3 ms·

Saying never talk to the police is an 'online belief' is frankly baffling. There are multiple examples of prominent law professors bringing in ex-police profes

Saying never talk to the police is an 'online belief' is frankly baffling. There are multiple examples of prominent law professors bringing in ex-police professionals who all say the exact same thing: never talk to the police. If you spend five minutes around a lawyer they will say the same thing. If you ever end up finding yourself in legal turmoil it is the very first thing a lawyer will directly advise you to do. People being stupid I don't think suddenly makes this advice terminally online. I was hearing it, in person, when I was in college over a decade ago.

tptacek 4mo ago
Most people simply don't see themselves as being in zero-sum contests with the police. If you are in such a contest, those videos you've watched are quite useful and important. But when there's a hit and run on your block, expect your neighbors to go out of their way to volunteer information to the police. I've read threads here where people have made impassioned arguments that you yourself should never volunteer information to the police investigating a crime such as a hit and run. The police will turn it against you and somehow make you the target of their investigation! Ordinary people out in the world do not think that way, and you will not succeed in making them think that way by showing them videos of lawyers explaining why the only thing you should ever say is "I do not consent to any searches and will not answer any of your questions". If you said that to a police officer doing a canvass in my neighborhood, people would look at you like a space alien. I think it's helpful to understand all this stuff when reading things about Flock. People on HN and in activist communities seem gobsmacked that all the Flock cameras haven't been taken down yet (in fact: ALPR deployments are growing, not shrinking). But they have wildly different priors about policing than the median resident of a muni with ALPR cameras.
- Teever 4mo ago
  Surely there's more interesting conversation to be had here than just "your opinions about interacting with law enforcement are moot because I know people in my Chicago neighbourhood who disagree with them."
  - rcxdude 4mo ago
    The main contention seems to be 'surely everyone knows you shouldn't talk to the police' and 'no, quite a lot of people believe the opposite, but it's not as common to see that belief online', with a bit of this being conflated with whether this belief is accurate or not.
    - picofarad 4mo ago
      What's your source for the "no, quite a lot of people believe the opposite."? Is it a Chicago suburb?
      - rcxdude 4mo ago
        I dunno, I didn't make that claim, I'm just pointing out there seems to be two different conversations happening in different participant's heads.
- watwut 4mo ago
  > Most people simply don't see themselves as being in zero-sum contests with the police. Yes, that is why they don't do it. It does not mean the advice is "terminally online". It is the advice coming from layers that deal with the system. Layers saying those things, online and offline, are not terminally online.
  - rcxdude 4mo ago
    No, but online is where you see this advice being most commonly posted and repeated. Second-most might be in lawyer's offices, but a) most people don't interact with lawyers, especially not in the context of criminal investigations, and b) the lawyers themselves have a distorted view of this system, because they are almost always dealing with people who, for one reason or another, should not talk to the police.
    - watwut 4mo ago
      Using "terminally online" for "the advice layers consistently give both online and offline but people don't follow" is, imo, using that term incorrectly. "Terminally online" is derogatory term which involves you doing or thinking something insane. If literal layers give that advice in their literal offices and wherever they go around, it is simply "rarely followed advice". And I will also claim that layers have way less distorted view of the system then us, people whose view of the system is based on movies and rare cases that hit the news.
      - rcxdude 4mo ago
        I will point out that the original poster did not say "terminally online", but "very online". (oh, and "extremely online"). I don't personally feel that has the same kind of connotations.
      - tptacek 4mo ago
        Category error. Points can be valid and salient mostly online at the same time. Though: the validity of "nobody should ever talk to the police" is highly disputable. It assumes the only objective anybody would have in a police encounter is not being prosecuted. Prosecution is unlikely, and there are other important objectives.
lukan 4mo ago
Multiple? I only ever see that one guy's video linked.

tptacek 4mo ago

Most people simply don't see themselves as being in zero-sum contests with the police. If you are in such a contest, those videos you've watched are quite useful and important. But when there's a hit and run on your block, expect your neighbors to go out of their way to volunteer information to the police. I've read threads here where people have made impassioned arguments that you yourself should never volunteer information to the police investigating a crime such as a hit and run. The police will turn it against you and somehow make you the target of their investigation! Ordinary people out in the world do not think that way, and you will not succeed in making them think that way by showing them videos of lawyers explaining why the only thing you should ever say is "I do not consent to any searches and will not answer any of your questions". If you said that to a police officer doing a canvass in my neighborhood, people would look at you like a space alien. I think it's helpful to understand all this stuff when reading things about Flock. People on HN and in activist communities seem gobsmacked that all the Flock cameras haven't been taken down yet (in fact: ALPR deployments are growing, not shrinking). But they have wildly different priors about policing than the median resident of a muni with ALPR cameras.

Teever 4mo ago
Surely there's more interesting conversation to be had here than just "your opinions about interacting with law enforcement are moot because I know people in my Chicago neighbourhood who disagree with them."
- rcxdude 4mo ago
  The main contention seems to be 'surely everyone knows you shouldn't talk to the police' and 'no, quite a lot of people believe the opposite, but it's not as common to see that belief online', with a bit of this being conflated with whether this belief is accurate or not.
  - picofarad 4mo ago
    What's your source for the "no, quite a lot of people believe the opposite."? Is it a Chicago suburb?
    - rcxdude 4mo ago
      I dunno, I didn't make that claim, I'm just pointing out there seems to be two different conversations happening in different participant's heads.
watwut 4mo ago
> Most people simply don't see themselves as being in zero-sum contests with the police. Yes, that is why they don't do it. It does not mean the advice is "terminally online". It is the advice coming from layers that deal with the system. Layers saying those things, online and offline, are not terminally online.
- rcxdude 4mo ago
  No, but online is where you see this advice being most commonly posted and repeated. Second-most might be in lawyer's offices, but a) most people don't interact with lawyers, especially not in the context of criminal investigations, and b) the lawyers themselves have a distorted view of this system, because they are almost always dealing with people who, for one reason or another, should not talk to the police.
  - watwut 4mo ago
    Using "terminally online" for "the advice layers consistently give both online and offline but people don't follow" is, imo, using that term incorrectly. "Terminally online" is derogatory term which involves you doing or thinking something insane. If literal layers give that advice in their literal offices and wherever they go around, it is simply "rarely followed advice". And I will also claim that layers have way less distorted view of the system then us, people whose view of the system is based on movies and rare cases that hit the news.
    - rcxdude 4mo ago
      I will point out that the original poster did not say "terminally online", but "very online". (oh, and "extremely online"). I don't personally feel that has the same kind of connotations.
    - tptacek 4mo ago
      Category error. Points can be valid and salient mostly online at the same time. Though: the validity of "nobody should ever talk to the police" is highly disputable. It assumes the only objective anybody would have in a police encounter is not being prosecuted. Prosecution is unlikely, and there are other important objectives.

lukan 4mo ago

Multiple? I only ever see that one guy's video linked.