Comment by dotBen | Hacker News Reader

Comment by dotBen | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

So first off your original statement does imply guilt - as per my original comment and I would suggest you re-examine that.

"I know they aren't after me (and hence won't try to parse every sentence I say and take it out of context like you did)"

yeah good luck with that one. The police will take what you have to say and bend it against you to see where it goes. It's called probing and is a legitimate investigative technique. You prefacing the situation with your pre-amble isn't going to stop that.

"I explicitly stated "I'm not guilty" letting the cops know I'm not trying to be smug with them and that I do want them to know I'm not guilty."

They haven't said you are guilty of anything, if they are just investigating. It's that kind of behavior - denying guilt before any has been laden upon the suspect - that police zero in on.

Seriously, I think you should re-consider your position and read some other people's views, especially the ACLU. You're unintentionally pushing a load of buttons that the police will pick up on with your preamble that I don't even think you realize.

Again once you've asked for your lawyer interrogation must stop. So there will be no probing.

Second if you're being interrogated than you're suspected of something. To suggest otherwise is again treating the cops like their some kind of idiots. Be an adult and treat the cops like adults and try to create an adult understanding between you. Don't act like a petulant child and repeat a mantra over and over again.

Again once you've asked for your lawyer interrogation must stop. So there will be no probing.

But they might take you down to the police station and wait for your lawyer to show up. Do you see that as a successful outcome?

Second if you're being interrogated than you're suspected of something.

You're just plain wrong about that. They may think you're a witness or have information that they need.

There's a difference between being a witness and being interrogated. I'd dare say you have a civic duty to answer questions that aren't about you if a Cop asks them. Cops wouldn't be able to catch actual criminals if citizens don't talk to them at all.

But once they start asking about you that's when you lawyer up

If you actually have information and there's not even the slightest possibility that it could turn bad for you, then sure, be a good citizen.

But if you don't have any information, or if there's even the most remote possibility at all that you could somehow be implicated by the information you have (or by the fact that you have the information in the first place), then plainly, simply, and politely: "I have nothing to say" and "May I go now?".

I'd dare say you have a civic duty to answer questions that aren't about you if a Cop asks them.

I think this is the key difference of perspective between you and the people you're debating. But what's interesting is that you're arguing the tactical disadvantages of something you believe people have a civic duty not to do. Are you sure one opinion isn't influencing the other?

Can American police actually take you to the police station against your will if you're not under arrest? They can ask, of course, but no matter how forcefully they ask they're still just asking.

No, but why would you say "not without my lawyer" if you weren't actually willing to get a lawyer and talk? If you make the offer with the intent to rescind it if they take you up on it, why make the offer in the first place?

I wouldn't, personally. Even if you get a lawyer, the lawyer says not to talk. I already know that for free.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com