It's a ~47 video, and even if you don't agree with the conclusion, I think it's excellent. I haven't adopted a "never talk to the police" vibe, but I seriously think twice about talking to cops for anything that matters. For example, if shady person running down street with purse, person yelling "that person grabbed my purse", and cop asks "did you see which way the purse snatcher ran", I'll probably speak up :) . Cop asks me where I was last Saturday night, I'm not inclined to start volunteering information.
> I haven't adopted a "never talk to the police" vibe, but I seriously think twice about talking to cops for anything that matters.
I was a police officer for a good portion of my life. The problem is you may not know what matters. I have a couple teenagers and I don't even let them talk to school administrators without me present if there was some type of trouble at school. I certainly would never let my children talk to the police and I myself, would never talk to the police. You may think what you are saying sounds innocent but you never know how the officer is viewing your statement or what king of evidence they are looking for.
For example, a few years ago my neighbor's house burned down in the middle of the night. He and his family had decided to spend the night elsewhere that night before the fire started. Apparently, he had some hotel points from work travel and they stayed the night at a fancy hotel -- locally. Investigators were suspicious of this so they brought him in for questioning. From his account, he said they were very friendly to him and sorry that his house had burned down. They jokingly asked if he had ever missed any payments on his house. He said actually he missed this months because of a illness in his family that required extra money. But that he had worked it out with the bank. Well the investigator ran with that statement and the fact that his whole family wasn't home and opened an arson investigation with him as the suspect. It took nearly a year to clear him and the insurance wouldn't pay until the investigation was done. He continued to pay for the house and had to live with relatives. The whole thing was crazy. If he wouldn't have talked to the police, they would have relied solely on the fire investigation report which didn't indicate arson.
So as an ex police officer, why do you think your ex colleagues did stuff like this? i.e. Intentionally twist someone's statement or lull them into a false sense of security to say something that will be intentionally misinterpreted?
I know policing is just a job, but given that the impact of your actions can and often screw the lives of innocent people, with no opportunity for recourse on top of that, why do (many?) police officers not feel any responsibility to do the right thing?
You don't hear of doctors and nurses being so callous in their jobs, or at least the rate of incidence seems to be orders of magnitude lower compared to law enforcement.
In your opinion, what can be done to improve the system? Would making it easier to file and win lawsuits against the police/prosecution for incompetence/malpractice help? (similar to doctors)
Not a cop, but it doesnt seem to be much of a stretch to investigate.
Neighbor knows he didn’t do it, but cops don’t. Their job is to collect information and be suspicious (at least to some degree). Detectives are probably rewarded in some way, their job is to deliver a case to a prosecutor.
DA/Prosecutors are rewarded by conviction rates, particularly those who are elected. Has nothing to do with justice or the truth. And ultimately most of them probably feel any injustice isn’t because of the way they did their job, but the Jury making the wrong choice.
I don't think the police took the wrong approach. It was just fueled by what the suspect said. If he would have went in and said "sorry, I just don't feel comfortable talking to you without a lawyer." There would have been no harm. The detective likely would have checked the alibi (ensuring he was at the hotel), relied on the fire investigator's report, and closed the case. But, giving the police more information is only giving them more to explore. Now they may want to look at his financials, did he recently update his insurance, what other debts does he have, are there any weird calls/communications to others, did he purchase anything suspicious, did he conduct any research about arson, etc - and that takes time.
From the one comment, it doesn't sound like the police were doing anything malicious per se. It sounds like the owner of the burned out house gave an investigator a reason to investigate. Imagine being a bored investigator looking for something to do, and then a set of suspicious circumstances falls into your lap. Of course there's going to be an investigation. And that's why you don't talk to the police casually without representation when you could be implicated in something bad.
two reasons IME. one is that it's easy to adopt a just world hypothesis and our biases as humans play it up. imagine doing this on the reg:
- detain someone for something e.g. traffic stop for speeding
- find probable cause e.g. alcohol on breath
- find other bad stuff e.g. a gun or meth
- arrest and mutter under breath "got the bad guy, he deserved it, saved innocent lives" or w/e else
- go back to first step with an additional data point that speeders may also handle drugs and be driving drunk
two, incentives are what they are. police generally aren't rewarded for doing high quality year long investigations that uncover every particular fact in a meticulous and honorable way - there isn't $$ or staff. incentives suggest that closing them gets you farther than "doing a good job, for certain values of good widely held by the public". for the district attorney, they largely have the same incentives (throughput) and so prefer open and shut type setups or plea deals so as to get things moving quickly. so they aren't helping the situation either.
Reading it, it comes to mind that one difference between the medical profession and others is the Hippocratic Oath, starting with the promise to “first, do no harm”.
I don't know of any similar ethos in policing (and there's plenty of popular-culture/film glorification of extralegal means to get the bad guys).
Perhaps policing could benefit from such an approach?
Most departments have a motto. LAPD "To project and serve", NYPD "Fidelis Ad Mortem" (Faithful unto death). I worked in a large metro area and I generally got the impression that you do what is right and follow the rules. I still work in law enforcement, just not on the street anymore (computer crimes) and I still have the same impression with the officers I deal with.
I also have good friends who work in policing (and don't have a problem with most policing as some do).
I certainly would say that police have a solid ethos, which is indeed voiced in mottos like the ones you mention.
The distinction I'm making is that the "do no harm" goal at the top of the medical ethos is different, and wondering if that could help in the policing world.
Not sure about a new video of James Duane, but there’s a relatively recent write-up[0].
His advice generally stands, but with caveats:
— To prevent invoking the 5th from seeming as admission of guilt to jurors and to the public, it may be safer to invoke the right to counsel instead and refuse to talk without your lawyer present.
— In case of traffic stops invoking the 5th may be overkill and polite talk may be productive, unless body or car search (or canine sniffing) is involved.
> — In case of traffic stops invoking the 5th may be overkill and polite talk may be productive, unless body or car search (or canine sniffing) is involved.
Agreed.
Being polite is 100% the way to go, even if the officer is being a jerk. Many of them want to get a reaction out of you. Best thing to do is to roll down your window all the way, turn the lights on in the car, keep your hands on the steering wheel, and always use sir or ma'am when responding to them. Ask for permission to do anything. I've had good luck being polite and pleading either ignorance or stupidness, depending on what the violation is. Generally, never argue, and just challenge the violation in court. If its bad, get a lawyer specializing in traffic violations. If its minor, calling the officer and trying to set up a face-to-face meeting to ask if there is anything he can do to minimize the points to avoid any insurance increases has worked for me many times. If you never get a hold of the officer, getting to your hearing early to speak with the him/her (politely) has worked for me as well. The rule of thumb is always be polite.
If you are getting arrested, be polite and keep your mouth shut and get a lawyer when you can.
Note, I don't have much sympathy for anyone who truly drives like a a-hole for no reason. But some of us have cars that are fun to drive, when the time is right of course.
Basically, remember that since all cops are bastards, if you feed their egos enough (and are white) they will be more likely to let you off the hook for minor crimes in a toxic cronist sort of way.
2a. If it is impossible or impractical for you to be white, instead use your "Sorry For Bothering You" "white voice".
3. Roll d100 and consult Table 22: Cop Bastardliness Levels, to determine difficulty classes for your Persuade and Bluff checks.
Good luck!
It's always best to just avoid all police encounters in the US. If you routinely drive in excess of posted limits, use radar detectors and crowdsourced speed trap warning apps. Tint your windows to the legal limit, and no darker. Ensure your signal lamps are all functional, and signal all turns and lane changes. Come to a full stop behind the line at all stop signs and red traffic lights. If you see a uniformed cop in public, do not approach. Be somewhere else, as quickly as you can manage, but without appearing too suspicious.
In any situation in which you might think it would be okay to deal with police directly, you're probably wrong, unless someone is literally in mortal peril already. Instead contact your lawyer, or security contractor, or insurance adjuster, or psychiatrist. In most cases, the police have no legal obligation to help you, and legally unchecked power to harm you, so why risk it?
…"has worked for me many times."
Maybe consider being equally thoughtful about figuring out what you're doing to keep getting stopped by police and then maybe some equally detailed tactics about how to not.
> Note, I don't have much sympathy for anyone who truly drives like a a-hole for no reason. But some of us have cars that are fun to drive, when the time is right of course.
"It's not okay, unless you're having fun" is a pretty low bar
Note: Be very careful /how/ you invoke your right to counsel in the US:
> And when a suspect in an interrogation told detectives to "just give me a lawyer dog," the Louisiana Supreme Court ruled that the suspect was, in fact, asking for a "lawyer dog," and not invoking his constitutional right to counsel.
This is roughly where I stand on it. Don't volunteer information to the police, but the original advice of basically yelling "AM I BEING DETAINED?!?" when the cop says "Hi" in passing on the street is only going to draw unwanted police attention to yourself.
It's a ~47 video, and even if you don't agree with the conclusion, I think it's excellent. I haven't adopted a "never talk to the police" vibe, but I seriously think twice about talking to cops for anything that matters. For example, if shady person running down street with purse, person yelling "that person grabbed my purse", and cop asks "did you see which way the purse snatcher ran", I'll probably speak up :) . Cop asks me where I was last Saturday night, I'm not inclined to start volunteering information.