| ▲ | Terr_ 5 days ago |
| Not only that, when they lie in conversations/interrogations, they can lie about what the law is, as well as what official acts can/will undertake. To me there is a fundamental difference between lies like: 1. "Your buddy in the next room already ratted you out." 2. "Sign this admission and you'll only get 6 months, tops. If you don't, we can seize your house and your mother will be living on the streets. " |
|
| ▲ | some-guy 5 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| When I was a child, I thought police had to go to law school. How else would you enforce the law if you didn't know what the law was? |
| |
| ▲ | redeux 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | I took a class in college from a lawyer who said he started as a cop but wanted to understand the law better so he went to law school at night. When he graduated the chief (or whatever) told him he couldn’t practice law and be a cop, and even though he had no intention of actually being an attorney, they let him go. | | | |
| ▲ | underdeserver 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | We all have to go to law school. How could you live in the world without breaking the law if you didn't know what the law was? | | |
| ▲ | reaperman 5 days ago | parent [-] | | There have been many periods in US history where sets of laws were purposefully created that criminalized activities that nearly ~100% of the population engage in. The intent of those isn't to stop those activities, and there's no intent of prosecuting everyone. The intent is to be able to prosecute any individual person or someone close to them, at any arbitrary point in time. Many of today's lawmakers no longer have that intent, but the system as a whole still keeps running in a manner that allows tools of that nature to be used against targeted individuals and populations. | | |
| |
| ▲ | Clubber 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | They're supposed to be trained on it, and they probably get a week maybe, depending on the academy. The rest is how to beat your ass. | |
| ▲ | gosub100 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | PDs have attorneys on call and prior to that they can call their sergeant if they are unsure. Even real lawyers don't know every aspect of every law on the books. What baffles me is the hypocrisy in the political party that wants more government and regulation is the same one that hates the men who enforce it. | | |
| ▲ | const_cast 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | It's not that people hate police, it's that the police have zero accountability and that, over time, has lead to a culture where they can do whatever they want, whenever they want. The police are rife with systemic abuse and even a HINT of "oh maybe we should be looking into this" is met with "back the blue" type people crawling of the woodwork to explain how qualified immunity is good, actually, and we don't want good ole boys going to prison for things as trivial as state-sanctioned murder. | |
| ▲ | 01HNNWZ0MV43FF 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | I think a good police force could exist, but the current implementation could use improvement |
|
|
|
| ▲ | voxic11 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| They can't do 2. Or at least it would make the confession inadmissible evidence. The case law for this goes back more than a century. The general rule is that the police cannot promise you anything in return for a confession. > Bram v. United States, 168 U.S. 532 (1897), was a United States Supreme Court case that ruled that an alleged confession to a crime, in order to be admissible, must not be obtained by threats or violence, nor by any direct or implied promises, however slight. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bram_v._United_States The ruling was later applied to the states as well in
Malloy v. Hogan > The Court held that the Fifth Amendment's exception from compulsory self-incrimination is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment against abridgement by a state. When determining if state officers properly obtained a confession, one must focus on whether the statements were made freely and voluntarily without any direct or implied promises or improper influence. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1963/110 The "you will get X years instead of Y years" has repeatedly been found to make testimony inadmissible. You might be confusing it with plea bargains which are legal but don't involve the police and are actually binding agreements. The prosecutor cannot lie to you about what you will receive in return for your cooperation. |
| |
| ▲ | decimalenough 4 days ago | parent [-] | | > The general rule is that the police cannot promise you anything in return for a confession. Yet plea bargaining is basically a promise in exchange for a confession (guilty plea), and that's why it's not allowed basically anywhere except the US. | | |
| ▲ | qingcharles 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | In Illinois I noticed they modified the template admonitions they read to the defendant during a guilty plea to say something like "has anyone promised you anything, except for this plea agreement?" | |
| ▲ | bryanrasmussen 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | plea bargaining in the U.S also is a promise that they will recommend that you get a particular deal, but the judge in sentencing can decide not to take that deal. | | |
| ▲ | voxic11 4 days ago | parent [-] | | Yes maybe my wording was clumsy but that is what I was attempting to say. The important thing is the prosecutor is not allowed to lie to you as part of the plea bargain. If they promise to do something like give a specific recommendation to the judge they must do it or risk the verdict being overturned. |
| |
| ▲ | voxic11 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Can you give any sources for plea bargains not being used outside of the US? I'm mostly familiar with US law but my understanding is that plea deals are used in most commonwealth/adversarial system countries such as the UK, Canada, and Australia. For example I can find a lot of Australian lawyers discussing plea deals. > There are three main types of plea deals in Australia: > Charge Bargaining – The defendant pleads guilty to a lesser charge than initially filed. For example, a charge of aggravated assault may be reduced to common assault. > Sentence Bargaining – The defendant pleads guilty in exchange for a lighter sentence recommendation from the prosecution. > Fact Bargaining – The prosecution and defence agree on which facts will be presented to the court, potentially influencing sentencing outcomes. https://newsouthlawyers.com.au/plea-deals-in-australia-what-... If you just mean that plea deals are not used by inquisitorial systems then obviously that makes sense. | | |
| ▲ | brigandish 4 days ago | parent [-] | | Please bargains are allowed and used in the UK but their existence is not as explicit as in the US, hence most (English or perhaps British) people thinking they may not exist in English or Scottish common law. There’s certainly less statistical data on their use collected. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | LinuxBender 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Never talk to the police. Let your lawyers do the talking. |
| |
| ▲ | lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | To add to this: it is the police's job to positively identify those who commit crimes. If they are questioning you, it is because 1) they are investigating a crime and you are a suspect (maybe not the prime suspect but a suspect) and 2) they do not have evidence that reasonably proves that you committed whatever crime (or lack thereof) they are investigating. (Simple game theory for 2: if they had the evidence, they'd use it to obtain an arrest warrant and then prosecute the case; no need for more investigation.) This isn't good advice only for people who have possibly committed a crime but also (and especially) for those who are confident that they have not. The police are asking you questions to "get to the bottom of it" and they encounter people every day who do think they can lie to get out of a crime; they think you might try to lie to get out of a crime. They won't trust your words but they will verify your words. If your words turn out to be false, then they'll tell the judge/jury that you lied to them, not that you were mistaken; in the absence of stronger evidence (against someone else) they might claim you were possibly even intending to direct their investigation toward a red herring with your falsehoods. The only revision to this advice I've heard in the past decade-and-a-bit: tell the police your real first and last name if they ask. It's not always a requirement but some states have "stop and ID" laws, which means you have to identify yourself to law enforcement during a "lawful detention" (other states instead require it after an arrest). | | |
| ▲ | autoexec 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > The police are asking you questions to "get to the bottom of it" and they encounter people every day who do think they can lie to get out of a crime; I don't even think they are all that interested in getting to the truth of the matter, they are mostly concerned with getting an arrest and conviction. If it'll be easier to throw you behind bars than to find and arrest the dangerous person who actually committed the crime they aren't all going to choose more work and risk "officer safety" when they can just take you and call it a day. Especially not if they're already prejudiced against you or you bruised their fragile ego somehow. | | |
| ▲ | EFreethought 5 days ago | parent [-] | | I wonder how much of the state of affairs is due to the "enshitification" of law enforcement. I think a lot of towns/cities require officers to give out a minimum number of citations/tickets per month. If you are told to care about a number, you will care about a number. | | |
| ▲ | oivey 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Enshitification would imply they were ever good. Police brutality has been a constant throughout US history, particularly against minorities, among many other things. | |
| ▲ | lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Those numbers influence promotions/raises. It is probable that higher-paid cops commit more civil rights violations than lower-paid by virtue of them being more likely by comparison to have undue arrests and convictions on their record (and ~equally likely to encounter actual criminal behavior). |
|
| |
| ▲ | testing22321 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | This x 1000. A friend was a career LAPD detective, and he gave me the talk. He said because I’m a nice guy I might try to help the police by explaining what I saw in detail. He was adamant that I never ever do that, because in the absence of someone to pin it on, they would find a way to pin it on me. He saw it as literally their job. No matter what, even if you are just standing there when something happens, don’t talk to the police. | | |
| ▲ | Loughla 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | I've told this story on here before. When I was 16 or 17, the place I was working got robbed. The guy just opened the register while I was fixing part of the greenhouse building. The police showed up and took my statement, in which I said I didn't hear a car, so I assume he just ran off. They took me in about two weeks later for an official statement. Then told me I had to take a polygraph because my stories didn't match. The story didn't change. The officer at the scene wrote that I said I saw the guy run off. I was shitting bricks. A cop friend of my parents told me that this was common. They didn't have a suspect, I was a young kid, so they were just trying to get me to admit to it. He said they would tell me I failed the polygraph test and to just come clean. That's what they did. They tried to pin it on me, but I legit didn't do it, so I would never confess. Even after they tried the 'you'll only get probation of you confess now, but if this goes to trial you'll be tried as an adult' nonsense. And that's the story of how I learned to never, ever, ever speak to a police officer without legal counsel, even if you're straight up the victim in the situation. What a fucking mess this country is in terms of policing. | | |
| ▲ | galkk 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | This is just wtf… In my origin country they require witnesses to sign off witness statements. This isn’t the case here, in the US? How you were summoned? Was it official? What if you’d shown with lawyer? I think that now it’s already established that polygraphs are bullshit. Could you refuse it? | | |
| ▲ | Loughla 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | I was summoned by a detective calling me and telling me I had to come to the station. I was 16 or 17 and didn't know any better. I'm not sure it was official, but I have no idea how that works. Witness statements are supposed to be signed. I never even saw the reports from any of the cops I interacted with. I think they were just lying the entire time. They told me I didn't need a lawyer if I was innocent. And because I was 16 or 17, I believed them. I'm hindsight, I would've had a lawyer immediately. It's a fucking mess, but it's pretty standard practice at the garbage police station where I grew up. I'm assuming it's like that in more places. | |
| ▲ | rendall 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Could you refuse it? Definitely, unless ordered by a judge. He needed a lawyer to advise him. |
| |
| ▲ | criddell 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Did you take the polygraph? | | |
| ▲ | Loughla 4 days ago | parent [-] | | Like I said. Yes I did and they said I failed, just like my cop friend told me they would. They were just using it to try to get me to confess. Subsequently, it's your answers that are admissable in court, not the results. If you're ever given a polygraph, they will ask you to lie on a question or two "as a baseline." Refuse to do that. They will use it against you. |
|
| |
| ▲ | 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
| |
| ▲ | lIl-IIIl 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Couldn't they also be questioning you because 3) you are a witness? What is one to do if they have material information and a vested interest in crimes being solved and getting the right people be held responsible? | | |
| ▲ | JoshTriplett 5 days ago | parent [-] | | Get a lawyer, talk to that lawyer, work with that lawyer to carefully provide that information without putting yourself at risk. | | |
| ▲ | garbagewoman 5 days ago | parent [-] | | Even in response to “did you see someone running that way?”? | | |
| ▲ | JoshTriplett 5 days ago | parent [-] | | I was talking about questioning that's occurring to investigate a crime committed in the non-immediate past. I wasn't commenting on what to do about a possible crime in progress. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | DrillShopper 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Corollary: if talking to the cops helped you then the police wouldn't be so eager to talk to you | |
| ▲ | santoshalper 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Because someone, somewhere needs to see this today https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE | |
| ▲ | fdb345 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Im sorry but Ive got to talk to them to take the fucking piss out of them. My interview tapes are hilarious. | | |
| ▲ | FireBeyond 4 days ago | parent [-] | | “We can put you in Queens on the night of the robbery.” “Oh really? I live in Queens. You got a team of monkeys working on this or something?” |
| |
| ▲ | gosub100 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | Kinrany 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | You're interpreting GP's comment in bad faith. | | |
| ▲ | gosub100 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | He used the word "never". That's not a word requiring interpretation. And for finding this gaping hole in his argument, I'm rewarded by getting flagged. | | |
| ▲ | Kinrany 4 days ago | parent [-] | | People usually understand that rules can have exceptions, and natural language is limited in its precision. | | |
| |
| ▲ | AlexeyBelov 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | It's a pattern for this user. Seriously, read their comments.
I don't understand why HN tolerated that. | | |
| |
| ▲ | InvertedRhodium 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | “Not sure, sorry” is more my go to. Nothing illegal or inciting about ignorance and stupidity. And manners cost nothing. | | |
| ▲ | immibis 5 days ago | parent [-] | | What if they can later prove you were sure - maybe from your WhatsApp messages where you told your friend about the crazy shooting? |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | nemomarx 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I get your point but actually why can they lie and claim your buddy ratted you out? |
| |
| ▲ | Zak 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | The assumption, as I understand it is that a guilty person is more likely to confess if they believe the evidence against them is strong, but an innocent person will not believe the lie because they know they didn't commit the crime and generate the purported evidence. I fear like many other old assumptions about criminal justice that isn't a close match to reality. | |
| ▲ | p_ing 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Tax payers don't care enough to force the congress critters to change the laws in <your home state>. Instead, you get human beings who are shielded by a thin piece of paper who can summarily execute you, then say "whoops, my bad". Police are nothing more than State-sponsored gang members. | | |
| ▲ | pstuart 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Many of those tax payers are fine with them being gang members, but only against "others" -- that's a feature, not a bug. | |
| ▲ | duskwuff 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Police are nothing more than State-sponsored gang members. Sometimes very literally: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gangs_in_the_Los_Angeles_Count... | |
| ▲ | deepsun 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | State (any country, since the birth of monarchies) is the gang. It literally robs you ("taxes"), monopolized violence (only state is allowed to utilize it). But if it does a poor job at that, other states swoop in with their rules, no invitation needed. | | |
| ▲ | Retric 5 days ago | parent [-] | | Cops are sufficiently independent to be a separate entity here. Under civil asset forfeiture they are literally allowed to go out and rob people independent of what any taxes might be. |
|
| |
| ▲ | Terr_ 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I imagine a lot of it is tradition, AFAICT it was never really banned in the US (or Britain), although in the US it was codified in 1969. [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frazier_v._Cupp | |
| ▲ | 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | dghlsakjg 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Simple answer? Because there is nothing prohibiting it. |
|
|
| ▲ | plsbenice34 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| I dont see the difference, both should be illegal |
