3 ms·

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.

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.