Stern was arrested for Rules and Orders, pertaining to face mask violation. ... An additional charge of Unsworn Falsification To Authorities was added.
IANAL, but my understanding is that in some jurisdictions, lying to the police is Obstruction of Justice.
In addition, lying to the police can be de-facto illegal by being the primary evidence they have that you are guilty of some other crime "Why would s/he lie if s/he weren't guilty?".
The FBI is notoriously bad. They make people lie and then use it against them: See Martha Stewart. I’m neutral on her. But the FBI went way overboard on a peanuts case. It’s like they lose face if they lose.
But get Epstein and friends and they let them plea bargain, etc.
Well, they gain face if they win, and the only way to get ahead in a bureaucracy like the FBIs is to pump up the numbers. As I recall, the agent who was in charge of the Martha Stewart case in particular rose to a significant level of prominence, despite the fact that they never managed to convict her of anything securities-related.
> No person shall give, either orally or in writing, information to a peace officer while in the performance of his duties under the provisions of this code when such person knows that the information is false.
Not just FBI, it’s illegal to lie to any federal agent from any agency.
EPA agent asks you if you dumped some wastewater from your companies property into the sewage system. You, unsure of whether it was legal, lie and say no.
Later it’s established that your dumping was perfectly legal, but you go to prison for your lie.
>and require courts to evaluate the reliability of confession evidence before allowing it to be used
That's an interesting aspect. I like that it naturally addresses the idea confessions can come from innocent people. If the confession is wrong, took place only due to some undue presser / false promises / lies ... it should be considered that it might be false.
Asking police to stop lying to suspects belies an expectation for police to act contrary to human nature for _many well known reasons_.
It's less of a problem that police lie if everyone adopts the very clear advice given by every legal professional:
> Never, ever, talk to police.*
* You can give them your name, and if they ask "what are you doing", a tolerable answer, but any further questions are to be met with "I have been advised to never speak with police, and I can answer no further questions."
Do. Not. Talk. To. Police. They are not your friend.
If you're reading this and about to hit the "reply" button explaining why I am wrong, will you please, please say in that comment if you watched _any_ of the lecture by Regent Law Professor James Duane?
> belies an expectation for police to act contrary to human nature
But it's illegal in multiple situations for me to lie to them. Is that an expectation for me to act contrary to human behavior? I think that what people are asking is just that the standards be applied in both directions.
> Do. Not. Talk. To. Police.
Agreed on that point, and yes, I have watched some (but not all) of James Duane's stuff.
It is indeed illegal for you to lie to them, and many things you might construe as "not a lie" they could construe as "a lie", so yes, you get jail time for something they're doing in the course of their job.
The standards _don't_ apply in both directions. Any interaction with the police is inherently imbalanced.
They get to stand wherever they want (often in groups), in body armor, with guns and handcuffs and the permission to arrest you (or shoot you!) at any point in time, if you say/do the right mix of things.
If you've _never told them anything_ or _agreed to sit in a room with them_, you're much less likely to be prosecuted for lying to them.
> Officer, I do not talk to police.
If they arrest you:
> Officer, I do not talk to police.
etc. You might spend a night or a month in jail, but it's better than 5 years for a murder you didn't commit, but the officer was pushing hard to get one more conviction before closing out FY2021
While practical advice for the current state of affairs, it is irrelevant here as the whole point here is that we don't like the current state of affairs: they shouldn't get to lie to people from their position of authority and asymmetric requirements, and if it can be proven that they lied to the suspect it should be something a lawyer can use to invalidate testimony (which might be brutal for the ability to convict the person, leading to police being trained to not do it, etc.).
FWIW, my direct and immediate issues are when the system lies to people about the way the system works. The power imbalance is already ridiculously high when someone has you in custody--momentarily, temporarily, or permanently--that it seems entirely unconscionable to me that the system then further gets to lie to you about your status or what will happen to you next.
Whether or not you can lie to the police depends on your jurisdiction.
In most countries, there are laws against self-incrimination. If you have the "right to remain silent", like in the US, it may be illegal to lie to them. If you don't have that right, then you have the right to lie, because otherwise, you could be incriminating yourself.
>> But it's illegal in multiple situations for me to lie to them. Is that an expectation for me to act contrary to human behavior?
I have been having serious issues around this notion that everyone lies 500 times a day - that it normal and super common. I think I'm aware when I lie, and it usually amounts to something more like not sharing my full opinion so not to hurt feelings. But even that isn't common. Do most people really just make up bullshit all day long?
I don't take a position on that, but if it's not common, then why are we treating it like a big deal to require police officers to tell the truth to us?
My premise isn't that lying is either essentially human or completely wrong -- my premise is that police officers are humans like the rest of us and should be able to handle at least the same restrictions as everybody else. If I'm expected to know the entire law, they shouldn't be able to hide behind ignorance as an excuse either. If I'm expected to tell the truth, they should tell the truth as well. If I'm expected to deescalate tense situations, they should have the same expectations.
A cop should be at least as well trained and conscientious as a civilian (and hopefully more trained since this stuff is actually their job).
The problem with never talk to the police is that they can mess with you more or less with impunity. They can beat you and not worry about retribution from the judicial system. They can arrest you in which the only charge is resisting arrest.
Even if you are treated humanely when you refuse to talk to the police there is the very real possibility they will investigate your life. Given that there are civil liberties lawyers who claim that everyone commits felonies on a regular basis does one really want a big investigation into their life [1]?
The power of the state to mess up your life is such that this advice might not be applicable if the cop you are dealing with is a jerk.
> The problem with never talk to the police is that they can mess with you more or less impunity.
Yes! They can and will mess with you. But if you think talking to them will _reduce the chances_ of them messing you, many legal experts would disagree.
Talking to them gives them additional avenues by with they might claim that you committed the crime, you're guilty, and they get to `solved_crimes_this_month += 1`.
It's all risk mitigation.
They might treat you illegally and immorally, for sure. They're not _less_ likely to do this if you consent to "a conversation", they're _more_ likely to do this.
So, again, don't talk to police without a lawyer present.
When you're lawyer gets on scene, he'll say "don't talk to them", so you'll continue to _not talk to them._
Many folks on HN that live in the USA, are statistically likely to not have particularly bad interactions with the police, but that means we have a chance (or even obligation) to normalize self-protective behaviors that persons who are not quite as (white|male|upper class| privileged) as we are might suffer repercussions for exercising.
I.E. if it spreads that "privileged people don't talk to police" then "marginalized people not talking to police" are less likely to suffer abuse from said police.
I should state that I had in mind police interactions similar to traffic stops. Boldly proclaiming you don't consent to a search or you refuse to answer questions can lead to a tough time for you. I think in general one should strive for de-escalation, and being overly compliant in the above type interaction. Once you are arrested then definitely assert your rights. It's unfortunate that police powers are such that we can't assert out rights without fear of retribution.
I strongly disagree with your last sentence. I believe cops will take advantage of those who can't afford lawyers as long as there are no real consequences to them.
Oh, yeah, even with traffic stops, you're totally right. Don't "boldly proclaim" anything. Be humble, even as you keep this in mind.
I've been asked at traffic stops at least 3x, by police:
> You don't have any drugs in here, right? Don't mind if I take a look?
What do you say?
> Nope, no drugs!
Great, you've consented to a search.
> No, officer, I don't consent to a search of my vehicle.
They might still search, but now their search is without probable cause _and_ your consent, which means even if they _do_ find drugs in your car, your lawyer will be able to spring you easily.
Cops do take advantage of those who cannot afford lawyers, but a way you can set yourself up for success is guide the interaction in such a way that a lawyer would have no problem proving the cops violated their own guidelines.
A calm tone won't necessarily make the cop calm, but a bold/agressive tone will almost certainly make the cop respond in kind. When I decline a request from a cop, I make sure to do it with a sugared tongue. The cop isn't entitled to the 'sorry' in "No, sorry", but that little indignity might make the difference so I'm willing to suffer it.
I don't know if it's a good idea in general, but I've gotten good results from even more flowery language -- "I'm sure we'd be great friends in other circumstances, but while you're on duty I need a lawyer present for any further discussions." Anecdotally, not taking the effort to reaffirm that it's nothing against them personally tends to lead to a lot of pushback.
I've never tried going that far, but once a cop looked offended when I said he couldn't search my car, like I had impugned his honor, so I volunteered the explaination 'It's nothing personal, just a matter of principle." That seemed to satisfy him.
Sometimes there isn’t a dog available. Sometimes the police have to leave on a higher priority call. Sometimes the dog doesn’t alert. Sometimes your lawyer can get the dog alerting thrown out based on other factors.
What’s the risk of just letting them search? Sometimes you can be held for 90 days because the cops mistake donut frosting for meth.
Rights aren't really useful or meaningful if exercising them causes problems. What we should strive for is someone refusing to have their car searched without any problems.
Which is an avenue your future lawyer can explore in your attempts to contest the charges against you and/or whatever action you're trying to bring against their conduct.
If you just consent to a search, those avenues are basically closed. Can't contest if they had probable cause to search, if the dog was trained correctly, etc if you agree to the search.
> They might still search, but now their search is without probable cause _and_ your consent, which means even if they _do_ find drugs in your car, your lawyer will be able to spring you easily.
There's an old saying: "you may beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride."
I'd just like to point out that the ability to recover quickly and easily after being wrongfully arrested is a privilege. If you are e.g. driving to a job that you can't afford to lose, it may be that avoiding a night in jail for a wrongful arrest is more important than your eventual principled triumph over the system.
Especially given that neither is guaranteed. Maybe the cop decides you're not worth the trouble and lets you go. Maybe they plant drugs and lie that you did consent to a search, and a jury believes them. Maybe your overworked public defender advises you to just take a plea. There are no silver bullets here, and the most likely bad outcome is entirely situational.
How does one actually _get_ a lawyer on the scene? If I haven't been arrested, am I eligible for a public defender? Do I need to already have one on retainer? I recognize the value of having one, but if a police officer came to my door right now, I don't know what to do if I don't already have a lawyer.
This is extremely specific to jurisdiction; I would hope that anyone who responds with advice here will clearly state which jurisdiction they are referring to.
In the US, a person’s rights are NOT specific with regard to jurisdiction.
One’s rights are enshrined in what are colloquially referred to as Miranda Rights (issued as a Miranda Warning upon arrest) and they protect all people detained by the police in the US. [0]
> You have the right to remain silent and refuse to answer questions.
> Anything you say may be used against you in a court of law.
You have the right to consult an attorney before speaking to the police and to have an attorney present during questioning now or in the future.
> If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you before any questioning if you wish.
> If you decide to answer questions now without an attorney present, you will still have the right to stop answering at any time until you talk to an attorney.
> Knowing and understanding your rights as I have explained them to you, are you willing to answer my questions without an attorney present? [1]
If you aren't arrested, then you aren't charged, and so no, you have no right to an attorney. Police can detain you on site for a little while in order to make the arrest/no arrest decision. At any time you can give police an ultimatum: am I free to go? If the answer is yes, you're done - say nothing more. If the answer is no, you can keep pestering them with questions until you get clarity on how you can or if you can get out of there, but that isn't the same as answering their questions.
> How does one actually _get_ a lawyer on the scene?
General advice for the US here, as provided by a lawyer friend after a beer or two pre-Covid.
First, you have to know if you are in custody. This is not as easy as you may think[1].
You say: "Am I being detained? Am I free to go?"
If yes, leave, and find a lawyer. If the answer is no (or non-committal), you are under custody of the police. You will likely be forced to disclose your name but that and maybe your address should be what you disclose[2].
Now you need to make it clear that you are invoking your right to remain silent. Current jurisprudence around Miranda[3] makes it clear that is something you must actively invoke. It is not enough to remain silent, that will not stop an interrogation.
You say: "I will not answer any questions until I have a lawyer present".
Those two statements + your name are all you say. That is it.
As far as getting a lawyer, you'll have an opportunity to contact one after the interview has been stopped. If you need a public defender you can ask for one at that time but you'll likely be better off contacting your state bar association and asking for a referral.
You're not talking to the cops. So either, nothing happens, or they arrest you.
If they arrest you, you inform them you request counsel. That's the Sixth Amendment. Invoking the Fifth doesn't get you a lawyer, but saying you request a public defender will speed things up.
You're right about this. In more adversarial cases it's probably best to tell the police that you will talk to them, but only in a formal interview with your lawyer present (even if this isn't true, and you don't want to talk to them, and you don't have a lawyer and don't intend to get one). Telling them this, though, doesn't give them as much license to get nasty.
Most of the "felony a day" things are really critiques of overbroad laws, especially at the federal level. "Honest Services" laws were a big part of that narrative when federal prosecutors were using it in public integrity cases. It's mostly myth.
The issue with unnecessarily interacting with police is that you never know what is actually happening. It's like dealing with a salesmen, they are trained do control situations and question people every day.
In many circumstances you have nothing to add, nothing to gain, and you incur risk that something you say or do makes an unfortunate connection. Nobody is going to beat or arrest you for saying "no thanks".
I keep seeing the "everyone commits multiple felonies a day" quote, but all the examples quoted are of people destroying evidence, dealing in protected goods and so on. Are there any actual good examples of ordinary law-abiding citizens going about their mundane daily lives while also inadvertently committing multiple felonies?
I have no idea and I suspect the answer is that most people don't actually commit several felonies per day. However, the point is that there are lots of laws that I'm not aware of and I may have inadvertently broken one of them. I'm certain if a government agency really wanted to put me in jail they could for quite a long time even if they don't get a conviction. It's sad that this is the state of affairs that exist in the U.S.
Legal sanction against law enforcement officer misrepresentation is a more attainable control point than 100% awareness and compliance with "don't talk to police".
The latter advice is valid, and I agree with it. The change in law, with both sanctions (against officers and departments transacting such conduct) and exclusions on all evidence and testimony resulting, would be vastly more effective.
> Legal sanction against law enforcement officer misrepresentation is a more attainable control point than 100% awareness and compliance with "don't talk to police".
The latter advice is valid, and I agree with it. The change in law, with both sanctions (against officers and departments transacting such conduct) and exclusions on all evidence and testimony resulting, would be vastly more effective.
I don't think the legal sanctions would actually _do_ anything, because legal sanctions _never_ do anything. Cops still commit crimes, however you define "commit crimes", _every day_ with zero penalty.
So, any argument that says "we should ask police to stop lying, and if they lie, we'll write them up!" sounds like a non-starter.
On the flip side, we don't need 100% awareness of "don't talk to police", we just need awareness to trickle into the percentage of society that has encounters with police every year.
Supposedly, there's 700k police officers in the USA right now.[0]
Each of those probably interacts with at least 5 people a day, but there's very much a 80:20 principle in _multiple_ contacts with police in a year.
So, I'd settle with 200mm people in the USA knowing this principle. That's a measly 2/3rds of the US population. A good and entertaining music video that highlighted this fact would get us half-way there in one fell swoop.
I haven't watched _any_ of the lecture but I don't need to know this blanket Do. Not. Talk. To. The. Police. advice is absurd. For example: What if I need to report a crime?
One time a neighbor knocked on my door. She was concerned. "Can you hear those children screaming?" Stepping outside with her I found I could, just, maybe a few hundred metres away. "We better call the cops" I said. The cops arrived within minutes. It turned out that the local school had invited a farmer to bring some lambs to the school and we could hear the kids squealing in delight. The cops, my neighbor and I had a good laugh about it. This is one of many times I've talked to cops in my life and I've invariably had pleasant and good natured conversations. Perhaps I should mention I don't live in the USA.
> Perhaps I should mention I don't live in the USA
As a non-US resident: indeed you're having a much different conversation than everybody here. This advice also makes some sense in other countries, but this article (NY times), the advice ("don't talk to police"), the lecture, the context (eg Miranda) are all pretty US-specific. In my country the defendant is legally allowed to lie and the police is not!
Sweden for example. Not sure why you'd have a lower bar for the police than for civilians. Police are professionals and should act like it. Arrested civilians are in a stressful situation and should be given leniency.
Or do you really think the current situation in USA where the best advice is "Don't talk to the police ever!" really helps with solving crimes? If people instead trusted that police aren't allowed to lie, and that what they say can't be used against them even if it doesn't add up, they would be much more cooperative with the police and hence help solve crime better.
> Do. Not. Talk. To. Police. They are not your friend.
My wife watches a lot of those crime drama shows, and the defendants who simply refuse to participate in the charade of the interrogation room harassment are the ones that walk.
There's a lot of awareness now about the dramatically-increased "interaction" between police and African Americans. What I can't understand is why -- given the decades of "heightened relations" between them -- this mantra hasn't become ingrained in the collective consciousness.
In Frazier v. Cupp (1969), the Supreme Court made it lawful for the police to present false evidence. “The victim’s blood was found on your pillow,” “You failed the polygraph,”... are some common but brazen lies told.
The article goes on to to talk about a NY state bill that is trying to bar police deception in the interrogation room and require courts to evaluate the reliability of confession evidence before allowing it to be used.
If you want a justice system more based on finding the truth, you can ask your local politicians to to bring up a similar bill.
Lies like these may pressure someone to create a false confession to get a plea, because it sounds to them like despite not being guilty, they're going to be found guilty.
It's often coupled with a setup to get you to explain why the action (which you're now convinced you'll be found guilty of) wasn't really that bad... how it was self-defence, etc.
The cynic in me says that police agencies are only entertaining the idea of these reforms because the dragnet is so good it has mostly supplanted false convictions as the supplier of evidence for otherwise bogus convictions with the added benefit of the police not depending on the suspect for any of it.
Regardless, government officials of any agency should not be permitted to lie to people except in the narrowest of circumstances (i.e. undercover cop and little more).
As an example I think it should be especially illegal for the president to lie to the nation. The job of the president is to lead the nation. But if the president is lying to the nation s/he is misleading the nation. Not kosher. Whereas normal people lying is not such a big deal because they can mislead only a few people. The president can mislead the whole nation.
"Illegal" doesn't apply to the president, who is above the law[1]. Instead, Congress can impeach and remove him for anything they want, whether it's a law or not.
While this is the current policy of the DoJ, to the best of my knowledge it is not explicitly stated in any law, nor is it stated in the Constitution. The President is able to take illegal acts, and it is only the power of the President to obstruct justice that prevents the President from being charged with those illegal acts.
Edit:Though I agree that impeachment need not be for crimes on the books, and is solely at the decision of the Senate. The scope of impeachment is wider than the scope of laws, and the President must be answerable to both.
I agree he could be convicted theoretically, but it would be difficult and he certainly can't be imprisoned. The enumerated ways of removing the president are the only ones; the judicial system can't remove him by locking him up.
It makes practical sense that DOJ cannot imprison the president because president is the boss of everyone working in and under DOJ. So s/he could (and probably would) simply give them the order not to lock him or her up.
But after s/he is out of the office I see no reason why s/he could not be imprisoned by the next president for the crimes committed while in office.
I'm not a constitutional scholar but I think it would be absurd to claim that president is "above the law". Why? Because the president only gets his or her powers from the law, the constitution.
If president would be above the law it would mean that the constitution does not apply to him or her. And if so then anything the constitution says about him or her could not apply to him or her, because s/he would be "above it".
So you can not claim that on one hand president has some powers because the constitution says so, and then claim that s/he does not have to abide by the constitutional law because .. s/he is above the law.
Twenty years ago I read the article "Never talk to the police." Later that year, the police came to my girlfriend's apartment and asked questions about a homicide. I was there and when they asked if they could come in, I said "No." There is no upside to allowing them in. "We'll answer any questions here" I remember saying.
We didn't have anything to hide, but you never know what law you may've broken. You never know what they may say and how you will react. The system sets up an adversarial relationship.
It would be in the best interest of law enforcement to play by the same rules as regular people.
Always talk to the police -- AFTER GETTING IMMUNITY. Basically first if they ask you anything, say "I will happily comply with any questioning if you give me immunity in writing to this case or anything resulting from my answers."
The cop who gave that presentation even mentioned getting an IRS call, and said that, they never called back.
That's true. The cops would have to coordinate with the DA to make that happen. Which they would never bother to do unless they really needed your testimony, which is why it's a good way to get them to buzz off.
According to the article it's OK for the cops to lie about almost anything. There's not a lot to stop them saying "I have the authority to grant immunity" or "I am an official from the DA's office" or "I just called the DA and he approved the immunity" or "I just called the DA and he approved the immunity and he sent this confirmation by fax".
Some of these might not really be de jure OK for the cops to tell you, but would you want to rely on a court upholding that?
Agreed. In addition to my belief that they lack authority, I know that it would be extremely uncommon for a cop to be able to provide a notarized document that would protect later when the cop denies his verbal grant of immunity.
Police have even pretended to be the accused's attorney-- not lawful-- but generally the only consequence of an unlawful interrogation technique is that they lose the conviction.
There is a whole subreddit (/r/legaladvice) where the moderators are all (almost all?) law enforcement officers, where they remove good information from actual attorneys and promote bogus "cop law" that is highly detrimental to the interests of the users.
They don't, so the absolute best case outcome of "asking a police officer for immunity" is "nothing happens".
The worst case outcome is that police officer testifying to a jury that you agreed to answer questions about a crime once you had immunity.
This is a terrible plan that ends terribly for you. Smart people think they'll be able to logic and reason themselves out of the crosshairs of the criminal justice system. But they're playing a game they don't know how to play and the odds are stacked for the house.
Under American law this is probably the worst possible advice you could give someone.
Why? Because if you end up in front of a jury, that police officer is going to testify to that jury that you said "you'd tell them anything when they granted you immunity", a truthful statement, and the jury is going to fill in whatever gaps the prosecutor suggests they fill in.
If you are in police custody you ask for nothing from the police. You tell them that you are remaining silent until your lawyer arrives. And then you shut up.
In the anecdote the student did ask for immunity, but only after talking to a lawyer first. It was the lawyer's advice to ask for immunity.
The bigger lesson was not to ask for immunity, but to refuse to say anything without your lawyer present. (...and then, obviously, to only say things if your lawyer advises you to do so.)
Are you a lawyer? This seems like pretty irresponsible advice to give from an armchair, tbh.
IANAL, but if you're arrested, just ask for a lawyer. Don't try to play weird games like asking for immunity. The police have played them way more than you, you don't know the legal system and you will probably lose.
>> Always talk to the police -- AFTER GETTING IMMUNITY.
No no no, a thousand times no. Immunity is a very nuanced thing that, in the US especially, is beyond the understanding of laypersons. Talk only to and through YOUR lawyer. Don't go anywhere near any talk of "immunity" without several days to discuss the matter with paid legal counsel.
And, AFAIK, the police themselves CANNOT GRANT IMMUNITY. Only the prosecutor can sign an immunity deal with you. By the time you are talking to a prosecutor, you should have your lawyer involved.
Not even the prosecutor. The US is a strange dual sovereignty system (state and federal) and so you need multiple prosecutors to agree. State immunity can be respected by the feds, and vis versa, but that is not absolute. Similarly, US prosecutors cannot grant immunity for crimes in other countries such as crimes that cross boarders. US immunity might mean end many travel options.
Not really. Canada is federalized, but still has a unitary authority for prosecution of crimes. There are very few countries operating parallel authorities, parallel criminal courts. Most countries have a unitary authority structure with the national government being the highest source of law. The US operates a bifurcated structure where States (50+ of them) are often the final authority on criminal matters. That is strange.
Okay, fair. I meant that dual sovereignty itself isn’t strange, but I see that you meant specifically wrt criminal courts. I’ll defer to you on that since I don’t know much about it.
Have your attorney ask for immunity and confirm to you that it’s then safe to talk with police (your attorney will just say, “No!!!!” when you ask them)
Also, an up front request for immunity is a massive red flag that says "I'm probably involved in the illegal thing, or some other illegal thing", which is not how you want to introduce yourself to a police officer, especially if you're not a serious suspect at the time. Even if the cop could grant it, why would he?
Obviously different if your lawyer says that requesting immunity might work, probably because you're knee deep in someone else's mess and their experience tells them that prosecution will be far more interested in your testimony against them than stuff you might need to admit to.
I mean, if you ask for immunity out of nowhere, it does make one think about what exactly you want immunity from. One does not have to be manipulative narcissist to figure that one out.
Police can and do lie to people to get them to confess to stuff. "We'll go easy on you, we promise", or "this is off the record, you can tell us anything now" etc. So what stops them from saying something like "sure, you got immunity, now let us in".
> The cop who gave that presentation even mentioned getting an IRS call, and said that, they never called back.
The IRS would never call you in a situation where that would matter, and in fact they try very hard to make that public since fake IRS enforcement calls are a very common scam.
So the cop was either lying to you, or was caught in a scam and accidentally scared them off by showing they weren't going to immediately buckle under, without even realizing it was a scam.
Ask for a lawyer, not immunity. And take legal advice from your lawyer, not from cops who, as a class, have neither the knowledge nor the motivation to give good advice.
There were about four arguments that he quite persuasively made: you might make a mistake, you might inadvertently say something that is misinterpreted, you may be completely honest and truthful but an unreliable third party makes a claim that contradicts your statement...
It's an incredibly important video that shows why there is no good that comes out of police interactions.
It is a good thing for everyone if you can talk to the police and not have to worry about that putting you in jeopardy from the police. Since police choose not to offer you that protection, and are legally supported in doing so, it is the police, not the individual refusants, who have brought about this sad state of affairs where the right advice is always not to talk to them.
If you are in the U.S. this is absolutely the most important video you can watch. It very clearly details how the system really works, and why it is always bad to talk to the police without a lawyer present.
Note I didn't say, "Never talk to the police." You need someone with you that can understand the law and how work within the system. You never know when they might consider you part of the suspect pool. You can be helpful, just be helpful while protecting your own best interests.
One note about that video: he's updated his advice a bit. Our shitty Supreme Court has made "stay silent" a bit of an issue--it's safer to demand your lawyer instead.
It's not even about understanding the system, the presence of the lawyer forces the police to establish "scope".
If I'm just a witness, then the lawyer can make sure that what I say can't later be used against me for something unrelated.
If I'm a suspect, this prevents the police from going on a fishing expedition to just "find anything". Once they talk to the lawyer, they have to go hunting for "what they told the lawyer" as opposed to everything in the world.
I get what you are saying, and agree with your decision to not talk to the police, but it isn’t true that there can be NO upside to talking to the police.
For all the bad things police do, they DO also solve some crimes and arrest some dangerous people. If someone killed one of my loved ones, I would hope the police would be able to find, arrest, and successfully prosecute the murderer.
If no witness will speak to the police, it makes solving a homicide much more difficult.
This is why the current approach to policing is so awful. We should work on fixing the system so talking to the police is a good thing.
Police barely ever solve crimes. Murder, the most serious crime, is hardly ever solved. There is no fixing the situation with talking to police, how would you fix the system? It would take decades of action on the part of the police to regain the public’s trust. One wrong move by one cop, one time would reset that back to zero.
To be fair, solving a great many murders is probably a simple matter of finding the family member with literal blood on his hands and a history of domestic abuse. It doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to figure that out.
Imagine a life insurance broker that moonlights as a serial killer offing someone's spouse soon after the policy is open. The remaining spouse is going to prison for a very long time every single time.
60% of murder cases result in someone getting arrested. So we still have to ask: a) how many of those arrests result in a conviction? b) how many of those convictions are of the right person? c) and how many murders result in murder cases?
A murder case basically starts with police opening a file saying "X has been murdered" and goes on from there. So if the death looks enough like accident or natural causes or suicide, no murder case is opened and it doesn't count as an uncleared murder.
Therefore it wouldn't surprise me if the majority of murders (51%, anyway) are unsolved.
> This is why the current approach to policing is so awful. We should work on fixing the system so talking to the police is a good thing.
Exactly. Addressing your example, as it's a good one: To be blunt, me risking the legal standing or overall safety of my family just to bring your family some closure is not a trade-off I'm willing to make. I'm genuinely sorry because I would absolutely like to help, but the downside risk is too great.
I am in an incredibly privileged position in our society, and I've gotten grief at the hands of the police while I was being a "good citizen" and offering information. Never again. If they want to know something we will be doing it in full view of the public out on the street or with my lawyer present.
"public out on the street or with my lawyer present."
Isn't a large reason why one shouldn't talk to the police because they may intentionally misconstrue what you say? Being in public won't solve that, hence the lawyer bit.
They don't even have to misconstrue it. You could unintentionally change some facts in your story from what you had said 5-10 minutes ago, for example. Cops are trained to pick up on little stuff like that, while you might not even realize you did it.
Completely agreed; I was addressing the concerns of the people who would or wouldn't allow a police officer into their residence.
If I absolutely must speak to an officer without a lawyer present, we will be outside in public, not indoors in private. If that's not acceptable to the officer...well, too bad.
(Though, the hilarity of it is, I am in a position where I can even say no to an officer and the officer will likely respect it. I "look like" I have the resources to push back on police abuse, so police are less likely to abuse me. If I didn't look like that, I probably wouldn't even have the chance to say no, at least not without a lot of pressure.)
>> To be blunt, me risking the legal standing or overall safety of my family just to bring your family some closure is not a trade-off I'm willing to make. I'm genuinely sorry because I would absolutely like to help, but the downside risk is too great.
And it's probably even more risky if you are a witness or have useful information. Putting yourself at a crime scene - even if you saw nothing - seems like a bad idea these days. "Oh you were there but you did see anything? Reeeealy?"
Getting back to the headline, I think they need to at least be required to tell the truth in court.
The current homicide clearance rate is 61.4% (That’s only arrest, not a conviction).
If resolving the adversarial relationship between citizens and police would improve that then it’s something we should explore. Right now I’m not sure how that could happen, given the deep problems with American Law Enforcement, Correctional, and Justice systems.
> I get what you are saying, and agree with your decision to not talk to the police
They DID talk to the police. (They said, "We'll answer any questions here")
Bringing them inside your home really doesn't have an upside. I don't invite armed strangers inside my home as a rule, and making an exception is unnecessary.
> I don't invite armed strangers inside my home as a rule, and making an exception is unnecessary.
If your trust in a police officer is so low that you put them on equal ground as people who carry guns (criminals or police, in my country) then something is very wrong.
You might be paranoid, you might live in a country where the law is corrupt, a combination of that, or something else. For sure, something is very wrong.
I've helped the police with crime cases. Doing so, makes my society a little bit more safe and just. I also got help from police when I needed them. Then again, not living in USA. My secret is sauce is simple: be honest. If being honest gets you into trouble in your country, something's off.
Are you aware that one of the largest political issues in the US right now is exactly that: a complete lack of trust and respect in the police and how they go about their jobs? A popular slogan in the US is ACAB (All Cops Are Bastards) This is a comment on an article about how cops need to stop lying to people during investigations.
I'm glad you think your cops are great, but we're trying to talk about how to reform them, we already know there is a problem. US police can lie to you in order to get information, in addition to a host of other abuses. Saying "be honest to cops and everything will be fine" feels a bit glib.
Yeah, I'm aware of that. ACAB in my country is forbidden, because its insulting a civil servant in office.
If police are not allowed to lie while civilians can lie, the police are in a severe disadvantage. Perhaps the balance is tipped the wrong way, but the mere notion that police are allowed to lie isn't wrong in itself.
The authoritarian worship in this comment really says enough about the totalitarianism of your country.
Police are public servants. As such everything they do or say should be held under perjury. Police, leaders, government officials, lawyers, judges should know more about the laws than average citizens to.
Being in a position of authority and having that power should come great responsibility, so great in fact that you should have to serve 3x the prison sentence for betraying that trust.
Same should go as well for ethics violations for clergy, medical professionals, teachers, etc.
you said earlier if it was your family who was murdered you'd hope the police would do something, no?
What if it was the police who murdered your family? In L.A. the police are in actual "cliques" which are basically "gangs" with special tattoos and other gang related rights of passage.
How do you trust the police when https://reddit.com/r/policebrutality2020 has thousands of links of police hurting people, yet when people in the "in group" that they respect (white nationalists) try to destroy the foundations of our democracy, they step aside and let it happen?
The totalitarianism in my country? I'm from The Netherlands, one of the most free and democratic countries in the world.
With regards to police brutality, its a one sided view. Its an angle from a camera, from one point of view. It lacks different views, it lacks context. A body cam can show the context from the police PoV.
To give an example [1] shows a woman who gets blasted by a water cannon. These are meant to drive people apart. However, at that point, these people were in an area where a demonstration (which was escalating into a riot and pillaging). The area was at that point forbidden to be (which always happens for a reason). If you don't listen to such, you're on your own.
It's a bit flippant to call a person dressed as a police officer you don't know an armed stranger, but it's factually true, which contextualizes the decision.
I don't know what you think the upside is of letting someone in a police uniform you don't know to come into your home is, no matter how rosy your view of the police.
That does not mean being completely unhelpful. That does not being unfriendly to police officers you know. That does not mean being unwelcome to police officers places that are open to the general public, like your porch, your business, your club's facility, etc. It just means that you keep your private residence private to people you didn't invite in unless legally required not to.
In my country, a police officer knocking on your door is going to be one assigned to your neighborhood. You can ask them for ID before you let them in. If you're on the good side of the law, there is no reason for fear.
"Don't talk to the police" is a bit of a slogan, rather than really saying zero word when you can help.
I'll be happy to provide the police with any information as long as I'm under the advisement of a lawyer.
I'll willingly testify in a court.
The problem is talking to the police directly by myself, as the police naturally see all related people as suspects. You are a witness in your own eyes; you are a suspect in theirs.
This won't work for most people. Lawyers are expensive, and you only get a free one if you are charged with a crime. You won't be provided a lawyer if they want to question you as a witness.
I agree. Not talking to the cops is an easy policy to adopt if, like most of us, you live in a pretty safe neighborhood with nothing but victimless drug crimes, but a lot of people who have the most reason to fear the police also have the most reason to need them to do their job effectively. It's not so simple for them. If they talk to the police, maybe they go to jail, but if they don't talk to the police, maybe the next house that gets burgled is their mom's. Maybe the next car that gets stolen is theirs. It's a shitty bind to be in.
> We should work on fixing the system so talking to the police is a good thing.
I don't think I will live long enough to see it, at least in my country. The French police is less dangerous than the US one, but they're still dangerous, even for those that committed no crime, and and not only for minorities. A (white) delivery driver was recently strangled to death by police officers in Paris in broad daylight, despite repeatedly telling them he could not breath. No administrative penalty was applied, though an inquiry has started due to the large popular outcry.
In a broader perspective, the worst terrorist attack in French history was in Paris in autumn... not 2015 but 1961. The French police wanted to terrify the Algerian people (which had French citizenship at that time). Police killed 150-200 unarmed people in a single night. The man in charge (M. Papon), like many other members of the police, had played an important role in the deportation of Jews during WWII.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_massacre_of_1961
There was a recent commotion when French policemen could be heard joking about this event, especially about "drowning the Algerians". Some sociological studies prove that the racist terms dating from the Algeria war are still pervasive in the French police more than 60 years after the war.
Damn, now I see why the French love revolutions lol.
I thought it was bad here in USA, but I guess it's a global problem. We need to stomp out authoritarianism everywhere but heck if I know how to do that.
This makes total sense and it's frustrating that many police want to have it both ways. They want good faith cooperation from potential witnesses, while also being free to lie to and manipulate potential suspects. If they want better cooperation from the public then they need to act in better faith themselves.
To have the police play by same rules as regular people, we need to remove "government immunity" which the USSC created out of thin air in the early 1970s.
Why would police and city councils change anything, when after somebody sues the government files a motion to dismiss because of government immunity and the motion is granted? There won't be accountability until this changes.
Yeah. Even innocuous things like having a hole in the wall changes the line of inquiry from whatever crime is being investigated to a domestic violence or child protective services intervention on your account...all because you wanted to help.
It would be in the best interest of law enforcement to grant by default some amount of immunity to witnesses in order to encourage their cooperation.
Nobody should be punished by the justice system for cooperating-- witnesses already risk retribution from whoever they're willing to make a statement against.
The problem is that the investigation is about figuring out who is actually the criminal. Cops deal with mostly bad people. Actually innocent people who get caught up in the criminal justice system are relatively rare -- ask any defense lawyer. This makes investigators incredibly jaded and willing to treat everyone as guilty because it's usually right (and even if they didn't do it they did something).
This is what makes your take on this question so dangerous. This is not about how cops are allowed to treat people they know are criminals, this is about how the cops are allowed to figure out if someone is a criminal in the first place. Telling an innocent person "we have DNA and video of you committing the crime, just plea down to manslaughter and you'll be out of prison by the time your kid graduates highschool" puts them in a devastating position. They may decide that they've been framed and just confess because they think they either do it today or face mandatory life without parole. Even if the majority of people put in this position actually did the crime it's still wrong. Same goes for beating confessions out of people.
Another symptom of poor executive-power education in our country.
Constitutional and civic right literacy should be required for all high school graduates. People must know their rights.
Come to think of it, constitutional literacy should also be part of a required knowledge test for all elected officials. Or else we’ll continue down the slow acquiescing of foundational civic rights, and the punishment for infringing on them will get lighter and lighter.
By the way, the person who outright lied to the FISA courts to obtain a warrant on an American citizen was sentenced to probation today. Not even a slap on the wrist.
In the excellent true crime book, "Homicide: A Year on the Killing Streets", David Simon (future creator of The Wire), talks about the Miranda warning in the context of interrogations. When originally introduced, law enforcement bemoaned that this would hamstring their ability to gain confessions from suspects, because any sensible criminal would simply ask for a lawyer. He then goes on to explain that wily police detectives, instead, were able to use Miranda as a tool - "this is something we have to get out of the way so we can get you home" and "look, you can get a lawyer, but then we can't figure this out right here".
He points out that lying to suspects is both a tool and a risk - if you tell a suspect that there was blood found on his shoes, and the suspect knows that he wasn't wearing those shoes during the crime, he knows you have nothing.
I highlight this because it's fine and good to ban lying to suspects, but not all lies are strictly untrue, and it's possible to use partially true statements to one's benefit in an interrogation. Simon points out that interrogations, by their very nature, are coercive, and if we really want to protect the rights of suspects, mandating an attorney present at an interview is the only way to ensure that.
I’m fine with cops lying if you’ve been charged with a crime, and established the antagonistic relationship, but not before.
When beat cops lie to ordinary citizens about what their rights are, it just builds up an enmity that makes it more difficult for community policing to work.
That flow-chart just overcomplicates its information and overall is laid out extremely poorly (probably to make a point).
There's very little unintuitive there, and most of the actionable advice is "Say you're not going to answer any questions and that you want a lawyer and then actually shut up."
It's ALSO time to stop overcharging crimes to get people to plead out, and skip the trial part of due process. Not only is it unethical, it ought to be un-Constitutional.
The article suggests that the police should have to prove that the confession is true. I would go further and say that this should apply to guilty pleas and plea bargains as well. The police should have to prove that the plea is justified by the evidence, and disclose all evidence at their disposal to the court. If you're pleading to a reduced charge, the police should have to prove both charges. After the evidence has been presented and shown to be sufficient, then the court decides if the plea is justified, what kind of trial to hold, and what sentence to mete out.
Can anyone in Canada or the UK or other common law jurisdictions comment if “don’t talk to the police without a lawyer” is good policy in those jurisdictions, or is it only good policy in the US where the legal system is deranged?
It can be hard to figure out where to take lessons from american advice and where the advice is specific to US idiosyncrasies.
Canada has similar laws as USA, UK has the same situation as most of Europe where you can lie to the police and they can't lie to you. So I think the advice is mostly for countries like USA and Canada with reverse rights, that is the police has more rights than you. In Europe where you have more rights than the police talking to them is safer than talking to a civilian.
* What purpose does the Jury serve in 2021? Made sense in the 18th century, doesn't now. Look at Oracle v Google, 12 totally qualified people made that decision (spoiler, they weren't)
* Why do such a mind numbingly high amount of public defender cases end in plea bargains, and why is the average time spent by a public defender on any given case in the order of _minutes_ in _any_ region of the wealthiest nation around?
* What's up with private prisons, and how can they argue they don't have a negative impact on recidivism?
* If the purpose of prison is to pay your time to the community, why do you have a box that must be ticked that seems to push people back towards crime?
I don't think arguing the police are the problem does anything to address much larger systemic issues that seem to have much more dramatic consequences at scale.
The jury in 2021 serves the same purpose that it did in the 18th century, especially in criminal trials. A jury means that the government has to prove its case, not just to one person who's employed by the government (the judge), but to some random people off the street. The purpose is to make it harder for the government to just put people away "because we said so" - outside the rule of law. It also can serve as a brake on insane or unjust laws, though it does not always do so.
Now, for a complex or technical civil trial (Oracle v Google, say), it has flaws. That I will freely admit. But the businesses in those kinds of trials can choose to have a bench trial (that is, one decided by the judge). When they choose not to, it's because they think they are more likely to be able to snow the jury than the judge. Unfortunately, if I understand correctly it only takes one side to choose a jury trial, and the one with no real case is more likely to do so.
> * What purpose does the Jury serve in 2021? Made sense in the 18th century, doesn't now. Look at Oracle v Google, 12 totally qualified people made that decision (spoiler, they weren't)
I'm speculating, but I think the idea was to put a check on the authorities by placing the actual decision-making power in the people. I think that's a valid principle. Even if Oracle v Google was a bench trial (e.g. no jury), the judge would still probably have to be educated on the technical issues, just like a jury.
IIRC, technically a jury could even decide the law is BS and refuse to convict for that reason alone, but the system puts up a lot of roadblocks to reduce the change of that happening (e.g. the defense counsel can't argue for it or remind them of that option).
> * Why do such a mind numbingly high amount of public defender cases end in plea bargains, and why is the average time spent by a public defender on any given case in the order of _minutes_ in _any_ region of the wealthiest nation around?
Because public defenders are underpaid and overworked, and that's because it's an easier sell to the voters to raise taxes to hire police to lower crime than to raise taxes to hire public defenders for fairer government. There's also been a history of "tough on crime" rhetoric/attitudes that makes it even more difficult. Also: the suspects on crime shows are almost always actually guilty (whether successfully convicted or now), which creates the impression that it's the job of defense lawyers to help the guilty go free.
> * What's up with private prisons, and how can they argue they don't have a negative impact on recidivism?
I'm not sure who's arguing this, but my guess it's probably someone who benefiting from that industry. My vague recollection was that private prisons were sold as a cost-saving measure, like most privatization schemes.
10 years ago, I could get behind the anti-cop bit as things had gone too far police state, but today with dangerous crazed chaos in the streets and the being made to do all the kneeling and feet washing... Anybody who can stand working as a cop deserves a medal.
Can you spin this thought out a little more? Do you think cops have gotten LESS power over the last 10 years? Do you believe their unions suddenly stopped being some of the strongest political forces?
Also, cops make about 15K more than the average job(1) and that's because they're EXTREMELY well compensated in blue-states (presumably where they are made to wash the most feet?). They also still have their qualified immunity, so it's not like it's gotten that much harder to "do the job". Violent crime has been trending down for decades(2). There has not been a massive spike in "crazed chaos in the streets" people just think there is because reasons.
Nah dude, hold cops accountable. Just like any other public servant.
Good point. Crime is down. Sounds like policing is working. Give the boys in blue a raise. Anyone who thinks police are overpaid should apply for the job.
Why not the opposite? Crime is down, policing is working: stop expanding police force size, keep budgets in place, and see what happens. We have no idea if it's "more/higher paid cops" that's causing the reduction in crime, or other societal factors. At a certain point it's diminishing returns to continue investing in something to try and move those last couple percentage points. You're never going to have a 0% crime rate, no matter how much money you throw at the problem.
"Absolute power corrupts absolutely." Sir John Dalberg-Acton
The beauty of the internet is that it does not forget and all the proof one needs it out there if one knows where to look. Many people lack morals and ethics and seek only to better themselves using their ‘power’ and some law enforcement entities are “absolutely” no different. One may believe the law enforcement as well as government is always correct and infallible yet everyone reading this at this very moment in time likely recognizes this fallacy. Each reader can likely provide their own unique individual point of proof as evidence, see my link and provide your own. In my past business endeavors I have personally witnessed a ‘fall from power’ event around someone's pure egotistical narcissistic greed so from my personal experience I would encourage everyone to ALWAYS get it in writing and save EVERY form of communication. You NEVER know when you will need it NOR the value it will make/save you in that future.
To prove my point from my words above bringing all this together in the topic at hand you may find great interest in this yt link.
youtube.com/watch?v=Qm4LHak5WZY
Be honest, be kind, be true, be you! All others will be discovered.
192 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 326 ms ] threadThe nice thing is that this is actually possible to achieve.
Apparently not in Maui County[1]:
Stern was arrested for Rules and Orders, pertaining to face mask violation. ... An additional charge of Unsworn Falsification To Authorities was added.
[1] https://mauinow.com/2021/01/22/maui-police-respond-to-compla...
In addition, lying to the police can be de-facto illegal by being the primary evidence they have that you are guilty of some other crime "Why would s/he lie if s/he weren't guilty?".
It’s better to stay mum than lie.
But get Epstein and friends and they let them plea bargain, etc.
Well, they gain face if they win, and the only way to get ahead in a bureaucracy like the FBIs is to pump up the numbers. As I recall, the agent who was in charge of the Martha Stewart case in particular rose to a significant level of prominence, despite the fact that they never managed to convict her of anything securities-related.
> Under [California Vehicle Code 31], it is a crime to knowingly give false information to a peace officer while the officer is performing his duties
https://www.wklaw.com/providing-false-information-to-a-polic...
> No person shall give, either orally or in writing, information to a peace officer while in the performance of his duties under the provisions of this code when such person knows that the information is false.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio...
Despite being part of the vehicle code, this applies outside of traffic situations as far as I can tell.
EPA agent asks you if you dumped some wastewater from your companies property into the sewage system. You, unsure of whether it was legal, lie and say no.
Later it’s established that your dumping was perfectly legal, but you go to prison for your lie.
That's an interesting aspect. I like that it naturally addresses the idea confessions can come from innocent people. If the confession is wrong, took place only due to some undue presser / false promises / lies ... it should be considered that it might be false.
- Shake shack poisoned cops: https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/nypd-shake...
- Starbucks put a tampon in a cop's coffee: https://popculture.com/trending/news/target-starbucks-tampon...
- McDonald's wrote "pig" on a cop's cup: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/31/us/police-mcdonalds-coffe...
- Subway put meth in a cop's drink: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/08/1...
- protesters hid concrete in ice cream containers: https://popculture.com/trending/news/nypd-called-out-falsely...
- Journalist arrested did not identify herself: https://www.foxla.com/news/deputies-arrest-kpcc-reporter-cov...
- Ballistics don't support AG Cameron's claim Breonna Taylor's boyfriend shot officer: https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/local/breonna-tay...
- more: https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/939zda/how-stupid-do-cops...
- cops lie: https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/jmv94x/testilying-cops-ar...
- OC sheriff’s deputies who lied on reports testify that they didn’t know it was illegal: https://www.ocregister.com/2020/09/25/oc-sheriffs-deputies-w...
It's less of a problem that police lie if everyone adopts the very clear advice given by every legal professional:
> Never, ever, talk to police.*
* You can give them your name, and if they ask "what are you doing", a tolerable answer, but any further questions are to be met with "I have been advised to never speak with police, and I can answer no further questions."
Here's an entertaining lecture on the topic, for anyone not convinced: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE&t=11s
And he wrote a very short (single-sitting) book titled: "You Have The Right To Remain Innocent": https://www.amazon.com/You-Have-Right-Remain-Innocent-ebook/...
Do. Not. Talk. To. Police. They are not your friend.
If you're reading this and about to hit the "reply" button explaining why I am wrong, will you please, please say in that comment if you watched _any_ of the lecture by Regent Law Professor James Duane?
But it's illegal in multiple situations for me to lie to them. Is that an expectation for me to act contrary to human behavior? I think that what people are asking is just that the standards be applied in both directions.
> Do. Not. Talk. To. Police.
Agreed on that point, and yes, I have watched some (but not all) of James Duane's stuff.
The standards _don't_ apply in both directions. Any interaction with the police is inherently imbalanced.
They get to stand wherever they want (often in groups), in body armor, with guns and handcuffs and the permission to arrest you (or shoot you!) at any point in time, if you say/do the right mix of things.
If you've _never told them anything_ or _agreed to sit in a room with them_, you're much less likely to be prosecuted for lying to them.
> Officer, I do not talk to police.
If they arrest you:
> Officer, I do not talk to police.
etc. You might spend a night or a month in jail, but it's better than 5 years for a murder you didn't commit, but the officer was pushing hard to get one more conviction before closing out FY2021
Is the issue the use of deception to investigate crime or making specific types of dishonest statements?
In most countries, there are laws against self-incrimination. If you have the "right to remain silent", like in the US, it may be illegal to lie to them. If you don't have that right, then you have the right to lie, because otherwise, you could be incriminating yourself.
IANAL, but it is a complex topic.
I have been having serious issues around this notion that everyone lies 500 times a day - that it normal and super common. I think I'm aware when I lie, and it usually amounts to something more like not sharing my full opinion so not to hurt feelings. But even that isn't common. Do most people really just make up bullshit all day long?
My premise isn't that lying is either essentially human or completely wrong -- my premise is that police officers are humans like the rest of us and should be able to handle at least the same restrictions as everybody else. If I'm expected to know the entire law, they shouldn't be able to hide behind ignorance as an excuse either. If I'm expected to tell the truth, they should tell the truth as well. If I'm expected to deescalate tense situations, they should have the same expectations.
A cop should be at least as well trained and conscientious as a civilian (and hopefully more trained since this stuff is actually their job).
Even if you are treated humanely when you refuse to talk to the police there is the very real possibility they will investigate your life. Given that there are civil liberties lawyers who claim that everyone commits felonies on a regular basis does one really want a big investigation into their life [1]?
The power of the state to mess up your life is such that this advice might not be applicable if the cop you are dealing with is a jerk.
[1] http://ulrichboser.com/how-many-felonies-did-you-commit-toda...
Yes! They can and will mess with you. But if you think talking to them will _reduce the chances_ of them messing you, many legal experts would disagree.
Talking to them gives them additional avenues by with they might claim that you committed the crime, you're guilty, and they get to `solved_crimes_this_month += 1`.
It's all risk mitigation.
They might treat you illegally and immorally, for sure. They're not _less_ likely to do this if you consent to "a conversation", they're _more_ likely to do this.
So, again, don't talk to police without a lawyer present.
When you're lawyer gets on scene, he'll say "don't talk to them", so you'll continue to _not talk to them._
Many folks on HN that live in the USA, are statistically likely to not have particularly bad interactions with the police, but that means we have a chance (or even obligation) to normalize self-protective behaviors that persons who are not quite as (white|male|upper class| privileged) as we are might suffer repercussions for exercising.
I.E. if it spreads that "privileged people don't talk to police" then "marginalized people not talking to police" are less likely to suffer abuse from said police.
I strongly disagree with your last sentence. I believe cops will take advantage of those who can't afford lawyers as long as there are no real consequences to them.
I've been asked at traffic stops at least 3x, by police:
> You don't have any drugs in here, right? Don't mind if I take a look?
What do you say?
> Nope, no drugs!
Great, you've consented to a search.
> No, officer, I don't consent to a search of my vehicle.
They might still search, but now their search is without probable cause _and_ your consent, which means even if they _do_ find drugs in your car, your lawyer will be able to spring you easily.
Cops do take advantage of those who cannot afford lawyers, but a way you can set yourself up for success is guide the interaction in such a way that a lawyer would have no problem proving the cops violated their own guidelines.
What’s the risk of just letting them search? Sometimes you can be held for 90 days because the cops mistake donut frosting for meth.
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/10/16/558147669...
If you just consent to a search, those avenues are basically closed. Can't contest if they had probable cause to search, if the dog was trained correctly, etc if you agree to the search.
There's an old saying: "you may beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride."
I'd just like to point out that the ability to recover quickly and easily after being wrongfully arrested is a privilege. If you are e.g. driving to a job that you can't afford to lose, it may be that avoiding a night in jail for a wrongful arrest is more important than your eventual principled triumph over the system.
Especially given that neither is guaranteed. Maybe the cop decides you're not worth the trouble and lets you go. Maybe they plant drugs and lie that you did consent to a search, and a jury believes them. Maybe your overworked public defender advises you to just take a plea. There are no silver bullets here, and the most likely bad outcome is entirely situational.
Sometimes I've resolved the situation by saying many words, very angrily.
How does one actually _get_ a lawyer on the scene? If I haven't been arrested, am I eligible for a public defender? Do I need to already have one on retainer? I recognize the value of having one, but if a police officer came to my door right now, I don't know what to do if I don't already have a lawyer.
In the US, a person’s rights are NOT specific with regard to jurisdiction.
One’s rights are enshrined in what are colloquially referred to as Miranda Rights (issued as a Miranda Warning upon arrest) and they protect all people detained by the police in the US. [0]
> You have the right to remain silent and refuse to answer questions.
> Anything you say may be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to consult an attorney before speaking to the police and to have an attorney present during questioning now or in the future.
> If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you before any questioning if you wish.
> If you decide to answer questions now without an attorney present, you will still have the right to stop answering at any time until you talk to an attorney.
> Knowing and understanding your rights as I have explained them to you, are you willing to answer my questions without an attorney present? [1]
[0] http://www.mirandawarning.org/whatareyourmirandarights.html
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning
General advice for the US here, as provided by a lawyer friend after a beer or two pre-Covid.
First, you have to know if you are in custody. This is not as easy as you may think[1].
You say: "Am I being detained? Am I free to go?"
If yes, leave, and find a lawyer. If the answer is no (or non-committal), you are under custody of the police. You will likely be forced to disclose your name but that and maybe your address should be what you disclose[2].
Now you need to make it clear that you are invoking your right to remain silent. Current jurisprudence around Miranda[3] makes it clear that is something you must actively invoke. It is not enough to remain silent, that will not stop an interrogation.
You say: "I will not answer any questions until I have a lawyer present".
Those two statements + your name are all you say. That is it.
As far as getting a lawyer, you'll have an opportunity to contact one after the interview has been stopped. If you need a public defender you can ask for one at that time but you'll likely be better off contacting your state bar association and asking for a referral.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_v._Ohio
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiibel_v._Sixth_Judicial_Distr...
[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berghuis_v._Thompkins
If they arrest you, you inform them you request counsel. That's the Sixth Amendment. Invoking the Fifth doesn't get you a lawyer, but saying you request a public defender will speed things up.
a.k.a you may beat the rap but you can't beat the ride
The issue with unnecessarily interacting with police is that you never know what is actually happening. It's like dealing with a salesmen, they are trained do control situations and question people every day.
In many circumstances you have nothing to add, nothing to gain, and you incur risk that something you say or do makes an unfortunate connection. Nobody is going to beat or arrest you for saying "no thanks".
The latter advice is valid, and I agree with it. The change in law, with both sanctions (against officers and departments transacting such conduct) and exclusions on all evidence and testimony resulting, would be vastly more effective.
> Legal sanction against law enforcement officer misrepresentation is a more attainable control point than 100% awareness and compliance with "don't talk to police".
The latter advice is valid, and I agree with it. The change in law, with both sanctions (against officers and departments transacting such conduct) and exclusions on all evidence and testimony resulting, would be vastly more effective.
I don't think the legal sanctions would actually _do_ anything, because legal sanctions _never_ do anything. Cops still commit crimes, however you define "commit crimes", _every day_ with zero penalty.
So, any argument that says "we should ask police to stop lying, and if they lie, we'll write them up!" sounds like a non-starter.
On the flip side, we don't need 100% awareness of "don't talk to police", we just need awareness to trickle into the percentage of society that has encounters with police every year.
Supposedly, there's 700k police officers in the USA right now.[0]
Each of those probably interacts with at least 5 people a day, but there's very much a 80:20 principle in _multiple_ contacts with police in a year.
So, I'd settle with 200mm people in the USA knowing this principle. That's a measly 2/3rds of the US population. A good and entertaining music video that highlighted this fact would get us half-way there in one fell swoop.
[0]: https://www.statista.com/statistics/191694/number-of-law-enf...
Taking away the value of a tactic should be more effective than creating a punishment based on it.
Of course you CAN answer further questions since you can speak. Thus you have just lied to a law enforcement officer.
Maybe the use of:
"and I will answer no further questions"
would keep me out of jail!
Then do.
As a non-US resident: indeed you're having a much different conversation than everybody here. This advice also makes some sense in other countries, but this article (NY times), the advice ("don't talk to police"), the lecture, the context (eg Miranda) are all pretty US-specific. In my country the defendant is legally allowed to lie and the police is not!
Or do you really think the current situation in USA where the best advice is "Don't talk to the police ever!" really helps with solving crimes? If people instead trusted that police aren't allowed to lie, and that what they say can't be used against them even if it doesn't add up, they would be much more cooperative with the police and hence help solve crime better.
Anyway most of Europe works that way. Not sure why the culture of the police in US is so different.
My wife watches a lot of those crime drama shows, and the defendants who simply refuse to participate in the charade of the interrogation room harassment are the ones that walk.
There's a lot of awareness now about the dramatically-increased "interaction" between police and African Americans. What I can't understand is why -- given the decades of "heightened relations" between them -- this mantra hasn't become ingrained in the collective consciousness.
Not sure why you'd think that, the police isn't allowed to lie or deceive the suspect in Sweden like they are in USA.
Sweden, lying in interrogations is not allowed:
https://advokaternas.se/2020/06/07/far-polisen-ljuga-i-forho...
USA, lying in interrogations is allowed:
https://www.apa.org/monitor/2014/05/jn
The article goes on to to talk about a NY state bill that is trying to bar police deception in the interrogation room and require courts to evaluate the reliability of confession evidence before allowing it to be used.
If you want a justice system more based on finding the truth, you can ask your local politicians to to bring up a similar bill.
Lies like these may pressure someone to create a false confession to get a plea, because it sounds to them like despite not being guilty, they're going to be found guilty.
That is a huge issue.
"I told him the victim's blood was found on his pillow, and he barely even flinched. This guy was really cold-blooded."
Regardless, government officials of any agency should not be permitted to lie to people except in the narrowest of circumstances (i.e. undercover cop and little more).
[1] although not above DC law https://dcist.com/story/12/10/04/dc-police-once-gave-the-pre...
Edit:Though I agree that impeachment need not be for crimes on the books, and is solely at the decision of the Senate. The scope of impeachment is wider than the scope of laws, and the President must be answerable to both.
But after s/he is out of the office I see no reason why s/he could not be imprisoned by the next president for the crimes committed while in office.
If president would be above the law it would mean that the constitution does not apply to him or her. And if so then anything the constitution says about him or her could not apply to him or her, because s/he would be "above it".
So you can not claim that on one hand president has some powers because the constitution says so, and then claim that s/he does not have to abide by the constitutional law because .. s/he is above the law.
SEE ALSO: https://news.berkeley.edu/2020/07/09/chemerinsky-supreme-cou...
We didn't have anything to hide, but you never know what law you may've broken. You never know what they may say and how you will react. The system sets up an adversarial relationship.
It would be in the best interest of law enforcement to play by the same rules as regular people.
Always talk to the police -- AFTER GETTING IMMUNITY. Basically first if they ask you anything, say "I will happily comply with any questioning if you give me immunity in writing to this case or anything resulting from my answers."
The cop who gave that presentation even mentioned getting an IRS call, and said that, they never called back.
Point is, ask for immunity.
Some of these might not really be de jure OK for the cops to tell you, but would you want to rely on a court upholding that?
( https://reason.com/2011/03/08/tennessee-cops-posed-as-a-defe... in this case, the trial court even allowed it-- it had to get overturned on appeal )
There is a whole subreddit (/r/legaladvice) where the moderators are all (almost all?) law enforcement officers, where they remove good information from actual attorneys and promote bogus "cop law" that is highly detrimental to the interests of the users.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2017/10/suspect-asks-for...
The worst case outcome is that police officer testifying to a jury that you agreed to answer questions about a crime once you had immunity.
This is a terrible plan that ends terribly for you. Smart people think they'll be able to logic and reason themselves out of the crosshairs of the criminal justice system. But they're playing a game they don't know how to play and the odds are stacked for the house.
And given that cops can legally lie, that promise of immunity seems empty.
Either they go do the legwork or you avoid random liability for whatever you might have said.
I won't trust myself to handle legal processes, and I certainly won't be able tell if the police had forged a document for me to sign.
When your lawyer asks for immunity it can’t be used against you in court. If you ask, it almost certainly will.
Why? Because if you end up in front of a jury, that police officer is going to testify to that jury that you said "you'd tell them anything when they granted you immunity", a truthful statement, and the jury is going to fill in whatever gaps the prosecutor suggests they fill in.
If you are in police custody you ask for nothing from the police. You tell them that you are remaining silent until your lawyer arrives. And then you shut up.
The bigger lesson was not to ask for immunity, but to refuse to say anything without your lawyer present. (...and then, obviously, to only say things if your lawyer advises you to do so.)
IANAL, but if you're arrested, just ask for a lawyer. Don't try to play weird games like asking for immunity. The police have played them way more than you, you don't know the legal system and you will probably lose.
No no no, a thousand times no. Immunity is a very nuanced thing that, in the US especially, is beyond the understanding of laypersons. Talk only to and through YOUR lawyer. Don't go anywhere near any talk of "immunity" without several days to discuss the matter with paid legal counsel.
Federal means that subnational units have some limited sovereignty, versus unitary where only the toplevel government has sovereignty.
FTFY ;)
A cop can't grant you immunity, and most people wouldn't know what it meant if you did have an immunity agreement.
Obviously different if your lawyer says that requesting immunity might work, probably because you're knee deep in someone else's mess and their experience tells them that prosecution will be far more interested in your testimony against them than stuff you might need to admit to.
“Officer, was there anything strange about the defendants response to finding out his ex-roomate had been murdered?”
“Well he immediately asked for immunity to cover his actions in the crime”
Never talk to the police, refer them to your lawyer.
Police can and do lie to people to get them to confess to stuff. "We'll go easy on you, we promise", or "this is off the record, you can tell us anything now" etc. So what stops them from saying something like "sure, you got immunity, now let us in".
The IRS would never call you in a situation where that would matter, and in fact they try very hard to make that public since fake IRS enforcement calls are a very common scam.
So the cop was either lying to you, or was caught in a scam and accidentally scared them off by showing they weren't going to immediately buckle under, without even realizing it was a scam.
Ask for a lawyer, not immunity. And take legal advice from your lawyer, not from cops who, as a class, have neither the knowledge nor the motivation to give good advice.
Long time since I watched it. I think one argument was that it’s very easy to make a mistake in what you tell and it might sound bad later on.
It's an incredibly important video that shows why there is no good that comes out of police interactions.
Good thing for everyone. That includes victims who had courage and took the risk of retaliation and perpetrators who talked about former associates.
"Don't Talk to the Police"
Old video but still funny and very instructive.
https://youtu.be/d-7o9xYp7eE
Note I didn't say, "Never talk to the police." You need someone with you that can understand the law and how work within the system. You never know when they might consider you part of the suspect pool. You can be helpful, just be helpful while protecting your own best interests.
It's not even about understanding the system, the presence of the lawyer forces the police to establish "scope".
If I'm just a witness, then the lawyer can make sure that what I say can't later be used against me for something unrelated.
If I'm a suspect, this prevents the police from going on a fishing expedition to just "find anything". Once they talk to the lawyer, they have to go hunting for "what they told the lawyer" as opposed to everything in the world.
Interesting...do you have a reference to that handy? Thanks!
The lawyer's name is "James Duane", but I can only find his CATO Institute videos and they're not very good. :(
I get what you are saying, and agree with your decision to not talk to the police, but it isn’t true that there can be NO upside to talking to the police.
For all the bad things police do, they DO also solve some crimes and arrest some dangerous people. If someone killed one of my loved ones, I would hope the police would be able to find, arrest, and successfully prosecute the murderer.
If no witness will speak to the police, it makes solving a homicide much more difficult.
This is why the current approach to policing is so awful. We should work on fixing the system so talking to the police is a good thing.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/194213/crime-clearance-r...
Seems it’s only about 22% of serious crimes which are solved. Of course the beauty of these “facts” is they differ wildly.
Imagine a life insurance broker that moonlights as a serial killer offing someone's spouse soon after the policy is open. The remaining spouse is going to prison for a very long time every single time.
A murder case basically starts with police opening a file saying "X has been murdered" and goes on from there. So if the death looks enough like accident or natural causes or suicide, no murder case is opened and it doesn't count as an uncleared murder.
Therefore it wouldn't surprise me if the majority of murders (51%, anyway) are unsolved.
Exactly. Addressing your example, as it's a good one: To be blunt, me risking the legal standing or overall safety of my family just to bring your family some closure is not a trade-off I'm willing to make. I'm genuinely sorry because I would absolutely like to help, but the downside risk is too great.
I am in an incredibly privileged position in our society, and I've gotten grief at the hands of the police while I was being a "good citizen" and offering information. Never again. If they want to know something we will be doing it in full view of the public out on the street or with my lawyer present.
That's why you need a lawyer present.
If I absolutely must speak to an officer without a lawyer present, we will be outside in public, not indoors in private. If that's not acceptable to the officer...well, too bad.
(Though, the hilarity of it is, I am in a position where I can even say no to an officer and the officer will likely respect it. I "look like" I have the resources to push back on police abuse, so police are less likely to abuse me. If I didn't look like that, I probably wouldn't even have the chance to say no, at least not without a lot of pressure.)
And it's probably even more risky if you are a witness or have useful information. Putting yourself at a crime scene - even if you saw nothing - seems like a bad idea these days. "Oh you were there but you did see anything? Reeeealy?"
Getting back to the headline, I think they need to at least be required to tell the truth in court.
If resolving the adversarial relationship between citizens and police would improve that then it’s something we should explore. Right now I’m not sure how that could happen, given the deep problems with American Law Enforcement, Correctional, and Justice systems.
> I get what you are saying, and agree with your decision to not talk to the police
They DID talk to the police. (They said, "We'll answer any questions here")
Bringing them inside your home really doesn't have an upside. I don't invite armed strangers inside my home as a rule, and making an exception is unnecessary.
If your trust in a police officer is so low that you put them on equal ground as people who carry guns (criminals or police, in my country) then something is very wrong.
You might be paranoid, you might live in a country where the law is corrupt, a combination of that, or something else. For sure, something is very wrong.
I've helped the police with crime cases. Doing so, makes my society a little bit more safe and just. I also got help from police when I needed them. Then again, not living in USA. My secret is sauce is simple: be honest. If being honest gets you into trouble in your country, something's off.
I'm glad you think your cops are great, but we're trying to talk about how to reform them, we already know there is a problem. US police can lie to you in order to get information, in addition to a host of other abuses. Saying "be honest to cops and everything will be fine" feels a bit glib.
If police are not allowed to lie while civilians can lie, the police are in a severe disadvantage. Perhaps the balance is tipped the wrong way, but the mere notion that police are allowed to lie isn't wrong in itself.
The authoritarian worship in this comment really says enough about the totalitarianism of your country.
Police are public servants. As such everything they do or say should be held under perjury. Police, leaders, government officials, lawyers, judges should know more about the laws than average citizens to.
Being in a position of authority and having that power should come great responsibility, so great in fact that you should have to serve 3x the prison sentence for betraying that trust.
Same should go as well for ethics violations for clergy, medical professionals, teachers, etc.
you said earlier if it was your family who was murdered you'd hope the police would do something, no?
What if it was the police who murdered your family? In L.A. the police are in actual "cliques" which are basically "gangs" with special tattoos and other gang related rights of passage.
How do you trust the police when https://reddit.com/r/policebrutality2020 has thousands of links of police hurting people, yet when people in the "in group" that they respect (white nationalists) try to destroy the foundations of our democracy, they step aside and let it happen?
With regards to police brutality, its a one sided view. Its an angle from a camera, from one point of view. It lacks different views, it lacks context. A body cam can show the context from the police PoV.
To give an example [1] shows a woman who gets blasted by a water cannon. These are meant to drive people apart. However, at that point, these people were in an area where a demonstration (which was escalating into a riot and pillaging). The area was at that point forbidden to be (which always happens for a reason). If you don't listen to such, you're on your own.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cm6IaWXIUc0
I don't know what you think the upside is of letting someone in a police uniform you don't know to come into your home is, no matter how rosy your view of the police.
That does not mean being completely unhelpful. That does not being unfriendly to police officers you know. That does not mean being unwelcome to police officers places that are open to the general public, like your porch, your business, your club's facility, etc. It just means that you keep your private residence private to people you didn't invite in unless legally required not to.
I'll be happy to provide the police with any information as long as I'm under the advisement of a lawyer.
I'll willingly testify in a court.
The problem is talking to the police directly by myself, as the police naturally see all related people as suspects. You are a witness in your own eyes; you are a suspect in theirs.
If I can't get a lawyer when question by a police officer, I don't answer a question.
(It's different if I'm in a courtroom, obviously)
I don't think I will live long enough to see it, at least in my country. The French police is less dangerous than the US one, but they're still dangerous, even for those that committed no crime, and and not only for minorities. A (white) delivery driver was recently strangled to death by police officers in Paris in broad daylight, despite repeatedly telling them he could not breath. No administrative penalty was applied, though an inquiry has started due to the large popular outcry.
In a broader perspective, the worst terrorist attack in French history was in Paris in autumn... not 2015 but 1961. The French police wanted to terrify the Algerian people (which had French citizenship at that time). Police killed 150-200 unarmed people in a single night. The man in charge (M. Papon), like many other members of the police, had played an important role in the deportation of Jews during WWII. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_massacre_of_1961
There was a recent commotion when French policemen could be heard joking about this event, especially about "drowning the Algerians". Some sociological studies prove that the racist terms dating from the Algeria war are still pervasive in the French police more than 60 years after the war.
I thought it was bad here in USA, but I guess it's a global problem. We need to stomp out authoritarianism everywhere but heck if I know how to do that.
Why would police and city councils change anything, when after somebody sues the government files a motion to dismiss because of government immunity and the motion is granted? There won't be accountability until this changes.
Yeah. Even innocuous things like having a hole in the wall changes the line of inquiry from whatever crime is being investigated to a domestic violence or child protective services intervention on your account...all because you wanted to help.
It would be in the best interest of law enforcement to grant by default some amount of immunity to witnesses in order to encourage their cooperation.
Nobody should be punished by the justice system for cooperating-- witnesses already risk retribution from whoever they're willing to make a statement against.
This is what makes your take on this question so dangerous. This is not about how cops are allowed to treat people they know are criminals, this is about how the cops are allowed to figure out if someone is a criminal in the first place. Telling an innocent person "we have DNA and video of you committing the crime, just plea down to manslaughter and you'll be out of prison by the time your kid graduates highschool" puts them in a devastating position. They may decide that they've been framed and just confess because they think they either do it today or face mandatory life without parole. Even if the majority of people put in this position actually did the crime it's still wrong. Same goes for beating confessions out of people.
Constitutional and civic right literacy should be required for all high school graduates. People must know their rights.
Come to think of it, constitutional literacy should also be part of a required knowledge test for all elected officials. Or else we’ll continue down the slow acquiescing of foundational civic rights, and the punishment for infringing on them will get lighter and lighter.
By the way, the person who outright lied to the FISA courts to obtain a warrant on an American citizen was sentenced to probation today. Not even a slap on the wrist.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fbi-lawyer-kevin-clinesmith...
He points out that lying to suspects is both a tool and a risk - if you tell a suspect that there was blood found on his shoes, and the suspect knows that he wasn't wearing those shoes during the crime, he knows you have nothing.
I highlight this because it's fine and good to ban lying to suspects, but not all lies are strictly untrue, and it's possible to use partially true statements to one's benefit in an interrogation. Simon points out that interrogations, by their very nature, are coercive, and if we really want to protect the rights of suspects, mandating an attorney present at an interview is the only way to ensure that.
When beat cops lie to ordinary citizens about what their rights are, it just builds up an enmity that makes it more difficult for community policing to work.
https://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=2897
There's very little unintuitive there, and most of the actionable advice is "Say you're not going to answer any questions and that you want a lawyer and then actually shut up."
It's supposed to be hard to convict people.
https://open.spotify.com/episode/3pGYI4CqJysBVgEDf2qacw?si=z...
It can be hard to figure out where to take lessons from american advice and where the advice is specific to US idiosyncrasies.
* What purpose does the Jury serve in 2021? Made sense in the 18th century, doesn't now. Look at Oracle v Google, 12 totally qualified people made that decision (spoiler, they weren't)
* Why do such a mind numbingly high amount of public defender cases end in plea bargains, and why is the average time spent by a public defender on any given case in the order of _minutes_ in _any_ region of the wealthiest nation around?
* What's up with private prisons, and how can they argue they don't have a negative impact on recidivism?
* If the purpose of prison is to pay your time to the community, why do you have a box that must be ticked that seems to push people back towards crime?
I don't think arguing the police are the problem does anything to address much larger systemic issues that seem to have much more dramatic consequences at scale.
Now, for a complex or technical civil trial (Oracle v Google, say), it has flaws. That I will freely admit. But the businesses in those kinds of trials can choose to have a bench trial (that is, one decided by the judge). When they choose not to, it's because they think they are more likely to be able to snow the jury than the judge. Unfortunately, if I understand correctly it only takes one side to choose a jury trial, and the one with no real case is more likely to do so.
I'm speculating, but I think the idea was to put a check on the authorities by placing the actual decision-making power in the people. I think that's a valid principle. Even if Oracle v Google was a bench trial (e.g. no jury), the judge would still probably have to be educated on the technical issues, just like a jury.
IIRC, technically a jury could even decide the law is BS and refuse to convict for that reason alone, but the system puts up a lot of roadblocks to reduce the change of that happening (e.g. the defense counsel can't argue for it or remind them of that option).
> * Why do such a mind numbingly high amount of public defender cases end in plea bargains, and why is the average time spent by a public defender on any given case in the order of _minutes_ in _any_ region of the wealthiest nation around?
Because public defenders are underpaid and overworked, and that's because it's an easier sell to the voters to raise taxes to hire police to lower crime than to raise taxes to hire public defenders for fairer government. There's also been a history of "tough on crime" rhetoric/attitudes that makes it even more difficult. Also: the suspects on crime shows are almost always actually guilty (whether successfully convicted or now), which creates the impression that it's the job of defense lawyers to help the guilty go free.
> * What's up with private prisons, and how can they argue they don't have a negative impact on recidivism?
I'm not sure who's arguing this, but my guess it's probably someone who benefiting from that industry. My vague recollection was that private prisons were sold as a cost-saving measure, like most privatization schemes.
Also, cops make about 15K more than the average job(1) and that's because they're EXTREMELY well compensated in blue-states (presumably where they are made to wash the most feet?). They also still have their qualified immunity, so it's not like it's gotten that much harder to "do the job". Violent crime has been trending down for decades(2). There has not been a massive spike in "crazed chaos in the streets" people just think there is because reasons.
Nah dude, hold cops accountable. Just like any other public servant.
1- https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewdepietro/2020/04/23/polic... 2- https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/11/20/facts-about...
The beauty of the internet is that it does not forget and all the proof one needs it out there if one knows where to look. Many people lack morals and ethics and seek only to better themselves using their ‘power’ and some law enforcement entities are “absolutely” no different. One may believe the law enforcement as well as government is always correct and infallible yet everyone reading this at this very moment in time likely recognizes this fallacy. Each reader can likely provide their own unique individual point of proof as evidence, see my link and provide your own. In my past business endeavors I have personally witnessed a ‘fall from power’ event around someone's pure egotistical narcissistic greed so from my personal experience I would encourage everyone to ALWAYS get it in writing and save EVERY form of communication. You NEVER know when you will need it NOR the value it will make/save you in that future.
To prove my point from my words above bringing all this together in the topic at hand you may find great interest in this yt link.
youtube.com/watch?v=Qm4LHak5WZY
Be honest, be kind, be true, be you! All others will be discovered.
Stay Healthy!