This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
See also: “do you know who you’re dealing with?” and “am I being detained?”
Lots of people will do unreasonable things when they sense a dominance game.
Aren't there a few cases where "am I being detained?" is actually a reasonable/correct response? Pretty sure it's followed by "if no, leave, if yes, ask for a lawyer".
It's definitely overused, though.
There's "am I being detained? If so, I would like to know what for" which is not the same at all as "AM I BEING DETAINED!?!?!?!? AM I BEING DETAINED!?!?!? AM I BEING DETAINED?!?!?!" and I would wager at least $100 that the former gets a lot better results than the latter, even in otherwise sketchy circumstances.
More options
Context Copy link
"I'd like to go. Is that alright?" is probably better, maybe followed by "is there anything specific you need from me?" However, you must wait to deploy this until some "reasonable" (ill-defined but it is what it is) period of time has passed and the "basics" are fulfilled. For example, you must show ID in most states IIRC when asked, and usually are expected to reasonably comply with stuff. But if it's been, say, 10 minutes and questions are going in circles, or you're waiting on some abstract officer task, I think it's actually a great moment to either save a little time and be on your way because it was just trivial, or discern if there's a decent chance you're going to be in actual trouble, in which case you can and should adjust your behavior and compliance accordingly.
The reason I emphasize the waiting and basics is because there do exist some reasonable tasks that are mostly harmless but may take a little bit of time - in those cases asking too early risks a false positive alert on your part. And again it helps to be a little more conversational, while still figuring out what's going through the cop's head, which is the half of the point. (The other half is the cop is just fishing for stuff, realizes it's only fishing and won't become something more, and cuts their losses and ends the interaction)
Edit: My comment mostly assumes that you are in fact following the law, or at least not notably breaking it. If you're potentially in deep shit, and the cop has a decent chance of discovering such, there's less harm to immediately clamming up, because any marginal benefit in the off-chance the cop leaves ignorant is outweighed by the chance of you fucking up with a continued interaction or cooperation. Also, you generally should be polite, but you're not required to be super helpful.
More options
Context Copy link
Yes, although I would avoid that specific language because it's a meme and will trigger some cops into thinking "oh, you're one of those guys." The key is to be calm while doing it instead of being belligerent.
The context of the "Am I being detained?!!@#!" meme is a SCOTUS case which held, laughably, that a person who every regular person would determine was not free to leave was determined based on a reasonable person standard to know they were free to leave. In that case, armed government agents boarded a bus at a scheduled stop and asked passengers questions and then asked one passenger if they could search his bag. They leaned on the fact in Bostick the police informed the person he could refuse the bag search (but not that he were free to leave). Another case followed 10 years later which emphasized the fact that the reasonable person standard is the test and that government agents are not required to inform anyone they can leave or refuse a search. I don't think I've found a single regular, reasonable person in the real world who would have thought they could have told the cops to move out of their way blocking the exit because they knew they were free to leave and like to go. In fact, this is patently ridiculous, but the SCOTUS soldiered forward. So lawyers recommended to people to ask if they were being detained to prevent that sort of silliness. It was picked up and turned into a meme so that anytime some belligerent person was arguing or resisting cops, they would shout "Am I being detained?" at the cops.
There are more cases from the SCOTUS which essentially require formulaic statements or else those pesky constitutional rights aren't so much rights, e.g., requiring affirmative declarations to trigger your right to remain silent or specifically asking for a a lawyer using that specific word. The last few decades of rulings on the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments are largely cases where the SCOTUS has gouged out exceptions to precedent so that police are protected and criminals are not protected.
It's been a long time since I spoke with police in a situation which didn't involve a client and on behalf of a client (and a while since I did that, too), but what I've always told others is to remain calm, tell the cops you understand they're doing a job, but that you do not answer any questions from police without an attorney present, that you do not consent to any searches whatsoever, and that you would like to leave and ask if you are free to go. If they say you cannot leave, tell them you would like to speak to a lawyer and will not answer any questions. Hell, given how bad some SCOTUS decisions in the last 8 years or so, you may even want to specifically say "I'd like to invoke my 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendment rights."
Does this mean you could increase your chance of getting a speeding ticket instead of a warning? Probably.
More options
Context Copy link
The only time I'd recommend asking that question is in a situation where the encounter has already gone on way longer than a normal traffic stop and the officer is doing something indicating he's fishing for something more than a traffic ticket, like asking a lot of unnecessary questions or asking to search the vehicle. But I see bodycam videos of people asking a few minutes into a routine stop, or refusing to answer normal questions, and I wonder why they feel the need to unnecessarily piss the guy off.
the "normal questions" during traffic stops are fishing expeditions
the reason a cop is asking you if you knew how fast you were going, if you saw that red light/stop sign, if you've been drinking, etc., aren't because they're interested in your day
furthermore, due to relatively recent SCOTUS decisions, telling someone they should answer questions from cops because otherwise you'll piss them off and I assume, perhaps, stop talking or ask for a lawyer if they cross some line from "normal questions" is just bad
legal advicelegal information (this is obviously not "legal advice" on this board)I don't think you understand what a fishing expedition is. The questions you cited are directly related to either why you got pulled over or some related traffic offense. If he starts asking questions about illegal gambling or a string of burglaries apropos of nothing, that would be a fishing expedition. In any event, in nearly 25 years of driving I've never once been asked if I knew how fast I was going or why I had been pulled over. Traffic offenses are strict liability, and if they have enough to ticket me an admission isn't going to help much. I have been asked if I was drinking, though. And you know how often I was drinking? 100% of the time; the reason I was asked is because the officer already smelled alcohol. But I've never been asked that when I hadn't been drinking, and there have been plenty of times when I was drinking that I wasn't asked that, including on St. Patrick's Day at 11 pm.
Anyway, in these instances, refusing to answer questions doesn't get you anything that a simple "no" doesn't, other than irritating the officer. Telling a cop you didn't see the stop sign isn't going to be used in court later to nail your ass to the wall. Trying to maintain a cordial atmosphere is more important in some circumstances than asserting every single right you have.
For some questions that's true it's wrong to call them "fishing expeditions," but the cops are fishing for you to incriminate yourself with their questions. Regular people use "fishing expedition" in a different way and questions which may in some way relate to the reason a cop is asking the question would fall under it. A question like "Where are you coming from?" is not related to why you got pulled over for speeding despite it being a "normal question" which is regularly asked. The same is true for any number of other questions regularly asked by police to people they've pulled over.
Not admitting to the offense you're being pulled over may not "help much," but admitting to it does indeed make it more difficult to contest it. Answering "no" to a question which may be a lie does indeed make you worse off from any case which arises from the interaction. Government agents aren't asking questions in these situations because they're trying to be friendly or create a cordial environment, they're attempting to use social pressure and the power of their position to get you to put yourself in a worse position. Full stop.
Regular people, let alone lawyers, really struggle with what are "normal questions" or "fishing expeditions," and rarely know when they're harming themselves for no benefit. Giving them bright lines in these situations is far better guidance.
Being polite and calm and telling police officers you do not answer questions from police without a lawyer present may not create a "cordial environment," and it may even increase the likelihood some petty cop gives you a ticket over a warning, but it's better to get the ticket than stumble your way into serious problems. The more you talk the more chance mistaken cops can hear consent or reason to make your night even worse.
Your statements are just bad legal guidance.
It is difficult for me to imagine a situation in which refusing to answer any questions will improve your outcome unless you are at risk for uncontrollably blurting out “I have a dead body in the trunk of my car.”
Police have a lot of discretion in how to treat you. I’ve been pulled over several times for speeding and every time gotten off with a warning because I was friendly and polite. I am fairly confident that if I completely bunkered and insisted a lawyer be present my outcomes would’ve been a lot worse, at the very least they would’ve taken up much more of my time.
Assuming you are a normal person guilty of no more than normal traffic violations like speeding (no body in the trunk of your car) it is undoubtedly most advisable to be fully cooperative and polite, answering all questions truthfully and promptly without demands for a lawyer.
This 1000% 99 times out of 100, all the cop wants is to get through their shift without dealing with too many assholes, and they are perfectly happy to reward polite and cooperative behavior with not issuing a ticket. At worst you get a minimum-level traffic citation that you pay online the next day and never think about again.
Going the "am I being detained" route is a good way to get a ride in a squad car, a day wasted in bureaucratic purgatory, and an impounded vehicle (though more likely, you'll just get the max-level citations available for whatever minor traffic violations you've committed). It's a nuclear option only worth taking if you think you're plausibly at risk of consequences worse than a night in jail. It's advice intended to protect you from serious criminal liability likely to result in time behind bars, but for the vast majority of generally law-abiding Americans' interactions with law enforcement, the risk of that happening simply isn't very high. It's an important tool to keep in youe tool box for extreme situations, but massive overkill more likely to hurt than help in 99+% of cases.
The overwhelming vast majority of cops are nowhere near as petty as many of you apparently think they are. If politely telling a cop at a traffic stop you don't answer questions from police without a lawyer present results in you being arrested and taking a ride in the back of a police car, you were not in the category of "a normal person guilty of no more than normal traffic violations like speeding" and we're missing some big details.
Cops simultaneously just want to get through their shift without dealing with assholes, but they're going to escalate a normal person guilty of speeding to an arrest and car ride because they politely and calmly told them they don't answer questions from police? This is silly.
And inevitably, it's the sort of response from people who don't know what they're talking about, their experience consists of being pulled over a couple times and getting off with a warning, therefore answering whatever questions a cop asks of you cannot lead you to an arrest and a car ride.
The problem with this sort of advice is it's wrong; people do, in fact, stumble their way into serious problems because they're answering questions at what they believe is just a normal traffic stop and they're just a normal person. And then when they stop answering questions when the regular layman realizes this isn't just a regular traffic stop with "normal questions," it's just more evidence they're guilty (and thanks to recent court decisions, it could even be evidence in court).
That petty cop who simultaneously will give you a warning or arrest you and throw you in jail over the difference between answering "where are you coming from" and "do you know how fast you were going" and doing what I suggest either doesn't exist or if that cop does exist my suggestion will better protect you than kissing his boots and hoping he'll find some other victim.
And that's why my typical response to comments likes these and the other person's is, "okay, you do that."
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
undoubtedly, I encourage you to do whatever you like
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
They've seen a YouTube video and don't understand. To actually pull it off you have to be on time of your game and people don't realize that 1st Amendment auditors often orchestrate the interaction from the start. They are purposefully being belligerent to try to illicit a lawsuit. The am am 'I being detained?' is an important demarcation point where they will alter their behavior. They will get very physically compliant and often verbally compliant once the words are said.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link