this post was submitted on 23 Jan 2025
223 points (85.6% liked)

You Should Know

34063 readers
106 users here now

YSK - for all the things that can make your life easier!

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must begin with YSK.

All posts must begin with YSK. If you're a Mastodon user, then include YSK after @youshouldknow. This is a community to share tips and tricks that will help you improve your life.



Rule 2- Your post body text must include the reason "Why" YSK:

**In your post's text body, you must include the reason "Why" YSK: It’s helpful for readability, and informs readers about the importance of the content. **



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Posts and comments which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding non-YSK posts.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-YSK posts using the [META] tag on your post title.



Rule 7- You can't harass or disturb other members.

If you harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

If you are a member, sympathizer or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.

For further explanation, clarification and feedback about this rule, you may follow this link.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- The majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.

Unless included in our Whitelist for Bots, your bot will not be allowed to participate in this community. To have your bot whitelisted, please contact the moderators for a short review.



Rule 11- Posts must actually be true: Disiniformation, trolling, and being misleading will not be tolerated. Repeated or egregious attempts will earn you a ban. This also applies to filing reports: If you continually file false reports YOU WILL BE BANNED! We can see who reports what, and shenanigans will not be tolerated.



Partnered Communities:

You can view our partnered communities list by following this link. To partner with our community and be included, you are free to message the moderators or comment on a pinned post.

Community Moderation

For inquiry on becoming a moderator of this community, you may comment on the pinned post of the time, or simply shoot a message to the current moderators.

Credits

Our icon(masterpiece) was made by @clen15!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I was going to post this as a comment, but it was in an anarchism community, and I figured some sections of it might be unacceptable there. Hence, new post.

Here's a guideline of how to interact with cops. There are more or less three modes, depending on your read of the situation. Cops are not always the enemy or the maniacal whole-job-is-making-evil thugs that Lemmy sometimes makes them out to be. It really is bad for people to get mugged or their cars broken into, and they're the solution our society has come up with to minimize the amount of it that happens. It's not always a bad thing.

If you find yourself talking to the cops, there are more or less three ways:

  • They're there to solve a real problem. Someone's car got broken into, someone got beat up. Just talk with them. Tell them what you know, help them figure out the situation. In almost all of the US, their effect on the problem will be positive, and it'll be a lot more positive if they have a good grasp of what happened. If, in your opinion, the person they're trying to catch really did do something that warrants a law enforcement response, then give them a hand. Use your judgement as to whether that's warranted of course, and your impression of the justice level in your local area, since it varies quite a lot in the US.
  • They're there for you. Shut the fuck up. Don't say a goddamned word. It doesn't even matter if you didn't do it. Don't explain. Shut the fuck up. Be polite, obey lawful orders, definitely don't fight them or you'll get a felony and might also get injured or worse, but tell them that if you're suspected of a crime, then you'd like to talk to a lawyer, and you have nothing else to say. And then, shut the fuck up and cooperate. Maybe you want to go as far as "Were you shoplifting?" "What? No. That wasn't me, man." But any further explanation than that, just leave it alone. Definitely don't make something up on the spot, to make yourself sound innocent, if you did do it. For the love of God, don't do that.
  • They're there for someone who didn't do anything wrong. The reason for this post is, anything and everything with ICE and immigration falls into this category. Some things with local cops will, also. Just be unhelpful and simple. No, I didn't see anything. I don't know. I'm not sure. Be vague. Don't get creative, keep it simple, don't refuse to give your ID or otherwise antagonize them or commit minor crimes of obstruction, but just do your best imitation of someone who just fell from the sky. "So you've NEVER MET your neighbor. Your neighbor across the hall." "Nope." "Are you sure?" "Yeah, I don't know." "I mean, she gave us your name, she said she'd talked to you." "I don't know, I don't remember that." Don't embellish. Don't explain why. Just calmly let the silence linger and the pressure build up, without adding extra words.

Like I said, everything with ICE or other immigration authorities falls into the third category. No exceptions. Everything. The same applies with any type of federal law enforcement, I suspect, for the next few years.

(page 3) 33 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 32 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

There's a really big problem with this guidance. You may be in category 2 (i.e. a suspect) and not know it. They may also retroactively place you in that category, and everything you said can now be incriminating evidence

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 weeks ago

Another YSK post only applicable for US citizens?

[–] [email protected] 109 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (11 children)

Maybe you want to go as far as “Were you shoplifting?” “What? No. That wasn’t me, man.” ... do your best imitation of someone who just fell from the sky. “So you’ve NEVER MET your neighbor. Your neighbor across the hall.” “Nope.” “Are you sure?” “Yeah, I don’t know.”

Wrong.

Don't tell the cops "I don't know" or "I didn't see anything," or anything of that ilk. Don't try to plead innocence. Don't try to use logic. It will only ever work against you, and it will never work in your favor. Always always always always.

Just tell them you exercise your right to be silent. Over and over again, if necessary. That is all you say. Be a broken record. There is no situation where you are actually obligated (in the US) to answer any type of questions for any type of law enforcement, at any time, for any reason, ever. That's all you need to tell them. You don't answer questions. You don't answer why you don't answer questions.

This is because you can also be prosecuted for lying to them, and their grounds for accusing you of lying can be pretty shaky but you still might get convicted. You can't be prosecuted for saying nothing.

Note that this will not prevent them from lying to you, which is legal, and making spurious threats of arrest or similar to attempt to intimidate you into complying. Be aware that this is automatically bullshit. At worst the can hold you for up to 48 hours (-ish, state laws vary on that point somewhat) without charging you with anything and even if they do, you still don't have to say anything to them.

If this happens, lawyer up immediately. You can sue them afterwards if it comes about that they violated any of your civil rights in the process.

In light of all of the above, I don't deal with the police at all.

Name and if necessary, driver's license. That's it. That's all I'm legally obligated to provide in my state, and even then only in specific circumstances. If they're on my actual property they can pack sand; No warrant, interaction. I won't talk to them, I won't even answer the door. If they want to try to bust in illegally, what happens after that is on them.

I will further never, ever call the police for any reason. They simply can't be trusted. If I have a problem with someone or something, I will solve it myself. The cops in my area have near as makes no difference to a 0% clearance rate for nuisance crimes, assault/battery, thefts, and burglaries anyway. Unless you need a report for insurance purposes it's useless, and at that rate I'll have my attorney call them on my behalf. They are not in the business of helping you. So don't even expect that they will.

TL;DR: Don't talk to the police.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Wrong.

Everyone thinks they have rights until there's a gun in their face.

When the fascists knock on your door you do what you must to survive and never throw anyone else under the bus.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 weeks ago

In that scenario, my people have an ancient and traditional saying:

It is on, son.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 weeks ago

I agree with this. In the US you can only be compelled to answer questions if you are given immunity, which will almost never happen.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

You don't actually have the right to remain silent as pertains to other people's crimes. You could be compelled to testify, if it comes to that, and in theory you could be prosecuted if you lie, although it's very unlikely to happen.

There are situations where what you're saying is accurate: Every single cop who might answer the call for service is the enemy, or you might get a really bad outcome for "snitching," or simply stonewalling with mild hostility is better for some reason than "I don't know her." My advice was general advice for most of the US, not applicable to every situation someone might find themselves in.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

There is no US law requiring you to talk to cops. About crimes you might have committed or witnessed. You could be forced to testify in court but never to a police officer.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 weeks ago

This is false

[–] [email protected] 35 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

You can be subpoenaed to testify in court. You cannot be compelled to talk to the police.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 weeks ago

Correct. I was mostly responding to your use of "right to remain silent" when asked about your neighbors. It just doesn't work that way. You could go with "I don't want to tell you" or "I don't have to tell you," but if you had to pick one general answer to recommend, I'm a lot more comfortable going with "I don't know" or "I don't remember" instead of those options.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
[–] [email protected] 15 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

sticking to “am i being detained” and “lawyer” works wonders got out a fucked situation with the first. Genuinely the biggest gang in the US, treat them as such

[–] [email protected] 55 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)
[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I used to think so after watching the video. I stumbled into watching bodycam videos on YT because they’re like reality tv but real. I now align more with OP after seeing how many of them think that asserting your rights means you’re a smartass who should be dealt with. My goal with police is to be forgotten, not to stand out.

Now, had I knowingly committed a crime, that might be very different. Fortunately, the part of my life when I had to fear police interactions (because I was committing crimes) is in the past. Not that I would invite them today. We all know some of them are sociopaths and I don’t like to gamble.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 weeks ago

While I agree with this in theory, being a pain in the ass right off the bat isn’t going to work well a lot of the time. Answer the questions, keep it simple and respectful, address them as officer or whatever, and get on with your day. I’ve gotten out of so much shit this way. Boring is good. If you are a pain in the ass you’re going to stick out and that increases your chances of being harassed.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (3 children)

Not everyone has the privilege of being able to afford a lawyer and/or time off from work. There are plenty of jobs that won't let you interview if you've been arrested, even without a conviction.

If the police want to make your life miserable, it's very easy for them to do so with no consequences. Also, when you piss off a cop, they are probably going to take it out on the next person they interact with.

On the other hand, if you follow the advice posted, you're not going to give up any of your rights.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

This is true, although you have a constitutional right to a lawyer even if you have no money.

Either way, if they want to detain and question you, that's arrest - You're going to jail, you'll need to get bail which is going to be somewhere between $100 and $20,000, probably, otherwise you're not getting out of jail.

And nothing you say to a cop from the initial contact to the day you walk out a free person is going to help you. The best it can possibly do is not make anything worse, and that's unlikely.

The reason you have to have a lawyer is that the lawyer is supposed to know what they're allowed to ask you and what to do to get you out. (Some lawyers aren't as good as others, but any honest lawyer knows these basics. - or they can ask their office.)

Now, there are simple things you can do like; be cool, polite, possibly de-escalate the situation with some empathy, but if they start asking you more than one or two questions, you need to forget everything that's ever happened ever, immediatley. You do not remember. After the third question, just shut up and shrug.

You're not going to talk your way out of it, and they'll take any opportunity to take any sound you've uttered and turn it into some other charge against you - most people get accused of five to twenty charges for the same thing so the DA can look effective and make the total jail time seem as scary as possible.

If you gave them nothing, and they have nothing, you are in the best position possible.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

This is true, although you have a constitutional right to a lawyer even if you have no money.

Legal aid is overworked and underpaid. At best you'll get a tiny portion of the lawyer's time, and at worst they'll throw you under the bus so they can make a deal for another client who is in a worse situation.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 weeks ago

They absolutely are overworked and underpaid, but they're choosing to get paid less to help people with no money who are getting fucked over by the system. For this they get accused of being crooked and stupid and everyone has to masturbate in front of them and enough shit that you or I would never put up with. They are the single ray of hope or at least human support for people who are losing their freedom and often a lot more, and they should get more respect.

Making a deal to help another client will get them disbarred and anyone who knows of such a thing should file a bar complaint immedately.

The most common situation is the accused actually did the alleged thing, then admitted it, then decided they didn't want to admit it after that and there is literally nothing the lawyer can do at that point. This is why it's incredibly important to not say anything. "Talk to my lawyer".

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

You sure watched that video fast.

And responded as though you didn't watch it at all.

I guess that adds up. Cheers.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 weeks ago

You aren't the first person to post that video.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 weeks ago

I won't speak for the other person, but I've watched that video before, so I didn't need to. It's a really good one. If you haven't, you should watch it.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 2 weeks ago

Yeah. They have a lot of leeway in how they deal with you, which is why I don't recommend "I don't answer questions" or being needlessly dickish to them. Some things, you need to draw the line, because getting arrested because they're pissed, and then released, is a hell of a lot better than saying some stuff which can get used later on to put you away on some real charges. But in general, there's no reason to make it a painful interaction, because they can also make it a painful interaction for you, in turn.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Hm. In the US, that would be alright except when he refused to tell them who he was. That can get you arrested. I get how "I don't answer questions" is good just because it's specific enough that you can stick to it when shit's getting a little bit real, but it also doesn't really apply to all questions or all situations.

Here's a defense law office giving their abbreviated take on it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqo5RYOp4nQ

They have a longer one, where they told a story of an illegal dispensary that got raided. Two employees tried to explain their way out of it. A third employee just shut the fuck up. The first two got charges, because their attempt to talk their way out of it confirmed that they were working there as employees. The third guy, nobody could prove a damn thing about why he was there. Was he a customer? An employee? Had he wandered in to use the bathroom? Nobody knows. And so, he was free to wander on his merry way, while the other two had some minor but not real enjoyable charges to deal with.

Shut the fuck up.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

You are not required to identify yourself if you are not operating a motor vehicle (in which case you must supply your license if asked) and you have not been accused of any specific crime. "Being suspicious" or "fitting a description" or "we got a call" is not a specific crime. If there is not reasonable suspicion that you were the one who committed an articulable crime, you don't have to provide your name.

Read up on your state's laws. If your state is not a "stop and identify" state you don't even have to identify yourself if you have been accused of a crime. That's for the police to figure out themselves if they care so damn much. You invoke the 5th.

In this guy's case (I don't know what to make of the accents or the checkboard hats or the Astra, so I suspect this is not meant to be happening in the USA, but whatever) he is on his own property, has not been shown a warrant, and has not been accused of a crime. He doesn't have to state anything. If he is not required to interact with these police at all. He's not even obligated to open the door. If these cops had a single pinky toe to stand on, they'd have shown up with a warrant.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago

You are not required to identify yourself if you are not operating a motor vehicle (in which case you must supply your license if asked) and you have not been accused of any specific crime. “Being suspicious” or “fitting a description” or “we got a call” is not a specific crime. If there is not reasonable suspicion that you were the one who committed an articulable crime, you don’t have to provide your name.

This is completely accurate. I should have said, it's a little bit unclear from the video, but it sounds like they suspect Ray Whoever of a crime, which is why I was saying it that way. But if he was just some random person, he'd be completely within his rights to refuse to ID himself, which is a very important clarification.

This is a good overview:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_identify_statutes

I didn't even know that there were states which were not "stop and identify" states, I just learned something today. I still don't completely get it... the article says that, in practice, you can be arrested for obstruction anyway if you don't identify yourself, even without the statute, or maybe you can't. It says the California ACLU recommends that people identify themselves regardless, since they may be arrested for it, even though the arrest will be illegal.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

In the US, that would be alright except when he refused to tell them who he was.

More generally, this depends heavily on the details of the interaction, and the US state where the interaction was taking place.

In the "I don't answer questions" clip, if it were in the US, the police probably did have enough to arrest the guy, however "The court also held that the Fifth Amendment could allow a suspect to refuse to give the suspect's name if he or she articulated a reasonable belief that giving the name could be incriminating." Since the officers were asking for a specifically named person, it might be within the guy's 5th Amendment rights to refuse to identify himself. Would his not identifying himself as the person they were looking for make it so they couldn't (shouldn't) arrest him? Possibly, since they're looking for someone with a specific name, and they don't know that that guy is named that.

Of course, you might beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

“The court also held that the Fifth Amendment could allow a suspect to refuse to give the suspect’s name if he or she articulated a reasonable belief that giving the name could be incriminating.” Since the officers were asking for a specifically named person, it might be within the guy’s 5th Amendment rights to refuse to identify himself. Would his not identifying himself as the person they were looking for make it so they couldn’t (shouldn’t) arrest him? Possibly, since they’re looking for someone with a specific name

This is some of the worst and wrongest legal advice I have ever heard. No, that's not how it works.

There are situations where you don't have to identify yourself. If you're just standing around, and they're curious, then you can tell them to get lost and they can't have your ID. However, if the cops have a reason to suspect you specifically of a crime, even a slight suspicion, then you have to identify yourself, in all 50 states. You will not only get the ride, you will get misdemeanor charges.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

This is what SCOTUS found:

“The court also held that the Fifth Amendment could allow a suspect to refuse to give the suspect’s name if he or she articulated a reasonable belief that giving the name could be incriminating.”

In the situation that played out in the clip, had that been in the US,

... it might be within the guy’s 5th Amendment rights to refuse to identify himself.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

The court upheld Hiibel's conviction. The part you're quoting is in the part where they left open the possibility that there could be some crazy type of circumstances where revealing your name could, itself, form a link in a chain of evidence that the cops needed in order to convict you of some other different crime.

There is not, that I know of, any person ever in the United States who has ever been found innocent of failure to ID, or had their conviction overturned for some other crime or something, under the logic you're saying. It was just a side note while they convicted the guy. Do you know of someone who's ever gotten off due to this logic?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

I said "might." Not "would."

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›