You must log in or register to comment.
in a lot of places you are legally obligated to tell cops ur name and show them ur passport or drivers license, when they ask. so if this is the case for u, u should do it (and then shut up and say nothing more without ur lawyer)
You shouldn’t just shut up after identifying yourself either, you should explicitly state that you are exercising your 5th amendment rights and then shut up. Talking afterwards can be taken as rescinding your 5th amendment assertion.
Famously, a judge once ruled that saying “Yo, I want a lawyer, dawg” was actually not a 5th amendment assertion, and that the suspect was genuinely requesting a dog who practices law.
Hi, did you know that there are a large number of English speakers on the internet for whom quoting an amendment of the US constitution would not be helpful?
Yes, I would be one of them. However that still doesn’t mean what I’ve said isn’t generally best practice, even in areas where it’s not fully required per case law. At the initial interaction with police, you should identify yourself, then clearly say you cannot answer questions without first getting legal advice. Then shut up and don’t answer questions.
Although, if you really want to get into the nitty gritty, other jurisdictions may have more extensive requirements for what you must say, so shutting up isn’t necessarily the best advice everywhere, all the time. There’s also subtle differences between the right to silence and rights against self-incrimination.
In the UK, which first started using right to silence in the 17th century (and then spread its law over much of the rest of the world), inferences can be made from silence. No conviction can be wholly based on silence, but it can be the wrong move. In some situations, eg fraud and terrorism, the right to silence is reduced and you may be obligated to answer. In these circumstances you cannot legally remain silent, but you are still protected against self-incrimination.
Yes, I would be one of them.
That’s worse mate! You said 5th amendment three bloody times, when you could have given the same advice without referencing it at all. It’s not like saying “5th amendment” is a neck verse or something. You can just say “I’m choosing to invoke my right to not answer questions at this time” and as a bonus, that works everywhere that has such a right, including the United States ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Maybe I should’ve added in that it was specifically referring to the US in my first comment, but I also wanted to use it as an example to show that there is some significant nuance and depth to the subject.
In any case, most of the world does understand US terminology in some manner. For example, the Philippines courts referenced “so-called Miranda rights” when establishing their law.
You can just say “I’m choosing to invoke my right to not answer questions at this time” and as a bonus, that works everywhere that has such a right, including the United States ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
That’s exactly what I did in the comment you just replied to:
At the initial interaction with police, you should identify yourself, then clearly say you cannot answer questions without first getting legal advice. Then shut up and don’t answer questions.
But that doesn’t include the story about the lawyer dog, which seemed relevant to this post with a dog giving legal advice.
Well… We did kinda occupy The Philippines for about 60-70 years. It makes sense that their legal system might look like ours, kinda like Japan as well. I know we basically set up the modern Japanese government, I wouldn’t be at all surprised to find out we did the same thing in The Philippines.
Again, only in the US.
Nevertheless, the right to remain silent is protected in many countries. Deciding whether to use it on the other hand, is not always easy.
Absolutely, however the right to silence is not universal. There are circumstances in some jurisdictions where you can be compelled to say things. In such cases the things you say cannot be used in evidence against you (right against self-incrimination) but they can still lead to evidence that can be used.
Even the US has a bit of this, for example you can be compelled to give over a password. To draw an example, if you were investigated for robbery and had the password “IRobPeople”, then the password couldn’t be used in evidence against you but any evidence they find when using the password could.
The US Supreme Court has ruled that passwords are protected by the fifth amendment protection against self-incrimination.
Biometrics are not.
Law enforcement hacking into your device is acceptable. Evidence on your device remains admissable with probable cause, a warrant or a judge who likes the police / dislikes you.
Some judges will hold you in contempt for failing unlock your own device. (fourteen years is the record on contempt jail terms). So YMMV once youre facing charges.
Theres also a forgone conclusion rule. If the prosecutors can show sufficient evidence to a crime exists on your device, you can be compelled to open it. I do not know how this proof happens.
Also some judges (including SCOTUS by a ruling) just dont care if the evidence of a crime was legally obtained, they let it be admissible because locking you away is more important than state actors following protocols that preserve civil rights. Id est, the whole of the fourth and fifth amendments to the Constitution of the United States are as slippery as Schrödinger’s cat.
You can’t not link the National Lawyer’s Guild version! It’s like the best one, and they’re mentioned by name in the picture haha
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
National Lawyer’s Guild version!
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
I think you’ll find you’ll start getting taken way more seriously online when you start typing like an adult. Use whole words, not stupid abbreviations. Capitalize and punctuate appropriately.
If you want to be taken seriously online, don’t use stupid colloquialisms like “way more seriously.” Use grammatically correct phrasing like “far more seriously.” Start writing like an adult.
didnt ask + go fuck urself + i type however the fuck i want uwu
i think u might be seen as way less unlikeable if u stopped being such a tight assed removed <3
i’m an adult. any way i type is like an adult. if someone cant take me serious because of the way i type, thats their issue. i’m in the comment section of an online meme community not writing a work email. i can write however i want as long as its understandable.
deleted by creator
In the US that is a 4th amendment violation. Some states get around that by requiring convicted felons to provide ID, but in most of the US if you haven’t been convicted of a felony you have no obligation to identify yourself.
Even if you’re right, you have many court battles ahead if you’re in a state that requires it, including likely the SCOTUS. Do you have the money and time to do this? Go for it. Most people don’t. Don’t help them, but also don’t give them a reason to arrest you.
Reality check. 9 times out of ten, you’re way better off just being a good little citizen and co-operating. Cops are people, and you get better results by playing nice.
If you get stopped randomly by a cop, just show your ID and tell him where you’re going. They can arrest and hold you if they want, and the chances of you suing are pretty low. They have the power, and you don’t. The place to assert your rights is in the courtroom, not when you can be arrested and or beaten for acting proud.
Don’t be these guys
Reality check? Wow. You don’t know what the fuck you are going on about. Because your experiences have been 9 out of 10 positive you think others need a reality check? I spent two weeks in fucking jail for SHIITAKE MUSHROOMS.
So call a lawyer and get some reparations
Which proves my point. The cops can arrest you for ANYTHING.
The outliers don’t make the rule.
On the subject of outliers, are we supposed to assume that a user named MycoBro (a user who references smoking marijuana and having a particular interest in identifying Psilocybin cubensis) is actually academically interested in fungi, and not one of the vastly more common abusers of poisonous mushrooms?
That’s absolutely right. My interest in mushrooms led me to read a book about shiitakes(the mushroom at the end of the world). In my excitement I ordered some to make with my ramen at lunch(in a carpenter I have a medical card for weed. How the fuck does that make me a criminal? Wanna talk about mushrooms, man? Because I have a hell of a lot more to say than “they get you high”. Me and all my grand kids hunt for them all year long as they are learning what they are called, which ones are useful, and which aren’t. Your just as wrong and arrogant as you could possibly be. Edit: do I look like a drug user? You know exactly what I look like probably. Picture that but keep me kind of handsome. Is that different than a pig fucking with a black dude because he’s black? I’d bet you would hate that.
You’re right, I would be very unhappy if a pig sexually assaulted a black man, even if it was it’s fetish.
I believe sexual relations should be consensual and between humans, I’m very conservative in that way.
I wonder if there is a word or phrase for when someone lost an argument but still wants the last word so they bring up a grammatical error or act like they don’t understand common nomenclature and take every word in the most literal sense in an attempt to feel superior. Can any English teachers out here help?
“Grasping at straws” doesn’t completely encompass this but it’s the closest thing I can think of
How did I lose the argument? I claimed that the user is probably a drug addict, they denied it. There is really no proving or disproving either claim.
The actual argument I made, that MycoBro’s personal experience has little relevance, was completely unaddressed. Literally read any of his response, all of it was about consuming mushrooms, absolutely nothing to do with the reliability of anecdotal experience.
I merely made my last response because I found the clearly vitriolic analogy to be humourous, and the rest of the comment had nothing of substance.
Dude. You are so full of shit. You sound like a real self righteous piece of shit. There is one fucking mention of Psilocybe cubensis and it’s in a comment about Pleurotus ostreatus. And what the fuck do you want? Am I supposed to use a bunch of mycology words? Arbusculsar? Mychorrhizal? Do I have to go on about the proper names for the morphological features? It’s not a stem. It’s a stipe. My favorite mushroom is the chanterelle because I find it beyond fascinating that they repel pest with an unknown mechanism (you will only ever find a slug on one. Now bugs. So delicious). Your a prick
Are you trying to say his position is invalid because he might enjoy recreational drugs?
No, I’m saying two things.
- His anecdote is not sufficient to refute the claim that 9 times out of 10 you should cooperate with LE.
- The user probably is a mushroom abuser, given the fact that they are a self-proclaimed marijuana abuser and have expressed interest in Psilocybin mushrooms.
These are two separate things, his anecdote probably being a lie makes his argument look worse but it is not necessary to show that it is insufficient. It would be an incorrect argument based solely on the first point.
I personally just find it humourous and incredulous that he supposedly spent 2 weeks in jail, because he totally wasn’t using Psilocybin mushrooms. You know Shiitakes are huge and pretty hard to confuse with Psilocybin, not to mention the fact that you can test them pretty easily. (They are also in tons of grocery stores, so it’s not exactly alien to everyday individuals).
That is much more likely than it sounds. Law enforcement in the United States are fond of a $2 drug test that reacts with practically anything. Allegely, it waa supposed to serve as a field test (with follow-up tests at a lab) but these days is used as probable cause in a baggie.
This test has been known to land gazed donut enjoyers in jail as well as someone transporting the cremated remains of a recently deceased loved one. It would not surprise me if a (willfully) ignorant police officer eager to ruin someone’s day woud use such a test on produce mushrooms to assert cause to arrest.
While I cannot say that is what happened here, I can say it’s not merely plausible in the States, but expected, especially if someone shows signs they don’t have a family lawyer.
You seem eager to give law enforcement the benefit of the doubt, which I assure you in the US, at from the precinct level though municipal department, county sheriff, state department and federal level they do not deserve.
Yeah, no. Glad that it’s worked out for you (so far), but it doesn’t always work out for everyone. I agree that you shouldn’t be aggressive and standoffish, but you sure as fuck should not trust the cops. All they’ve shown is that they are a gang that believe they’re above the law. They’re out to protect and serve each other — not us.
Where did I say ‘trust’? I will repeat my basic message. Assert your rights in the courtroom and not the street. I know of plenty of instances of cops killing civilians and not spending a minute in court, let alone jail.
I agree handing over your ID is probably good, even in a state where it isn’t required. That is unless you’re doing something obviously illegal and they don’t know yet and you think you can hide your identity somehow, but I doubt it.
However, the right to remain silent and to an attorney are important. The location you’re coming from or going to can be used as bullshit reasons to arrest you even if it’s not bad. The way you speak can be used to arrest you. The smell of your breath can be used to arrest you.
Basically, hand over your I’d through a crack in the window. Keep your hands on the steering wheel in plain sight. If they ask questions, tell them you won’t be answering questions and invoke your right to remain silent, then STFU. You won’t win their game. Cooperate with the basic requirements, but don’t give them more than the basic information. It’s their job to figure out what you were doing and if it was illegal. Don’t help them do their job.
In 2015 officer involved homicide averaged four a day, a factor that has only increased in the following years during the rise of Trump-led hate rhetoric. (also not including those covered up by precinct coroners, which was discovered in studies to be routine)
50% of the victims were neither armed nor resisting.
Thus proving my point. Knowing your cop might be ready to kill, is it really wise to start off by quoting the Constitution?
Tamir Rice didn’t have a chance to speak before he was killed. Neither did Breonna Taylor. Fuck off with this bootlicking.
If you read what I actually wrote, I told people not to jump into a confrontation thinking they could overawe the cops with their knowledge of their rights.
But yes, if you feel it’s the smart thing to do, shout about police brutality the next time you have a run in. Let me know how it works out for you.
At the point that a law enforcement officer is ready to kill, they’re not going to get much intelligible out of me at all, since I would panic myself right into a face full of lead, and joining the disproportionately high statistic of people with mental illness massacred by law enforcement for no good reason.
Asserting my rights would be at the point I find myself detained and they’re asking me questions, at which point, I’d hope guns might no longer be involved. But I expect a dark room, hours or even days of detention without food or water might be involved. Black sites and enhanced interrogation might be as well, since it’s not easy to extract a confession from an innocent man, but the Reid technique insists they try.
No.
You should cooperate with what they order you to do, and you should always be friendly, but never let them search your property without a warrant or probable cause, as they could plant evidence. If you get arrested, comply with all actions they tell you to do, but don’t say a single fucking word. On the street, try to stay alive, but once arrested, don’t waive your 5th amendment rights. Being a good little citizen will doom you in interviews, and it should never be done.
I didn’t say let them search your property. I said exactly what you said in the first sentence.
I agree with everything above not all cops are nice. A majority probably are nice though but most just want to get to the end of the day without any confrontations although it doesn’t hurt to record the conversation for evidence
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/hz28DDlnKn0
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Removed by mod
Wat?
This may come as a shock, but not all of the internet is the USA. Other countries tend to have different laws and law enforcement policies.
In the United States, the police are really bad right now. But much of the American public has been taught they have certain civil protections which have been getting stripped away since the PATRIOT act in 2001, so they might be of the belief they still have rights and protections that no longer exist.
So if I’m interacting with law enforcement but in an industrialized nation that is not the US, I’m likely better off by far
The contrast came up in one of Beau of the Fifth Column’s videos ( Here on YouTube ) about black American tourists in Denmark that were arguing (in need of insulin that didn’t get packed on their trip), and when the officer came to help, the man dropped into total submission-and-compliance mode, fearing for his very life (which was embarrassing to the poor officer).
I certainly would rather be arrested in Denmark even not knowing the law or my rights, than arrested here in the States knowing the degree to which our rights have been gutted. The crime for which I am accused (or whether I am guilty) doesn’t affect that equation.
Wow, you really are just a dumb American with absolutely no clue how the rest of the world works. Like yeah the cops aren’t as racist in Denmark, literally more than 95% of the people living there are white. Indigenous Australians die often at the hands of police here. The police fuck with ethnic minorities constantly, for example Lebanese immigrants and their descendants. Like y’all aren’t special snowflakes with super serious problems that are worse than everywhere else.
Maybe take the National Lawyer’s Guild’s advice and Shut The Fuck Up about shit you know nothing about?
The only OECD country that can beat the US in killings by law enforcement per capita is Colombia with 33.1 and 34.1 killings per 10 million people a year respectively (according to wikipedia). I think the person you replied to were right in saying that “So if I’m interacting with law enforcement but in an industrialized nation that is not the US, I’m likely better off by far”. Granted, Mexico isn’t much better off either, but beyond that the numbers start to go down.
Police brutality is definitely not a uniquely US thing, but it is a lot more prevalent there than in comparable countries.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
National Lawyer’s Guild’s advice
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Wow, Lemmy users are as bad, if not worse than Reddit users. Why so serious, asshole?! Got something up your arse? Got something under your skin you can’t get rid of to act like a total bollocks?
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
What?! I want a refund!
Removed by mod
Lmfao, no matter where you live, the cops never have and never will exist to serve you, and you should absolutely do as much of this as you can wherever it is you live.
Removed by mod
Lmfao, tell me you didn’t even bother clicking the links without saying you didn’t even bother clicking the links… 🙄🤦♀️
Police everywhere is shit, but hey, don’t let me get in the way of you keeping yourself ignorant and licking boot…
I can link conspiracist websites too. The fact that someone can buy a domain does not automatically confer credibility. I own a domain, does that mean that anything I post to it is automatically credible. If so then why wouldn’t anything I post to Lemmy sites be credible? Including this very own comment.
Why not? Police can figure it out themselves.
Important addition: when the nice officer asks you to please leave the vehicle, you’re getting out of the vehicle. Whether on your own or by getting pulled through a busted window is up to you.
Ref: Pennsylvania v. Mimms (the driver must follow the LEO’s orders), Maryland v. Wilson (the same applies to passengers)
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
you’re getting out of the vehicle
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Why is it a dog?
It’s a parody of McGruff the crime dog, a propaganda character from the 80s-90s
So that he can Take a Bite Out of Crime. ®
In case somebody asks for “a lawyer, dawg”
Which the court has decided is not invoking your right to an attorney. The cop “can be reasonably confused” that you meant you want a lawyer dog, which you have no right to and they have no obligation to allow for.
Just like Harry Potter, you have to speak the incantations correctly or your rights may be violated. Similarly, speaking after invoking your right to remain silent breaks the silence, so ask for your attorney, then invoke your right to remain silent, then STFU.
Could it be a watchdog?
In a lot of places these don’t apply, most western countries cops are not allowed to lie
And that means that they never do, obviously :)
UK cops are so careful about it, according to my two friends who do or did that work. They know their work can be undone in an instant if they’re caught in a lie and it’ll impact on them personally.
Funny how accountability in the police makes a difference to abuse!
I feel like this needs tobe said: Cops in the UK are still bastards.
🤷
I’ve known him for over 30 years so don’t expect me to agree
I fail to see how this is an example of abuse. If someone is lying to you about evidence they have of a crime, then why would that induce a false confession? At worst you would plea guilty in court, when all the evidence (or lack of) would be presented.
This argument requires assuming that people are literally mentally incapable of knowing what they have done. They would have to be so susceptible to manipulation that they would accept any statement as true.
The proverbial lawyer dog, just be sure not to ask for him.
not talking to the police is extremely important advice, it could really save you a lot of trouble one day.
for the curious, here’s a lawyer explaining it in more detail: https://youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE. (i thought he was a pretty entertaining speaker the first time i watched the video.)
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
No es ese don Graff?
