3 ms·

The saddest part of this is that not only do most people NOT know their rights, but they're dead certain that they know things to be true, that aren't. I got i

by bmelton 12y ago

The saddest part of this is that not only do most people NOT know their rights, but they're dead certain that they know things to be true, that aren't. I got into a debate on Quora in which the other party insisted that your right to silence couldn't be invoked until you were Mirandized, which is completely untrue. I got into a different argument that insisted that it was illegal to deny cops some basic information, like your name, driver's license and address. That may be true in some instances, but isn't necessarily true everywhere. Beyond all that, the worst argument is the one which asserts that by invoking your right to silence, even peaceably, the cops will likely harass you and/or find some other reason to arrest you. That argument is the worst because it's the most likely to be true.

SilasX 12y ago
>Beyond all that, the worst argument is the one which asserts that by invoking your right to silence, even peaceably, the cops will likely harass you and/or find some other reason to arrest you. That argument is the worst because it's the most likely to be true. Why is it worst by being likely true? It's probably not a good idea to immediately invoke the Fifth on a routine traffic stop, for instance, for exactly that reason. (It wouldn't cause them to arrest you, sure, but they'd look a lot harder for reasons to cite you that would otherwise "not be worth it".)
- bmelton 12y ago
  Because the cops don't have the right to detain you without suspicion of you having committed a crime, and (at least historically), invoking the fifth is not evidence of guilt.
  - SilasX 12y ago
    In that case, the cop is already detaining you on suspicion of wrongdoing, and they already have significant discretion in what to look at. Sure, when it gets to trial, "alright, maybe I wouldn't have bothered checking for weapons if he hadn't immediately invoked the fifth", and you get a gold plated legal victory. Or you could be on your way in ten minutes and avoid the charade.
    - pdkl95 12y ago
      The question of if the situation really is something where you could be "on your way in ten minutes" becomes a lot more complicated when you add in the risk of stuff like "parallel construction" and "follow someone until you find some excuse to pull them over". When one part escalates the potential risk, defense against those risks must respond in kind. It would be really nice if law enforcement (and the government in general) decided to cultivate trust so we could reasonably assume a "traffic stop" really was about moving violations. Unfortunately, we seem to be moving rapidly away from that trust, making the hard-line approach a necessity.

by bmelton 12y ago

SilasX 12y ago

>Beyond all that, the worst argument is the one which asserts that by invoking your right to silence, even peaceably, the cops will likely harass you and/or find some other reason to arrest you. That argument is the worst because it's the most likely to be true. Why is it worst by being likely true? It's probably not a good idea to immediately invoke the Fifth on a routine traffic stop, for instance, for exactly that reason. (It wouldn't cause them to arrest you, sure, but they'd look a lot harder for reasons to cite you that would otherwise "not be worth it".)

bmelton 12y ago
Because the cops don't have the right to detain you without suspicion of you having committed a crime, and (at least historically), invoking the fifth is not evidence of guilt.
- SilasX 12y ago
  In that case, the cop is already detaining you on suspicion of wrongdoing, and they already have significant discretion in what to look at. Sure, when it gets to trial, "alright, maybe I wouldn't have bothered checking for weapons if he hadn't immediately invoked the fifth", and you get a gold plated legal victory. Or you could be on your way in ten minutes and avoid the charade.
  - pdkl95 12y ago
    The question of if the situation really is something where you could be "on your way in ten minutes" becomes a lot more complicated when you add in the risk of stuff like "parallel construction" and "follow someone until you find some excuse to pull them over". When one part escalates the potential risk, defense against those risks must respond in kind. It would be really nice if law enforcement (and the government in general) decided to cultivate trust so we could reasonably assume a "traffic stop" really was about moving violations. Unfortunately, we seem to be moving rapidly away from that trust, making the hard-line approach a necessity.