Why would that ever not be the case?
this post was submitted on 22 Dec 2023
325 points (98.8% liked)
THE POLICE PROBLEM
2247 readers
7 users here now
The police problem is that police are policed by the police. Cops are accountable only to other cops, which is no accountability at all.
99.9999% of police brutality, corruption, and misconduct is never investigated, never punished, never makes the news, so it's not on this page.
When cops are caught breaking the law, they're investigated by other cops. Details are kept quiet, the officers' names are withheld from public knowledge, and what info is eventually released is only what police choose to release — often nothing at all.
When police are fired — which is all too rare — they leave with 'law enforcement experience' and can easily find work in another police department nearby. It's called "Wandering Cops."
When police testify under oath, they lie so frequently that cops themselves have a joking term for it: "testilying." Yet it's almost unheard of for police to be punished or prosecuted for perjury.
Cops can and do get away with lawlessness, because cops protect other cops. If they don't, they aren't cops for long.
The legal doctrine of "qualified immunity" renders police officers invulnerable to lawsuits for almost anything they do. In practice, getting past 'qualified immunity' is so unlikely, it makes headlines when it happens.
All this is a path to a police state.
In a free society, police must always be under serious and skeptical public oversight, with non-cops and non-cronies in charge, issuing genuine punishment when warranted.
Police who break the law must be prosecuted like anyone else, promptly fired if guilty, and barred from ever working in law-enforcement again.
That's the solution.
♦ ♦ ♦
Our definition of ‘cops’ is broad, and includes prison guards, probation officers, shitty DAs and judges, etc — anyone who has the authority to fuck over people’s lives, with minimal or no oversight.
♦ ♦ ♦
RULES
① Real-life decorum is expected. Please don't say things only a child or a jackass would say in person.
② If you're here to support the police, you're trolling. Please exercise your right to remain silent.
③ Saying ~~cops~~ ANYONE should be killed lowers the IQ in any conversation. They're about killing people; we're not.
④ Please don't dox or post calls for harassment, vigilantism, tar & feather attacks, etc.
Please also abide by the instance rules.
It you've been banned but don't know why, check the moderator's log. If you feel you didn't deserve it, hey, I'm new at this and maybe you're right. Send a cordial PM, for a second chance.
♦ ♦ ♦
ALLIES
• r/ACAB
♦ ♦ ♦
INFO
• A demonstrator's guide to understanding riot munitions
• Cops aren't supposed to be smart
• Killings by law enforcement in Canada
• Killings by law enforcement in the United Kingdom
• Killings by law enforcement in the United States
• Know your rights: Filming the police
• Three words. 70 cases. The tragic history of 'I can’t breathe' (as of 2020)
• Police aren't primarily about helping you or solving crimes.
• Police lie under oath, a lot
• Police spin: An object lesson in Copspeak
• Police unions and arbitrators keep abusive cops on the street
• Shielded from Justice: Police Brutality and Accountability in the United States
• When the police knock on your door
♦ ♦ ♦
ORGANIZATIONS
• NAACP
• National Police Accountability Project
• Vera: Ending Mass Incarceration
founded 11 months ago
MODERATORS
It's pretty common for cops to open with "do you know why I stopped you?" to give you an opportunity to incriminate yourself.
Just don't answer. In most states you have an obligation to show license and registration. That's it. Cops can only ask you to comply with lawful orders.
Now they can still murder you anyways and get away with it so that complicates matters.
Being unresponsive can be legally interpreted as being uncooperative. You must actively exercise your right to remain silent.
You don't have to cooperate. You just have to follow lawful orders. Making conversation isn't one.
However, if you are asked, for example, "Where are you headed?" and you just don't respond, the officer can now consider you uncooperative and possibly hostile, which legally changes what they are able to order you to do. Now they can remove you from the vehicle and handcuff you in the back of a patrol car.
Unresponsive silence is not exercising your right to remain silent. As above, you must actively express your exercise of that right.
What law allows cops to detain you for not answering irrelevant questions?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berghuis_v._Thompkins
The mere act of remaining silent is, on its own, insufficient to imply the suspect has invoked their rights.
Essentially, SCOTUS ruled that the act of being unresponsive is not a way to affirmatively assert your right to remain silent, even after having been read the Miranda warning and expressing an understanding of that warning.
Different state and local jurisdictions will handle this in different ways, I'm sure. It's going to take me some time to find it, but I distinctly recall knowing that an officer during a traffic stop can take a person's unresponsiveness to be a hostile act from at least one Audit the Audit video, and treat the person accordingly - at least in one jurisdiction.
I will continue to look for the specific thing, but Berghuis v. Thompkins is what makes it possible anywhere in the United States.
Hmm, you may be right. I can't find any specific results that say if this also applies to traffic stops. I read it as when you are detained and in court but there may be no legal difference.
Here's the actual case ruling:
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/560/370/
Excerpts:
Thompkins did not say that he wanted to remain silent or that he did not want to talk with the police. Had he made either of these simple, unambiguous statements, he would have invoked his “ ‘right to cut off questioning.’ ” Mosley, supra, at 103 (quoting Miranda, supra, at 474). Here he did neither, so he did not invoke his right to remain silent.
The prosecution therefore does not need to show that a waiver of Miranda rights was express. An “implicit waiver” of the “right to remain silent” is sufficient to admit a suspect’s statement into evidence.
Perhaps not relevant to the present discussion, but I find it notable that you must "unambiguously" assert your Miranda rights in order to claim them, but that you don't have to unambiguously waive your Miranda rights. All you need to do for the justice system to consider your Miranda rights waived for a particular question is to answer it.
I would also mention that you have Miranda rights at all times, whether they have been read to you or not. Indeed, the only time those rights are required to be read to you is immediately before the police ask you questions about a crime you are suspected of committing. Considering that a "witness" statement can oh so easily make the witness into a suspect, it is highly possible for someone being questioned by the police for any reason to make a self-incriminating statement prior to being Mirandized.
tl;dr: Shut the fuck up.
Being white helps.. but just looking confused and dumb seems to be best.
You have clearly never been pulled over. This is a great way to get in trouble. You don’t need to tell them a story, but absolute silence is going to get you some self imposed cop trying to over compensate, pulling a gun on you.
People, unless this moron can show you 1 state law backing this up, do not follow their advice. This works on TV dramas, not real life.
Turn your phone camera on, start recording, place it where it can’t be seen, just answer short replies, yes and no answers. Be polite. No stories, do not admit to anything you think you did (or that you did). Some say don’t argue, but my personal favorite is telling the cop “I disagree“ to their accusations since most stops are suspected violations and require you to incriminate yourself. 99% of my traffic stops resulted in warnings, because I wasn’t a dipshit.
In case anyone needs a reminder:
I decline to answer any questions without legal counsel.
I do not consent to any search.
nowadays that's just implied consent to a beat-down.
I'm not saying to go full sovereign-citizen-fringe-flag-maritime-law-Moorish-American. It is always your right not to answer questions without legal counsel. It is always your right not to consent to a search.
It is, but the cops will also fuck you up for it if they feel like it.
You're also free to waive your rights if you so choose, but you're more likely to get fucked up for that.
And add "Am I being detained?" and "Am I free to leave?"
load more comments
(7 replies)
"do you know why I stopped you?"
Well officer since I'm not black, don't have a large amount of hard currency, drugs, weapons or food with me I am bereft of any reason beyond you are bored or you wish to coerce sexual favors from me under threat of physical harm and detainment.
And that, kids, is the story of how I got fucking shot.
"I'm sure you're about to tell me" is the only appropriate response.
That's too many words and could be considered "disrespectful." "No," Nope," or "I do not" are better alternatives
But those don't tell the cop what they're next words are to be.
Also the, "do you know how fast you were going?". So curious and child-like about the world.
I decline to answer any questions without legal counsel.
And that's how they can put you in the back of their car and take you to jail while your legal council arrives. Leaving you with wasted time, a car bill for having to impound it because of no driver, and hopefully you weren't on your way to work or something.
Declining to answer questions alone doesn't legally allow you to be arrested. If you end up in the back of a squad car "because" of that, you would have ended up in the back of a squad car anyway, in which case you extra shouldn't waive your right to counsel.
Good to know, out of curiosity. How would that proceed? Would they ask you to call your legal council? Would they have to come in person? Would the cop just give you an appointment time and place to talk to you with your legal council? I don't think ignoring any questions they may have is gonna end well in any way. Even if you're extremely polite and respectful in your declining.
It would proceed one of two ways:
- If you don't have any open warrants, officer stops asking you questions, cites you for whatever violation they pulled you over for, and you go on your way, dealing with that citation in the normal way.
- Officer stops asking you questions, finds cause to arrest you, and you take a ride. You get to consult with an attorney from jail.
If there was cause to arrest you, you were going to take that ride anyway. Waiving your right to remain silent only firms up the officer's grounds for arresting you and makes it more likely that you will be convicted.
Declining to answer questions without legan counsel and "ignoring any questions they may have" are two very different things. The former is an active assertion of your rights; the latter is not.
Also of note, police are not required to read you the Miranda warning immediately after arresting you. Often they do, to cover their ass, but they only need to read that warning before asking you questions related to the cause of the arrest. They can not read you the Miranda warning, and ask about what you had for lunch yesterday, get you talking about other things, in the hopes that you'll get comfortable and spill some information related to the reason for your arrest.
tl;dr: Shut the fuck up.
You tell them to stop asking questions if they don't you just don't answer. You act like you have an obligation to answer.
You don't.
That's not my concern. Are you just supposed to ignore cops then? What do you think will happen if you just stonewall them? Do you think they'll just let someone who is ignoring them go? ACABs they'll make it hell for you if they feel like it. I just give the bare minimum I can to not get fucked over more than they could.
"Do you know how fast you were going."
"Yes"
"..."
"So you were willfully speeding then!"
I ran that on a cop when he pulled me over for driving in the left lane.
"Why didn't you pull over?"
"Right lane is marked for slower traffic only, I was speeding."
". . . OK, you can go."
"Are you sure your radar was for my speed and not the BMW that was passing me when you turned your lights on?"
"Yes." or "You can argue that in court."
"Ok"
There really is no right answer, and although I have told cops they were wrong when pulled over before that is because I am a white middle class guy in the midwest who they don't tend to target with abuse of power. Wish everyone else was able to contradict cops freely too.
Exactly where officer? I am certain I never exceeded the speed limit, but I have time/date stamped recorded gps tracking with dash and rear camera footage correlated on this vehicle, saved local and cloud backed up so I can pull it up for you.
Umm, you are offering information. It's a slippery slope. And cops will use that.
The property reply after this new law is, "I think that's your job"
“do you know why I stopped you?”
Officer if you have to ask me that question why did you stop me?
The first time I was ever pulled over I asked if I had done something. The cop responded "You're on an Alberta road, we can pull you over whenever we want!" Then proceeded to check my registration and insurance and let me leave. I was on my way to pick my kids up from school and he even waited until I was in a school zone to pull me over, so when all the other parents drove by they thought I was speeding in a school zone.
ACAB is why it would ever not be the case.
I can't possibly fathom how this isn't already a federal law. Which is part of the police problem.
How the fuck is this not already a law
view more: next ›