hold no legal consequences.
- lwansbrough 4mo ago
  If you match a description and are in the general vicinity of where the crime took place, it’s enough reasonable suspicion for a detainment. Whether or not you need to produce ID at that point may vary by state but it’s likely the case in every state. If it’s legal for the police to demand your ID and you don’t, you can be arrested for failure to identify. Now they don’t have probable cause for an arrest based on the original crime they stopped you for, but your day is still ruined.
  - wat10000 4mo ago
    "Don't talk to police" doesn't include legally required things like identification. What you don't do is volunteer more than you're legally required to provide.
    - lwansbrough 4mo ago
      This sounds obvious but a lot of people don’t understand this.
  - Capricorn2481 4mo ago
    > If you match a description and are in the general vicinity of where the crime took place, it’s enough reasonable suspicion for a detainment If you match the description and are in the vicinity of the crime, you are not going to save yourself by talking to the police. You are already in "get a lawyer" territory.
    - lwansbrough 4mo ago
      You are detained any time your freedom of movement is interrupted. If a cop calls to you and you turn to face them, that’s a detainment. So you’re correct, you can be detained before they’ve even questioned you.
    - retsibsi 4mo ago
      I'm not in the US, so maybe things are very different here, but I still wonder if the absolutist advice is helpful in situations like this: One night, while walking, I was stopped by police because I roughly matched the description of someone who had burgled a house nearby. They didn't tell me this straight away; they just asked who I was, where I lived, and what I was doing. I didn't have ID on me, but I answered their questions honestly. They went to their car for a bit (presumably checking that my name matched my address and/or that I didn't have a record), then came back, explained the situation, and let me go as they had no strong reason to suspect me. The whole interaction was pretty relaxed and cordial, and they didn't contact me again. Things definitely wouldn't have gone better for me had I made a point of refusing to engage beyond the legally required minimum, and it's easy to imagine how they could have gone significantly worse.
      - onraglanroad 4mo ago
        It definitely depends on the country. I live in Scotland and I've been perfectly happy to chat with police officers but if I'm taken in for questioning (which in Scotland is an arrest) I would have no hesitation in asking for a solicitor and they would probably advise no comment on every question. If I want to help them out I would then prepare a written statement, approved by my solicitor, and give them that. It's just the sensible way to go. There's no rush. Take your time and be smart.
- SoftTalker 4mo ago
  You don't talk, and it annoys the cop, so they fabricate evidence against you, or charge you with some other unrelated thing that they would have otherwise let slide.
  - buellerbueller 4mo ago
    if they are going to fabricate evidence, why do you think they wouldn't also do that if you do talk to them and you already match whoever they are looking for? Your position is just bonkers.
    - pseudalopex 4mo ago
      When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."[1] [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
      - buellerbueller 4mo ago
        Brosky: I called them no names. I referred to their argument as bonkers...
        pseudalopex 4mo ago
        The quoted guideline covered your false separation. The discouraged example called a statement idiotic.
        buellerbueller 4mo ago
        Yet it did not allege that calling the statement idiotic is the same as calling its poster idiotic.
        hitekker 4mo ago
        You’ve misinterpreted “bonkers” to mean “idiotic”. That failure of charity is on you, not the GP.
- onraglanroad 4mo ago
  In England, a refusal to answer questions can be taken as an indicator of guilt. But you can still ask for a solicitor and they will tell you which questions to answer and which not. Specifically England, not the UK, as Scottish law is different.
- treis 4mo ago
  You can absolutely talk your way out of situations. Jeffery Dalhmer infamously convinced cops that his drugged victim was his boyfriend and they let him go. Probably not going to be able to do that after you're booked and in jail. I don't think it's terrible advice to not talk to the cops but it tends to discount the reality of the world. Going through any sort of criminal trial is expensive and has devastating life impacts. Cops are the first step in that process and convincing them not to arrest you is the easy path out.
  - cucumber3732842 4mo ago
    Exactly. You have to remember you're not just interacting with a faceless legal system, you're interacting with a human cop. There's some nuance to it. I've talked god knows how many fishing stops down to 5min papers checks. I'd still rather have not had them, but better than if I'd have been all "officer, I have a right to remain silent" which likely would've resulted in a whole bunch of hoopla, bringing the dog around to find nothing, etc, etc, all for a petty fine. If the cops were seeking me personally (i.e the system is seeking me out) out it'd be a different story though.
  - ndsipa_pomu 4mo ago
    I dare say that Dahmer is an atypical example. If you are a serial killer and the police catch you, then it's well worth a gamble to try to talk your way out of it. Even if they try to fabricate evidence, it's likely not going to be as bad as what you've actually been doing.
digitalPhonix 4mo ago
The point of the article (and any similar advice) is that 4 is not possible
- Brendinooo 4mo ago
  The police couldn't creatively turn a five-minute interaction into my day/week/month getting wrecked? You can be held for ~2 days without charges being filed, right?
  - digitalPhonix 4mo ago
    If they wanted to do that, your chances of "I talk, and it screws me" are pretty high anyway. Also, don't take my word for it - here's a US police officer saying the same thing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE (skip to the second half) He wouldn't talk to police.
  - deleted 4mo ago
    [deleted]
  - cryptonector 4mo ago
    Losing days is better than losing decades.
- jfengel 4mo ago
  Convicting you of a crime is not possible. But there are many, many ways in which you can be screwed, from forcing you to spend a weekend in jail to having a prosecutor offer you a plea deal that you can't risk refusing. The police have a lot more power in any encounter, and there is no way to avoid having them make your life worse. About the only truly concrete advice is that if you are guilty of something then you absolutely, positively must get a lawyer before saying anything at all. The magic words are “I will not answer any questions without my lawyer present,” and any variation from that exposes you to the risk of the police creatively misinterpreting you. The magic words can help you beat the rap, but they cannot help you beat the ride. If they decide that you are going to jail, then you go with them, and nothing you say or do (or not say or do) will prevent that. And you will stay there until your lawyer shows up.
Maxatar 4mo ago
If you genuinely have evidence as a witness that can help police solve the case, then you get an attorney present.
- mcmcmc 4mo ago
  Not everyone has attorney money.
  - onraglanroad 4mo ago
    Do you not live in a country where they are obliged to provide one?
    - hoppyhoppy2 4mo ago
      In the U.S. that applies to criminal defendants, not to people who witnessed a crime and aren't being charged with anything at the moment.
      - onraglanroad 4mo ago
        Oh right. I'm entitled to a lawyer if I'm ever taken in for questioning. I didn't realise it was so different. Can the police just question you and you have no right to legal representation?
        nobody9999 4mo ago
        >Oh right. I'm entitled to a lawyer if I'm ever taken in for questioning. I didn't realise it was so different. >Can the police just question you and you have no right to legal representation? No. You always have the right to legal representation -- at your own expense and, in criminal cases, depending on your financial situation, a court-appointed attorney. In many places, the state will only provide an attorney if you're indigent -- and can prove it. The Miranda Warning[0] (not Miranda "Rights") is generally required if you're being arrested and/or detained for "questioning." However. the rights mentioned in those warnings (right to remain silent, right to an attorney, etc.) don't magically appear when the warnings are given. They apply regardless of whether or not the warnings are given -- whether you're a suspect, a witness or the object of a police officer's lustful desires, etc. What's more, the police are legally allowed to lie to you (e.g., "we have your fingerprints on the murder weapon." to get you to waive your rights). As I understand the primary change over the past 20 years or so is that if you don't positively, verbally/in writing unequivocally invoke your rights to remain silent and have an attorney present, the police may ignore less unequivocal assertions. N.B. IANAL. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning
Spooky23 4mo ago
4 doesn't really happen, unless you're a mandated reporter and don't report child abuse. I used to have to testify in civil and criminal proceedings a few times a year as part of my job. If you aren't trained to talk to police or adversarial attorneys, don't. The magic is essentially talk to them like you would a call center agent. One topic per interaction. Use simple language. Answer a question directly. "He went that way." "I don't know." Don't answer unasked questions. Don't demonstrate how smart you are. Don't try to "help". If you help, do an Irish goodbye asap. At the end of the day or incident, the officer is going to write an incident report. You never want to stand out or be interesting that report. The more interesting you are, the more likely you are to get sucked in. I have a colleague who has been ordered to appear at some court in the Bronx for a traffic accident two years ago that he helped with, that turned out to be an insurance fraud case.
- Brendinooo 4mo ago
  >I have a colleague who has been ordered to appear at some court in the Bronx for a traffic accident two years ago that he helped with, that turned out to be an insurance fraud case. Sorry, I'm not following exactly: your colleague was ordered to appear because he was genuinely involved in something bad, he was falsely set up as being involved in something bad, or he's helping to litigate an insurance fraud case?
  - cucumber3732842 4mo ago
    Because he offered some info that made it into the report and years later some guy they had reviewing the fifteen dozen reports relating to that insurance fraud saw that info and said "let's get that guy on the stand, a jury will eat that shit up".
  - Spooky23 4mo ago
    He was a bystander who stuck around and tried to do the right thing. The people charged decided to go to trial and now he’s on the hook to show up and answer stupid questions under oath. The objective of the defense is likely to have him not show up.
mattnewton 4mo ago
I recommend watching the video, he makes an IMO excellent case that #1 without a lawyer really is a bad idea. You can still help solve the case in way that protects you, the stakes here are often incredibly high.

Arainach 4mo ago

What would an example of #4 look like? Don't lie to the cops, but refusing to answer without a lawyer present should hold no legal consequences.

lwansbrough 4mo ago
If you match a description and are in the general vicinity of where the crime took place, it’s enough reasonable suspicion for a detainment. Whether or not you need to produce ID at that point may vary by state but it’s likely the case in every state. If it’s legal for the police to demand your ID and you don’t, you can be arrested for failure to identify. Now they don’t have probable cause for an arrest based on the original crime they stopped you for, but your day is still ruined.
- wat10000 4mo ago
  "Don't talk to police" doesn't include legally required things like identification. What you don't do is volunteer more than you're legally required to provide.
  - lwansbrough 4mo ago
    This sounds obvious but a lot of people don’t understand this.
- Capricorn2481 4mo ago
  > If you match a description and are in the general vicinity of where the crime took place, it’s enough reasonable suspicion for a detainment If you match the description and are in the vicinity of the crime, you are not going to save yourself by talking to the police. You are already in "get a lawyer" territory.
  - lwansbrough 4mo ago
    You are detained any time your freedom of movement is interrupted. If a cop calls to you and you turn to face them, that’s a detainment. So you’re correct, you can be detained before they’ve even questioned you.
  - retsibsi 4mo ago
    I'm not in the US, so maybe things are very different here, but I still wonder if the absolutist advice is helpful in situations like this: One night, while walking, I was stopped by police because I roughly matched the description of someone who had burgled a house nearby. They didn't tell me this straight away; they just asked who I was, where I lived, and what I was doing. I didn't have ID on me, but I answered their questions honestly. They went to their car for a bit (presumably checking that my name matched my address and/or that I didn't have a record), then came back, explained the situation, and let me go as they had no strong reason to suspect me. The whole interaction was pretty relaxed and cordial, and they didn't contact me again. Things definitely wouldn't have gone better for me had I made a point of refusing to engage beyond the legally required minimum, and it's easy to imagine how they could have gone significantly worse.
    - onraglanroad 4mo ago
      It definitely depends on the country. I live in Scotland and I've been perfectly happy to chat with police officers but if I'm taken in for questioning (which in Scotland is an arrest) I would have no hesitation in asking for a solicitor and they would probably advise no comment on every question. If I want to help them out I would then prepare a written statement, approved by my solicitor, and give them that. It's just the sensible way to go. There's no rush. Take your time and be smart.
SoftTalker 4mo ago
You don't talk, and it annoys the cop, so they fabricate evidence against you, or charge you with some other unrelated thing that they would have otherwise let slide.
- buellerbueller 4mo ago
  if they are going to fabricate evidence, why do you think they wouldn't also do that if you do talk to them and you already match whoever they are looking for? Your position is just bonkers.
  - pseudalopex 4mo ago
    When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."[1] [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - buellerbueller 4mo ago
      Brosky: I called them no names. I referred to their argument as bonkers...
      - pseudalopex 4mo ago
        The quoted guideline covered your false separation. The discouraged example called a statement idiotic.
        buellerbueller 4mo ago
        Yet it did not allege that calling the statement idiotic is the same as calling its poster idiotic.
        hitekker 4mo ago
        You’ve misinterpreted “bonkers” to mean “idiotic”. That failure of charity is on you, not the GP.
onraglanroad 4mo ago
In England, a refusal to answer questions can be taken as an indicator of guilt. But you can still ask for a solicitor and they will tell you which questions to answer and which not. Specifically England, not the UK, as Scottish law is different.
treis 4mo ago
You can absolutely talk your way out of situations. Jeffery Dalhmer infamously convinced cops that his drugged victim was his boyfriend and they let him go. Probably not going to be able to do that after you're booked and in jail. I don't think it's terrible advice to not talk to the cops but it tends to discount the reality of the world. Going through any sort of criminal trial is expensive and has devastating life impacts. Cops are the first step in that process and convincing them not to arrest you is the easy path out.
- cucumber3732842 4mo ago
  Exactly. You have to remember you're not just interacting with a faceless legal system, you're interacting with a human cop. There's some nuance to it. I've talked god knows how many fishing stops down to 5min papers checks. I'd still rather have not had them, but better than if I'd have been all "officer, I have a right to remain silent" which likely would've resulted in a whole bunch of hoopla, bringing the dog around to find nothing, etc, etc, all for a petty fine. If the cops were seeking me personally (i.e the system is seeking me out) out it'd be a different story though.
- ndsipa_pomu 4mo ago
  I dare say that Dahmer is an atypical example. If you are a serial killer and the police catch you, then it's well worth a gamble to try to talk your way out of it. Even if they try to fabricate evidence, it's likely not going to be as bad as what you've actually been doing.

digitalPhonix 4mo ago

The point of the article (and any similar advice) is that 4 is not possible

Brendinooo 4mo ago
The police couldn't creatively turn a five-minute interaction into my day/week/month getting wrecked? You can be held for ~2 days without charges being filed, right?
- digitalPhonix 4mo ago
  If they wanted to do that, your chances of "I talk, and it screws me" are pretty high anyway. Also, don't take my word for it - here's a US police officer saying the same thing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE (skip to the second half) He wouldn't talk to police.
- deleted 4mo ago
  [deleted]
- cryptonector 4mo ago
  Losing days is better than losing decades.
jfengel 4mo ago
Convicting you of a crime is not possible. But there are many, many ways in which you can be screwed, from forcing you to spend a weekend in jail to having a prosecutor offer you a plea deal that you can't risk refusing. The police have a lot more power in any encounter, and there is no way to avoid having them make your life worse. About the only truly concrete advice is that if you are guilty of something then you absolutely, positively must get a lawyer before saying anything at all. The magic words are “I will not answer any questions without my lawyer present,” and any variation from that exposes you to the risk of the police creatively misinterpreting you. The magic words can help you beat the rap, but they cannot help you beat the ride. If they decide that you are going to jail, then you go with them, and nothing you say or do (or not say or do) will prevent that. And you will stay there until your lawyer shows up.

Maxatar 4mo ago

If you genuinely have evidence as a witness that can help police solve the case, then you get an attorney present.

mcmcmc 4mo ago
Not everyone has attorney money.
- onraglanroad 4mo ago
  Do you not live in a country where they are obliged to provide one?
  - hoppyhoppy2 4mo ago
    In the U.S. that applies to criminal defendants, not to people who witnessed a crime and aren't being charged with anything at the moment.
    - onraglanroad 4mo ago
      Oh right. I'm entitled to a lawyer if I'm ever taken in for questioning. I didn't realise it was so different. Can the police just question you and you have no right to legal representation?
      - nobody9999 4mo ago
        >Oh right. I'm entitled to a lawyer if I'm ever taken in for questioning. I didn't realise it was so different. >Can the police just question you and you have no right to legal representation? No. You always have the right to legal representation -- at your own expense and, in criminal cases, depending on your financial situation, a court-appointed attorney. In many places, the state will only provide an attorney if you're indigent -- and can prove it. The Miranda Warning[0] (not Miranda "Rights") is generally required if you're being arrested and/or detained for "questioning." However. the rights mentioned in those warnings (right to remain silent, right to an attorney, etc.) don't magically appear when the warnings are given. They apply regardless of whether or not the warnings are given -- whether you're a suspect, a witness or the object of a police officer's lustful desires, etc. What's more, the police are legally allowed to lie to you (e.g., "we have your fingerprints on the murder weapon." to get you to waive your rights). As I understand the primary change over the past 20 years or so is that if you don't positively, verbally/in writing unequivocally invoke your rights to remain silent and have an attorney present, the police may ignore less unequivocal assertions. N.B. IANAL. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning

Spooky23 4mo ago

4 doesn't really happen, unless you're a mandated reporter and don't report child abuse. I used to have to testify in civil and criminal proceedings a few times a year as part of my job. If you aren't trained to talk to police or adversarial attorneys, don't. The magic is essentially talk to them like you would a call center agent. One topic per interaction. Use simple language. Answer a question directly. "He went that way." "I don't know." Don't answer unasked questions. Don't demonstrate how smart you are. Don't try to "help". If you help, do an Irish goodbye asap. At the end of the day or incident, the officer is going to write an incident report. You never want to stand out or be interesting that report. The more interesting you are, the more likely you are to get sucked in. I have a colleague who has been ordered to appear at some court in the Bronx for a traffic accident two years ago that he helped with, that turned out to be an insurance fraud case.

Brendinooo 4mo ago
>I have a colleague who has been ordered to appear at some court in the Bronx for a traffic accident two years ago that he helped with, that turned out to be an insurance fraud case. Sorry, I'm not following exactly: your colleague was ordered to appear because he was genuinely involved in something bad, he was falsely set up as being involved in something bad, or he's helping to litigate an insurance fraud case?
- cucumber3732842 4mo ago
  Because he offered some info that made it into the report and years later some guy they had reviewing the fifteen dozen reports relating to that insurance fraud saw that info and said "let's get that guy on the stand, a jury will eat that shit up".
- Spooky23 4mo ago
  He was a bystander who stuck around and tried to do the right thing. The people charged decided to go to trial and now he’s on the hook to show up and answer stupid questions under oath. The objective of the defense is likely to have him not show up.

mattnewton 4mo ago

I recommend watching the video, he makes an IMO excellent case that #1 without a lawyer really is a bad idea. You can still help solve the case in way that protects you, the stakes here are often incredibly high.