Dont talk to the police!

[yagami]

I found this video very informative and felt I have to share this with as many people as I can. What do you guys think?

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc&feature=youtu.be

[shirgall]

Yes, this is a good one... however, I would modify this advice: If a crime has been committed against you, talk to the police to establish the active dynamic, that you were the victim and where to get evidence of the crime against you. You would be surprised how important this kind of framing is.

[yagami]

That's true he doesn't say anything about the victims side of things. At the same time this video made me realize just how naive I was when it comes to talking to the police. I wonder if there is any good advice about reporting crimes to the police from a legal perspective. I am extra cautious now.

[dsayers]

As a PI, I have to work with the police on occasion. Talking to them in this capacity is of no risk to me.

 

Otherwise, I now treat the police like the predators that their positions are. I will indulge them just enough to secure my safe passage and not provoke them. Beyond that, I say nothing.

 

I did have a few issues with the video. The biggest one is that nobody mentioned that THEY DON'T HAVE TO PLAY BY "THE RULES". In the ruler/ruled relationship, the rules are in place for the benefit of the rulers and therefore are not meant to apply to them. Police act on behalf of the rulers, have immunity in the eyes of society, and often believe their own immoral actions to be noble. I'm talking about a lot of made up stuff here; They're not going to let something like reality interfere.

[yagami]

I dont think he talked about the police not playing by the rules for one out of respect for the officer in the room and two because it's more speculation than fact. I too believe the police do not play by the rules but I think he just didn't want to muddy the lecture with information that wasn't crystal clear to the students.

[Blackfish64]

I draw the line when I meet cops on the road and they pull me over for a traffic stop.  I talk to them.  I am pretty good at talking my way out of any tickets.  Plus, I carry concealed firearms, so I obey all the traffic laws anyway.  I haven't had a ticket since 2001.  I haven't even been stopped since 2007, and it was a company vehicle I was driving; the company forgot to renew the tags and I didn't bother to look at the plates.  My fault.  He was nice, I was nice, and he let me off with a verbal warning. 

 

When/if they ask if they can search my vehicle.  I simply tell them, "I don't consent to any searches."

 

If they tell me to get out of the car, I get out of the car, rolling up my windows and locking my doors and taking the keys from the ignition behind me.

 

If I don't want to talk to a cop and he asks me questions, I simply ask him three questions, over and over and over again, if necessary:  'What is the nature of your inquiry?  Am I being detained?  Am I free to go?'  No matter what that cop says, I simply repeat the questions.  They almost always give up.  If they're smart they'll give up.  

 

Barring the above items, I don't talk to cops.  I don't like them, I don't trust them, I don't call them, I don't want them, I don't need them. 

[dsayers]

I dont think he talked about the police not playing by the rules for one out of respect for the officer in the room and two because it's more speculation than fact.

 

By speculation, do you mean logical conclusion? I don't have the right to assault other people. Meaning I don't have the right to--under threat of violence--physically detain people not initiating the use of force against other people. Since I do not possess that right, I am incapable of granting that right to others. It is logical to conclude that people who believe they are operating in a fantasy world cannot be bound by reality.

 

It's like when children are playing cowboys and indians or cops and robbers or astronauts and aliens. One of the children might make a shooting gesture and say, "I got you." The other child might announce, "Nuh uh because I have impenetrable armor on!" It's a logical conclusion that you cannot simultaneously imagine that you shot somebody AND that they cannot imagine they have impenetrable armor on.

 

This is really important to understand because a lot of people get stuck on this. I'm talking about the people that believe that X is right and Y is wrong because some rulebook said so or the Constitution says so. We have nearly unlimited empirical evidence that those who are playing make believe cannot be bound by reality in terms of what society will let them get away with. How could something backed up by logic, reason, and evidence be described as speculation?

[shirgall]

That's true he doesn't say anything about the victims side of things. At the same time this video made me realize just how naive I was when it comes to talking to the police. I wonder if there is any good advice about reporting crimes to the police from a legal perspective. I am extra cautious now.

 

Well, yes, there is. I'm not sure about videos on youtube for that sort of thing, but I have been through some training in this regard. Remember that random encounters with the police are always a threat to them until they categorize you as either a victim or a perpetrator. Everything you do to frame the discussion helps, including the standard advice of being respectful.

 

However, there's a tendency, sometimes called "loggherea" where people just start saying too much. If you have a question, think about what it's like to be a business writer sending a memo to the head of the company, a technique called "bottom line up front". Ask your question without a lot of preamble. Answer questions succinctly. If you are nervous or feel out of your depth it's better to be quiet. Avoid speculation. Don't claim to know something you did not see and remember clearly.

 

Above all, remember that under stress a whole bunch of interesting physiological things happen:

 * adrenaline dump -> makes you focus on threats and ignore other things (often called tunnel vision)

 * post-dump you may even focus on what others might consider inconsequential and might ignore what others might find to be important

 * if you don't have a plan to deal with an unknown situation you get distracted trying to figure out what's going on and what to do

 * often people experience tachypsychia, where time feels like it's in slow motion, or everything happens all at once

 * conversations with other witnesses can literally change what you remember (memory conformity)

 * detached reflection on exciting events is really really hard, especially for people with no mindfulness training

 

If you get in a situation, write down what you remember and preserve that documentation. There's nothing wrong with taking notes!

 

Police do play by rules, but those rules are about identifying a victim and a malefactor, gathering what is necessary to charge malefactors with crimes, pursuing them, detaining them, and prosecuting them. Their perspective on the world is often tainted by always dealing with people that are doing something wrong and who are more often threats than not. We can have empathy for this, but we must also protect ourselves from being on the wrong side of that world view.

[yagami]

By speculation, do you mean logical conclusion? I don't have the right to assault other people. Meaning I don't have the right to--under threat of violence--physically detain people not initiating the use of force against other people. Since I do not possess that right, I am incapable of granting that right to others. It is logical to conclude that people who believe they are operating in a fantasy world cannot be bound by reality.

 

It's like when children are playing cowboys and indians or cops and robbers or astronauts and aliens. One of the children might make a shooting gesture and say, "I got you." The other child might announce, "Nuh uh because I have impenetrable armor on!" It's a logical conclusion that you cannot simultaneously imagine that you shot somebody AND that they cannot imagine they have impenetrable armor on.

 

This is really important to understand because a lot of people get stuck on this. I'm talking about the people that believe that X is right and Y is wrong because some rulebook said so or the Constitution says so. We have nearly unlimited empirical evidence that those who are playing make believe cannot be bound by reality in terms of what society will let them get away with. How could something backed up by logic, reason, and evidence be described as speculation?

 

My point is he had a limited amount of time and only wanted to talk about indisputable facts. Just like you said someone can come up with their own rules about anything but we aren't dealing with children here we are dealing with adults. While adults can also make up their own wild and irrational conclusions about the police the more solid a case you build the less likely you are to get these crazy conclusions.

 

I suspect his strategy here was to give as much information as possible about the subject that gives the most impact and is the most convincing. Something like "the police dont play by the rules" is a conclusion that is formed through your experiences and many people can easily just say well that's just your opinion. This would be like you say making up rules. It is much harder to make that claim when he list examples of cases that actually occurred and examples of what the police are legally allowed to do given your statement.

 

Im not saying the corruption of the police is not an important subject but who cares if they are if you just dont talk to them. You aren't going to change the corruption by knowing about it.