this post was submitted on 23 Jan 2025
151 points (84.8% liked)

You Should Know

33734 readers
606 users here now

YSK - for all the things that can make your life easier!

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must begin with YSK.

All posts must begin with YSK. If you're a Mastodon user, then include YSK after @youshouldknow. This is a community to share tips and tricks that will help you improve your life.



Rule 2- Your post body text must include the reason "Why" YSK:

**In your post's text body, you must include the reason "Why" YSK: It’s helpful for readability, and informs readers about the importance of the content. **



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Posts and comments which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding non-YSK posts.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-YSK posts using the [META] tag on your post title.



Rule 7- You can't harass or disturb other members.

If you harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

If you are a member, sympathizer or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.

For further explanation, clarification and feedback about this rule, you may follow this link.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- The majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.

Unless included in our Whitelist for Bots, your bot will not be allowed to participate in this community. To have your bot whitelisted, please contact the moderators for a short review.



Rule 11- Posts must actually be true: Disiniformation, trolling, and being misleading will not be tolerated. Repeated or egregious attempts will earn you a ban.



Partnered Communities:

You can view our partnered communities list by following this link. To partner with our community and be included, you are free to message the moderators or comment on a pinned post.

Community Moderation

For inquiry on becoming a moderator of this community, you may comment on the pinned post of the time, or simply shoot a message to the current moderators.

Credits

Our icon(masterpiece) was made by @clen15!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I was going to post this as a comment, but it was in an anarchism community, and I figured some sections of it might be unacceptable there. Hence, new post.

Here's a guideline of how to interact with cops. There are more or less three modes, depending on your read of the situation. Cops are not always the enemy or the maniacal whole-job-is-making-evil thugs that Lemmy sometimes makes them out to be. It really is bad for people to get mugged or their cars broken into, and they're the solution our society has come up with to minimize the amount of it that happens. It's not always a bad thing.

If you find yourself talking to the cops, there are more or less three ways:

  • They're there to solve a real problem. Someone's car got broken into, someone got beat up. Just talk with them. Tell them what you know, help them figure out the situation. In almost all of the US, their effect on the problem will be positive, and it'll be a lot more positive if they have a good grasp of what happened. If, in your opinion, the person they're trying to catch really did do something that warrants a law enforcement response, then give them a hand. Use your judgement as to whether that's warranted of course, and your impression of the justice level in your local area, since it varies quite a lot in the US.
  • They're there for you. Shut the fuck up. Don't say a goddamned word. It doesn't even matter if you didn't do it. Don't explain. Shut the fuck up. Be polite, obey lawful orders, definitely don't fight them or you'll get a felony and might also get injured or worse, but tell them that if you're suspected of a crime, then you'd like to talk to a lawyer, and you have nothing else to say. And then, shut the fuck up and cooperate. Maybe you want to go as far as "Were you shoplifting?" "What? No. That wasn't me, man." But any further explanation than that, just leave it alone. Definitely don't make something up on the spot, to make yourself sound innocent, if you did do it. For the love of God, don't do that.
  • They're there for someone who didn't do anything wrong. The reason for this post is, anything and everything with ICE and immigration falls into this category. Some things with local cops will, also. Just be unhelpful and simple. No, I didn't see anything. I don't know. I'm not sure. Be vague. Don't get creative, keep it simple, don't refuse to give your ID or otherwise antagonize them or commit minor crimes of obstruction, but just do your best imitation of someone who just fell from the sky. "So you've NEVER MET your neighbor. Your neighbor across the hall." "Nope." "Are you sure?" "Yeah, I don't know." "I mean, she gave us your name, she said she'd talked to you." "I don't know, I don't remember that." Don't embellish. Don't explain why. Just calmly let the silence linger and the pressure build up, without adding extra words.

Like I said, everything with ICE or other immigration authorities falls into the third category. No exceptions. Everything. The same applies with any type of federal law enforcement, I suspect, for the next few years.

(page 2) 44 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 2 points 12 hours ago

Another helpful phrase: "Am I being charged with a crime or am I free to go?"

[–] AJ1@lemmy.ca -2 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

oh right, of course. this guide is for interacting with US police. as if the rest of the world doesn't exist and we should all assume that everything posted to the internet applies specifically to US citizens. cool thanks

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Blaze@sopuli.xyz 3 points 14 hours ago

Another YSK post only applicable for US citizens?

[–] NegentropicBoy@lemmy.world 3 points 14 hours ago (1 children)
[–] PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat 2 points 14 hours ago (3 children)

Hm. In the US, that would be alright except when he refused to tell them who he was. That can get you arrested. I get how "I don't answer questions" is good just because it's specific enough that you can stick to it when shit's getting a little bit real, but it also doesn't really apply to all questions or all situations.

Here's a defense law office giving their abbreviated take on it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqo5RYOp4nQ

They have a longer one, where they told a story of an illegal dispensary that got raided. Two employees tried to explain their way out of it. A third employee just shut the fuck up. The first two got charges, because their attempt to talk their way out of it confirmed that they were working there as employees. The third guy, nobody could prove a damn thing about why he was there. Was he a customer? An employee? Had he wandered in to use the bathroom? Nobody knows. And so, he was free to wander on his merry way, while the other two had some minor but not real enjoyable charges to deal with.

Shut the fuck up.

[–] Nougat@fedia.io 2 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

In the US, that would be alright except when he refused to tell them who he was.

More generally, this depends heavily on the details of the interaction, and the US state where the interaction was taking place.

In the "I don't answer questions" clip, if it were in the US, the police probably did have enough to arrest the guy, however "The court also held that the Fifth Amendment could allow a suspect to refuse to give the suspect's name if he or she articulated a reasonable belief that giving the name could be incriminating." Since the officers were asking for a specifically named person, it might be within the guy's 5th Amendment rights to refuse to identify himself. Would his not identifying himself as the person they were looking for make it so they couldn't (shouldn't) arrest him? Possibly, since they're looking for someone with a specific name, and they don't know that that guy is named that.

Of course, you might beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride.

[–] PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat 2 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

“The court also held that the Fifth Amendment could allow a suspect to refuse to give the suspect’s name if he or she articulated a reasonable belief that giving the name could be incriminating.” Since the officers were asking for a specifically named person, it might be within the guy’s 5th Amendment rights to refuse to identify himself. Would his not identifying himself as the person they were looking for make it so they couldn’t (shouldn’t) arrest him? Possibly, since they’re looking for someone with a specific name

This is some of the worst and wrongest legal advice I have ever heard. No, that's not how it works.

There are situations where you don't have to identify yourself. If you're just standing around, and they're curious, then you can tell them to get lost and they can't have your ID. However, if the cops have a reason to suspect you specifically of a crime, even a slight suspicion, then you have to identify yourself, in all 50 states. You will not only get the ride, you will get misdemeanor charges.

[–] Nougat@fedia.io 2 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

This is what SCOTUS found:

“The court also held that the Fifth Amendment could allow a suspect to refuse to give the suspect’s name if he or she articulated a reasonable belief that giving the name could be incriminating.”

In the situation that played out in the clip, had that been in the US,

... it might be within the guy’s 5th Amendment rights to refuse to identify himself.

[–] PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat 1 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

The court upheld Hiibel's conviction. The part you're quoting is in the part where they left open the possibility that there could be some crazy type of circumstances where revealing your name could, itself, form a link in a chain of evidence that the cops needed in order to convict you of some other different crime.

There is not, that I know of, any person ever in the United States who has ever been found innocent of failure to ID, or had their conviction overturned for some other crime or something, under the logic you're saying. It was just a side note while they convicted the guy. Do you know of someone who's ever gotten off due to this logic?

[–] Nougat@fedia.io 1 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

I said "might." Not "would."

[–] PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat 1 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

You also said, "Since the officers were asking for a specifically named person, it might be within the guy’s 5th Amendment rights to refuse to identify himself. Would his not identifying himself as the person they were looking for make it so they couldn’t (shouldn’t) arrest him? Possibly."

That "possibly" should have been written as "Absolutely the fuck not, and it would in all likelihood get him additional charges on top of what they were already arresting him for." That's why I said it was terrible advice.

[–] Nougat@fedia.io 1 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

"We got a report of a guy having assaulted someone here, you answered the door, so you're under arrest"?

To be fair, the biggest mistake the guy made was answering the door at all.

[–] PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat 1 points 13 hours ago

No. "We're looking for Ray so-and-so, because we have reasonable articulable suspicion that he committed a crime. Are you him? Can I see some ID?"

There is absolutely 0 scenario in which refusing to cooperate with that request will lead to a good outcome.

To be fair, the biggest mistake the guy made was answering the door at all.

Kind of. Pretending not to be home might have been marginally helpful, or it might not. Once he determined that he was going to talk to them, though, I actually for real sort of mentally commended him for doing exactly what he should have done: He walked out of the front door, and then closed it behind him, thus having the interaction with the police without giving them any kind of wiggle room for some marginally-plausible reason to enter his home. That's exactly the right thing to do.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] PM_ME_VINTAGE_30S@lemmy.sdf.org -2 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

Terrible advice. Please, check this guide from Projet Évasions (PDF warning) instead.

Cops are not always the enemy or the maniacal whole-job-is-making-evil thugs that Lemmy sometimes makes them out to be.

Yes, they literally are. All cops are bastards, always, everywhere, forever, no exceptions, no matter what they are currently doing or have done prior, and capitalism is always evil, so their whole job is in fact making evil, and anytime they do something beneficial is an accident. If a person puts on that uniform, they're a worthless piece of shit. End of story. Individual cops can stop being pieces of shit by burning the uniform and trying to fix the lives they have broken.

It really is bad for people to get mugged or their cars broken into, and they're the solution our society has come up with to minimize the amount of it that happens. It's not always a bad thing.

Emphases mine. I'll take them one by one:

  • Cops were and are imposed on us by the capitalist class. Any consent ever expressed for these monsters has been beaten into us by generations of police violence and then solidified by propaganda.
  • That is not their purpose. Their purpose is to maintain order for capitalism. Historically, modern police forces descended from slave-catching patrols. In interrogations specifically, their purpose is to gather information to build up a case file. The presence of police does not deter crime, and the deterrence of crime is only a pretext for the police to do what they're actually paid to do.
  • Interacting with cops is always an immediate personal danger, especially after you have been hurt or are vulnerable, because they are unhinged monsters who will send you to the morgue if you make them too uncomfortable. You might decide to make that choice to interact with them to prevent some greater evil, for example being courteous during a traffic stop to prevent the cops from detaining you for being suspicious. But at the end of the day, we must recognize that any interaction with the cops is always treacherous.

If you find yourself talking to the cops, there are more or less three ways:

They're there to solve a real problem.

No they aren't, they're there to enforce the will of the capitalist class. Practically , they're there because they either think they witnessed a violation of the law, or because someone called them. Rarely do they even attempt to solve problem, and in the rarer circumstance that individual cops do solve a problem, it is because they betrayed their actual function as cops.

Someone's car got broken into, someone got beat up. Just talk with them. Tell them what you know, help them figure out the situation.

No you fucking don't, because that cop will likely use your evidence to go after someone who didn't do it. They don't stop crime, they don't solve crimes, they only provide information to the judges and terrorize the streets while doing it. Don't help the cops with property crimes.

In almost all of the US, their effect on the problem will be positive

Person squatting over a 3 foot tall pile of sculpted sand that looks like the person just took a massive shit

Use your judgement as to whether that's warranted of course, and your impression of the justice level in your local area, since it varies quite a lot in the US.

Don't use your judgement, use the judgement of the victims! If they don't want the cops involved, then they don't get involved and that should be the end of the discussion.

The same applies with any type of federal law enforcement, I suspect, for the next few years.

It has applied for the entire existence of the modern police, and it will continue to apply as long as police exist. The guide I linked was written in 2022. Yes, we need to hammer this point over and over and over until people understand that no administration, even the so-called lesser-evil party, will ever be on their side except perhaps by accident.

I was going to post this as a comment, but it was in an anarchism community, and I figured some sections of it might be unacceptable there.

Rightly so, because it's terrible advice and it's clear to me that you haven't sought out any wisdom from the community. What you should have done was asked for critique. We would have loved to talk about this in more detail on any anarchist forum.

In my view, it is so much more important to listen to people as an anarchist (or any kind of revolutionary) than it is to spout off my views, hence why I don't really post that often. Even this comment I expect and hope to get torn to shreds in the hope of improving the quality of my understanding of the world. So next time, please actually solicit the advice of your comrades before making statements, and in general do some research before making posts like these. Hence why I have started this comment with a link to a guide solicited from a group of anarchists.

[–] PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat 0 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

No they aren’t, they’re there to enforce the will of the capitalist class. Practically , they’re there because they either think they witnessed a violation of the law, or because someone called them. Rarely do they even attempt to solve problem, and in the rarer circumstance that individual cops do solve a problem, it is because they betrayed their actual function as cops.

I had an interaction with the cops this week. They solved our problem when someone else had completely failed, even though it was that other person's job. I'm actually just about to call the precinct and talk to them again about it, because we still have some questions.

You are mistaking your ideology for reality. You don't need to learn anything, or test any assumptions, because your ideology already gave you the answer and your emotional conviction lets you know that it's right. That's a dangerous mistake.

Rightly so, because it’s terrible advice and it’s clear to me that you haven’t sought out any wisdom from the community. What you should have done was asked for critique. We would have loved to talk about this in more detail on any anarchist forum.

No, you would have loved to give me "the answer," using the model that everything I think is stupid and everything you think is right and can't be questioned. I'll pass.

[–] PM_ME_VINTAGE_30S@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

No, you would have loved to give me "the answer," using the model that everything I think is stupid and everything you think is right and can't be questioned. I'll pass.

*sigh* No I wouldn't have, no I don't think that everything you think is stupid, and I most certainly do not think that everything I think is right and can't be questioned. In fact, I rewrote my reply several times because I wanted to critique my own beliefs before I posted it. And I indicated in my reply that I desperately want my response to be torn apart to improve my understanding of the world. The guide I posted is not the answer, but I do believe it is a good one.

And I'm sorry if anarchists have treated you like that. I desperately want you to contribute to the discussion, because you probably have some experience to offer that can add some subtlety to the discussion. But a discussion goes both ways. Even on Lemmy.world, there are about a dozen people telling you that their experience contradicts your advice. It at least calls for some thought.

You are mistaking your ideology for reality. You don't need to learn anything, or test any assumptions, because your ideology already gave you the answer and your emotional conviction lets you know that it's right. That's a dangerous mistake.

Isn't this the exact kind of thing you just accused anarchists of doing to you? You're dismissing my experience, and frankly the experience of almost every single other commenter here, as mere "ideology". This so-called anti-police "ideology" (really "sentiment") is the distilled experience of thousands of anarchists and millions of working people of all stripes. Please at least listen to it. I can't and don't want to force you to internalize it, but please at least listen. Listening is what separates a shitty anarchist from a good one.

I had an interaction with the cops this week. They solved our problem when someone else had completely failed, even though it was that other person's job. I'm actually just about to call the precinct and talk to them again about it, because we still have some questions.

That genuinely sucks, and I hope it works out for you. The point I'm trying to make is that, as far as the function of the police are concerned, your positive experience is an accident. It is not designed to help you.

[–] PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat -1 points 11 hours ago (3 children)

No I wouldn’t have, no I don’t think that everything you think is stupid, and I most certainly do not think that everything I think is right and can’t be questioned. In fact, I rewrote my reply several times because I wanted to critique my own beliefs before I posted it. And I indicated in my reply that I desperately want my response to be torn apart to improve my understanding of the world. The guide I posted is not the answer, but I do believe it is a good one.

Okay, sure. I'm happy to have this conversation with you, but you have to realize that you wrote me an initial message with "All cops are bastards, always, everywhere, forever, no exceptions" "a worthless piece of shit." "No they aren’t" "No you fucking don’t" "it’s terrible advice" and so on. I read your initial paragraph and didn't see anything even remotely resembling "this is why" or where logically your argument came from. It was just "research" from your "comrades," which makes it sound like only comrades can come up with truth, and anyone else needs to learn from them before "spouting off." You literally said at one point "don't use your judgement."

The cops in most cities are organized by the city council and the mayor. "Capitalism" has nothing to do with it, except indirectly, because it takes money and connections to get on city council. There are a lot of places where people through the exercise of their democracy, reduced the funding for the police, instituted other programs like social workers going to some calls, got the police force out of doing traffic enforcement, basically, doing reforms. If the whole city council tried to disband the police completely, and just have an anarchist city, they would probably lose their election because the people of the city wouldn't like that idea. But there is not some other entity that's coming from outside and "enforcing" the police on the people of the city. It's just the city government, which is our system, is changeable by a majority of the people every few years, if enough people can get on board for it.

I'm not trying to say it is easy to fight against the network of people who operate city government, or that it doesn't take money or anything like that. But plenty of places, some reformer has run a campaign and then won and then done reform. We still use voting. It's not like some Amazon warehouse where the "owners" run the city and make there be police, and there's nothing the people in the city can do about it.

Doesn't that make sense? Does it seem accurate as far as a critique of what you said about how inescapable the police that are enacted on our cities, apparently, are, and how there is no consent by the people of the city? You tell me. I'm picking out just that one part to respond to, because you said you were open to critique and conversation. So sure, we can talk about it, I usually like talking.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›