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 -
What's baffling? The cops are trying to make them eat shit (that is, to yield in a monkey dominance game) with all the 'yes sir' and 'no sir' stuff, and in the moment they would rather take the risk of greater consequences than do so "voluntarily". Probably especially culturally relevant to blacks, though I suspect all but the most beaten-down milquetoast PMCs dislike showing their belly that way. Law-n-order conservatives claim to think it's fine, but I think mostly they don't envision themselves on the wrong side of that.
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.
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.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link