[slumdev]

We live in a police state.

If you're not an attorney (or as well versed in law as the attorney in the video), your best bet is usually to be friendly and comply. You comply because they're allowed to lie to you, they're allowed to search you with very little reason, and they're allowed to arrest you using circumstances and behaviors that they knowingly and purposefully antagonize out of you.

And this is how freedom dies.

[thephyber]

> We live in a police state.

I don't think that's accurate, although I've previously said it myself before on social media.

I, do, think that too many citizens and lawmakers always assume police can do no wrong and are willing to give them whatever tools they ask for, no matter the cost to freedom. I think we have too many laws on the books, far too many for any person (even for a judge or attorney) to be able to read, let alone memorize, interpret, or internalize. I think the only thing that saves every last one of us from being convicted is a scarcity of police time, but technology is likely to change part of that (digital footprints on phones, GPS devices, WiFi / bluetooth devices, SaaS security systems like Ring, cars with dashcams) and the increasing changes to grade schools (campus police officers, "zero tolerance" policies) that increase the impact of normal childish outbursts.

I have lots of problems with police tools and tactics and I will continue to use my citizen voice and vote to trim those back, but I think that we aren't a police state right now.

> And this is how freedom dies.

If we live in a police state, then freedom is already dead.

It's not clear to me if police + legislatures are taking our freedoms faster than corporate land-grabs for my digital information and psychological profiling.

[Johnny555]

Given what you just said, why would you comply? Seems better to heed the Miranda warning "Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law" and just say "I'd like to talk to an attorney first". Whether you did what you're suspected of or not, given how the deck is stacked against you, compliance seems like the wrong choice and you may very well end up making things worse for yourself.

The cop is already pretty sure you did it (or he wouldn't have brought you in), so seems like there's little you can say that will change his mind.

[slumdev]

What you're suggesting is what I mean by compliance.

You don't have to talk to them. It's probably the one thing you shouldn't do. You should respectfully refuse to answer questions, even before the point that they arrest you and read you the Miranda warning.

But you should allow a search of your vehicle. If you don't, they're just going to call a canine unit and provoke the dog to signal, regardless of whether there's anything in your car.

You should identify yourself if requested, provide proof of ID if requested, get out of the vehicle if requested, etc. Don't make any sudden movements or reach into your pockets. And smile.

This is where we live.

[thephyber]

> The cop is already pretty sure you did it (or he wouldn't have brought you in)

There are different stages before arrest that matter here.

There is a burden of "reasonable suspicion", "probable cause", etc. (or some equivalent like "exigent circumstances"). An arrest requires both of these, plus some evidence of a crime. Being convicted at trial requires "beyond a reasonable doubt" (for criminal charges, as opposed to {civil, tax, military}).

[bitexploder]

Letting the search happens only makes it worse. Force them to have probable cause or violate your rights. Know your basic rights and assert them. Not doing so only helps the police state.

[newguy1234]

Let them violate your rights so you can sue them.

[lonelappde]

And don't forget, in the USA, complying with requests given by a person carrying a gun and a license to kill you, is considered freely given consent that waives your rights.