Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

The police are 100% your enemy once they start questioning you about anything. Record, record record.

Catch them in one lie, and you get off scot free. Source: been dealing with the "justice" system since I was 17, most recently last year where I recorded an agent of the court committing perjury.

Yes, nothing happens to them but most importantly, they've never been able to convict me of anything.



> The police are 100% your enemy once they start questioning you about anything. Record, record record.

even better, stop talking to them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE

> Catch them in one lie, and you get off scot free.

they're not leprechauns, there are no magical rules in effect.


No but you have to keep in mind the dynamics:

1) once a police officer submits or makes a knowingly false statement that results in your prosecution, exposing this taints all cases where that officer was involved which could result in retrials or dismissals. The da absolutely does not want to be responsible for this. They will drop the charges once your lawyer takes them aside after the statement has been made. Note: do not give your lawyer this evidence until the perjury has occurred. They may not be happy with you and inform the DA thus cutting you off at the knees (it's pretty incestuous at times.) Play dumb and outraged that this is happening to you.

2) a finding of perjury is rare, you're after dismissing the charges

3) nothing will happen to that officer but you may end up being considered hostile in that precinct.

No doubt about it, they are the enemy when it comes to finding a scapegoat and they do it with your tax dollars.

Edit: I'm unable to respond, apparently I'm commenting too much for the last hour so my response is here:

Think about this regarding not trusting your own lawyer: if the case gets dropped, the attorney makes no more in fees. If that evidence is neutered, it needs to go to trial. Trust no one. I'm a very hard looking guy (hard life but I'm really quite soft) and most people think I'm guilty of everything. Add that I am not white, don't look rich, and it's a recipe for distrust on sight. Even when faced with evidence, I've had people continue to lie as if admitting that I'm innocent would cause a tear in the fabric of the universe.


> Note: do not give your lawyer this evidence until the perjury has occurred. They may not be happy with you and inform the DA thus cutting you off at the knees (it's pretty incestuous at times.)

Seriously? Are these public prosecutors, or ones you pay good money for? Is it that the defenders think you are guilty but are going through the motions of a pretend defense? Either way it is a scary thought.

In general I thought you would want your lawyer to know as much as possible so that they have as many options as possible for constructing an arugment for you in court. If you have to second guess that, then you are in a bit of a lose-lose situation with every piece of info.


I was being rate limited for some reason, so I could not respond earlier, but here is my response:

Think about this regarding not trusting your own lawyer: if the case gets dropped, the attorney makes no more in fees. If that evidence is neutered, it needs to go to trial. Trust no one. I'm a very hard looking guy (hard life but I'm really quite soft) and most people think I'm guilty of everything. Add that I am not white, don't look rich, and it's a recipe for distrust on sight. Even when faced with evidence, I've had people continue to lie as if admitting that I'm innocent would cause a tear in the fabric of the universe.


> The police are 100% your enemy once they start questioning you about anything.

This is mostly not true for most people, especially if you are not-poor, white, and not actually committing major crimes. OTOH, the times when it is true aren't easily distinguishable from the times that it isn't true, which means you have an interest in treating it as more true than it actually is.


You just pointed out that there are vast swaths of the population that it is likely true for and then dismissed it. Colour me confused!


100% means it's always true for everyone. It's not reliably true for anyone, though it's sometimes true, and it's more likely to be true for certain people.

I am objecting to the “100%” characterization, and pointing out that reality is much more complex than that.


Hmm ok. That's an odd thing to take issue with. I guess you'll take the risk next time you're being questioned?

Edit: It doesn't matter if I'm not statistically correct, the question is whether you would take the risk that, no, they're not out to get you if they're questioning you for something serious... Seems a bad calculation.


Well, it depends. I mean, when I was last questioned by a CHP officer about an auto accident recently, sure, I took the risk that the officer wasnt looking to frame me for a crime and answered questions fully, completely, and accurately, and even volunteered information (even though I was at fault for the accident, and knew it.)

But, you know, different circumstances—or even different questions—and it might have gone differently.


There isn't much to do about an auto accident, not even in the same ballpark.


It isn't odd to take issue with the bit's that is wrong.


> I recorded an agent of the court committing perjury.

When is perjury not transcribed anyway?


Perjury according to Google: the offense of willfully telling an untruth in a court after having taken an oath or affirmation.

"I must have misremembered" "Oh ok"

Perjury is a joke, it's something that is used against citizens not against police officers or the like.

In any case, you have to prove that someone wilfully told an untruth. That's tough.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: