Slashdot Mirror
The Accidental Betrayal of Aaron Swartz
theodp writes "The anarchist dictum when it comes to grand juries, explains Salon's Natasha Lennard, is a simple one: 'No one talks, everyone walks.' It's a lesson journalist Quinn Norton tragically learned only after federal prosecutors got her to inadvertently help incriminate Aaron Swartz, her dearest friend and then-lover. Convinced she knew nothing that could be used against Swartz, Norton at first cooperated with the prosecutors. But prosecutors are pro fishermen — they cast wide nets. And in a moment Norton describes as 'profoundly foolish,' she told the grand jury that Swartz had co-authored a blog post advocating for open data (the Guerrilla Open Access Manifesto), which prosecutors latched onto and spun into evidence that the technologist had 'malicious intent in downloading documents on a massive scale.' Norton sadly writes, 'It is important the people know that the prosecutors manipulated me and used my love against Aaron without me understanding what they were doing. This is their normal. They would do this to anyone. We should understand that any alleged crime can become life-ruining if it catches their eyes.' Consider yourself forewarned."
Say absolutely nothing. Every single work spoken to them will come from your lawyers mouth.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
I was tricked.
Some of us don't need to be taught that lesson: never talk to the police.
Never.
Period.
Say no more.
What's that line that's been repeatedly drummed into our heads?
"Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law"
First
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&ved=0CE4QtwIwAw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D6wXkI4t7nuc&ei=rmM2UbuuAYPg8wTJ_IGQCw&usg=AFQjCNFCoazxrnNtO6N2bs_yG_tfpcl_vQ&bvm=bv.43287494,d.eWU
Don't Talk To Police
It's been proven over and over again that there is not a syllable or grunt you can give to the police that will ever help you in any way.
This goes double if you are innocent. Triple if you are a minority. The cops operate on a crooked ethos. Their job is to throw you in jail regardless of your guilt or innocence, not determine the truth. (That's the job of the court system)
All communication goes through your lawyer. No exceptions. Just smile dumbly and ask for your lawyer. No matter what they say, you are under no obligation to tell them anything without legal representation present.
Also, snitches get stitches.
nobody expects the Spanish inquisition!
if a cop or DA wants to talk to you about something you did or if you don't know why understand that you are not talking your way out of something, they are collecting evidence against you or someone else. Most of the time is not in your interests to talk to the cops or prosecutors.
Police: So, which way did the mugger run? ... ... ...
You:
Police: Hello? Can you talk?
You:
Police: Don't you want to get your wallet back?
You:
Police: Eh, fuck it. I'll be at the donut shop.
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
I didn’t know anything the prosecution cared about, and I thought that maybe I could talk Steve [Heymann, the lead prosecutor] out of the prosecution, or at least into not being so harsh. This was so obviously a ridiculous application of justice, I thought. If I just had the chance to explain, maybe this would all go away. My lawyers told me this was possible. They nursed this idea. They told me Steve wanted to meet me, and they wanted me to meet him. They wanted to set up something called a proffer — a kind of chat with the prosecution.
Perhaps you should have spoken with Aaron's lawyers?
The anarchist dictum when it comes to grand juries, explains Salon's Natasha Lennard, is a simple one: 'No one talks, everyone walks.'
Isn't this just called "The Prisoner's Dilemma"? Or will I be downmodded for using the word "prisoner" -- too harsh for the Aaron Swartz case?
In a moment Norton describes as “profoundly foolish” she told the grand jury that Swartz had co-authored a blog post advocating for open data. As we now know, his Guerrilla Open Access Manifesto was used by prosecutors as evidence that the technologist had “malicious intent in downloading documents on a massive scale.”
So did he write it or not? I mean, he was twenty six years old and at some point you have to start being responsible for your actions. Norton is blaming herself for telling someone about something that Swartz wrote? I mean, at what point was he going to stand up and say proudly "This is my cause and I'm not afraid to stand up for it"? Yeah, if you write stuff that talks about breaking the law and then you are investigated for breaking such laws -- that of course is going to be used as motive!
Political activism is apparently not for people who are clinically depressed. What is supposed to change here? Are prosecutors not supposed to seek a motive when they have a suspect? When someone we do want to go to jail like an embezzler writes an e-mail to his wife about his embezzlement, are prosecutors not supposed to turn the screws on her to get that information? I don't get it! What is Norton blaming herself for? Why write it if you don't believe it and why break the laws that you think are unjust if you're not prepared to challenge them in court?
Did he write it? Was it pertinent to the case? Then what's the problem here? Who betrayed who? Would you rather have prosecutors with hands tied when they need to prove that someone planned to break a law by discovering what they were writing prior to their alleged crimes? Is that not his name at the bottom of the manifesto?
I'm sorry he decided to take his own life and it sickens me that the Slashdot group think is that doing so was his only logical choice. But at some point you have to take the mittens off and stop beating up other people for Aaron Swartz's own words and actions. Political activism is not a place for fragile people who can't handle a book being thrown at them. We celebrate those who stood up to and challenged the governments and did so without resorting to taking their own lives or others'.
My work here is dung.
Don't talk to he police I was shocked when I watched this.
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
Here is a much more complete article, which I submitted a couple of days ago: http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/03/life-inside-the-aaron-swartz-investigation/273654/
So, how long until she writes a tell-all book and makes a boat ton of money off of this guy's death?
...watch a lawyer and sheriff explain why.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
The job of police and prosecutors is to establish guilt. They are not there to help you. They are there to harm you in any way they can. Do not talk to them at all if you can avoid it.
Don't Talk To Cops is a video detailing exactly how someone who is PURELY INNOCENT can have their words twisted to prove their "guilt". If you have not watched this, watch it. Make your kids watch it too.
Just because you love someone, doesn't mean you shouldn't turn them in if they do something wrong and criminal. That being said, exactly what did Swartz do wrong? He exercised free speech?
by every lawyer she encountered. Swartz's family pleaded with her not to talk to them. She was an arrogant fool.
Sent from the iPad I found in your car.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik
Perhaps I am wrong but isn't this process flawed? I mean in order for a prosecuting attorney, local law enforcement officer, and of federal agent that wishes to advance their career arrests, prosecutions etc must be a high number? Spinning something from nothing either due to lack of understanding or the all too common 'hunch' allows for far too many abuses to occur. I prefer my law enforcent to be more like the Andy Griffith show
If you need to be warned that a group of people who collaborate with violent thugs who will kidnap you and steal from you are not interested in your well being, I doubt a warning would actually be useful. Even the simplest thing like a subpoena is an utter transgression against innocent people. Imagine if we stripped away the pomp, the ceremony, the special euphemisms, and just saw these actors for what they are; a subpoena is a threat. A subpoena is a group of people declaring that they will attack you if you do not visit them. That they will steal from you, they will kidnap you if you fend off their theft, and should you somehow manage to resist all that, they will put a bullet in your fucking brain. THAT is the nature of this system we live in. We exist in a murder based society, a pre-philosophical contradictory quagmire where the simplest moral truths between individuals become completely negated when the magical word 'government' is attached to a deed. That is who prosecutors voluntarily associate with.
If you think a prosecutor sees you as anything other than the bait for his next paycheck, you are blind to the nature of our society.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
Something I watched a couple years ago, and I think still holds true on the idea of never talking to the police.
EVER.
On tv they have those cops shows where they play good cop / bad cop or lie to the suspect in order to get information or a confession. As valued spectators we only get to see the times these methods are used to catch a pedophile or stop a nuclear bomb, but in real life this is how it's done all the time. One should keep this in mind when dealing with po-po.
lucm, indeed.
Aaron was furious. He told me not to meet Steve. But no one, including Aaron, would tell me why. No one would tell me even how to get out of it. And still I had an unshakable belief that if I could just somehow explain all this it would go away. I delayed once, too sick to go. My lawyers told me Steve was furious at my medical delay. I might be arrested. I told Aaron, and others, that I wanted to talk to Steve human to human.
Never talking is not necessarily practical. But the problem is not recognizing that once something progresses to a certain point a "human to human" talk is never ever ever going to stop an investigation or prosecution. They were way past that point. That is where they get you: when you believe a human tale will persuade while they are looking for mis-steps that will hang you and all your friends.
The prosecution only hesitates when sources of evidence completely dry up. Talking encourages the prosecution.
These lawyers were giving ineffective counsel, even though they were probably thinking that they could get her immunity for her cooperation and testimony.
"she told the grand jury that Swartz had co-authored a blog post advocating for open data (the Guerrilla Open Access Manifesto), which prosecutors latched onto and spun into evidence that the technologist had 'malicious intent in downloading documents on a massive scale.'"
What's next? If they find that someone wrote somewhere that he didn't like the look of the WTC building, it will be used as evidence that he was involved in the 9/11 attack?
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
When I fought off an attempted robbery at gun point, the police most certainly were my friends. It all depends on the circumstances. I was once pulled over for a speeding offence, and the way I was answering his questions prompted him to ask if I was a lawyer.
It is interesting that she was 13 years older than Aaron Swartz. A cougar by definition, but not a cougar in my book.
You are lucky you were not charged with assault or anything else they could come up with. Far easier to go after you who are easy to reach than hunt down someone else. They might be temporary allies, but not friends.
They might be temporary allies, but not friends.
Understood.
My dad used to be a public defender, and It's interesting to me how nearly every tv show demonizes public defenders, and gives halos to the police. Granted you can't really trust a lawyer any more than anyone else (including police), but we are all just people here.
"anything you say CAN AND WILL be used against you (and others)"
Obviously not.
Privacy is terrorism.
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/x180/tags/quinnnorton/
they are looking for criminal behaviors, so they talk to people about it.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
All my kids (ages 7 to 16) know that you do not talk to the police, you do not let the police into the house, you do not give the police permission to search you or your belongings, and most of all they know that every word out of a police officer's mouth is potentially a lie. Whether you've done something or not you have nothing to gain by "cooperating". Unless you're the one who called the cops (which should except for the most dire of circumstances) you have nothing to say.
Not your friend, your family, people you've known all your life. There will be no one you can trust because anyone can be pressured to turn against you with enough threats against them. To trust anyone would put them in greater risk of being pressured and being destroyed too.
"You are lucky you were not charged with assault or anything else they could come up with. "
you're an idiot.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
My dad used to be a public defender, we are all just people here.
Nice try, but we're not buying that a public defender is a person.
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
Or maybe my life has shown me things yours has not.
When people are evaluated on a metric they will do what they can to inflate that metric. Cops do it just like salesmen. If it takes lying and cheating they will do that just as much as a used car salesman.
I too was subpoenaed (note I redacted two names) for evidence and to testify before the grand jury that indicted Aaron. They were certainly fishing for a lot of information relating to Guerrilla Open Access. I'm not sure there was much that either Quinn or I could do to prevent the indictment. Although, I can say that on an emotional level rationalizing about the situation doesn't make it suck any less knowing that the evidence and testimony I provided was probably bastardized and used against him. Maybe I'll write up more about the whole thing some time.
If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him.
~Attributed to Cardinal Richelieu.
When it comes to criminal investigations in America, there is nothing you can ever say that will help your case. The only thing you can do is make it worse. The best bit of advice is to shut the fuck up and lawyer up.
To be an activist is to be a warrior. Nothing is gained by activism except for a lengthy FBI file and informants spreading lies about you, rumors, and trying to entrap you into crimes for their bosses.They do this because they committed a crime and agreed with police to become informants to help bring down the enemies of the police through entrapment.
That is the system and it's corrupt by design. If you support Wikileaks then don't be surprised if your friends from years stop talking to you. Look at what a government investigation can do here http://www.jbhfile.com/harm_examples.html and think twice about supporting Wikileaks.
Wow, how about just not doing stupid things to put yourself in these positions? Do you really feel sorry for that moron?
Everyone who is a suspect is guilty until proven innocent. Anyone can be made into a suspect with enough time and effort.
Convinced she knew nothing that could be used against Swartz, Norton at first cooperated with the prosecutors.
When I read the line above I already knew the story
This "Quinn Norton" calls herself a "journalist", a person whose job supposedly provide her the insight that people can pick up clues from what you said, no matter how you say it, or how much you have disclosed, and also from what you didn't say
Equipped with that knowledge, she was still convinced that she knew nothing that could be used against her lover, Mr. Swartz?
Oh, c'mon, don't give us that !!!
She has screwed up, she knew it. Now what "Quinn Norton" is trying desperately to do is to "clear her name", and she is trying to push all the blames on to the prosecutors.
I am not saying that the prosecutors are not responsible for what happened to Mr. Swartz, they do. But Ms. Norton herself ought to be brave enough to admit that because of her own fucked up cocky attitude that led her to think that she could outsmart the prosecutors (and that she talked)
Ms. Quinn Norton is a contributor, whether she likes it or not, to Mr. Swartz's ultimate tragic demise
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
That's because story conventions work much better that way. People want to see a guilty person punished. Very often, 'justice' is just a polite term for 'vengeance.'
Never talk to police:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
Protect Yourself from FBI Manipulation (w/attorney Harvey Silverglate):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgDsbjAYXcQ
B-)
A friend will come and bail you out of jail, a true friend will be sitting next to you saying, "damn that was fun!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc&list=PLyG7wDhlOL-nZBTZ7oFGgrDNpEowoo4PO&index=36
That's all I have to say here.
...because now I'm the 109th guy posting this link, at least. Oh well.
I was prosecuted and finally sentenced to prison for not doing the "civil" or "social" part of conscription over here in Germany. The judges took anything against me, construed false facts in favour of me just to turn them against me eventually. Six months in prison was called a "mild" punishment, without being at war. I lived in this hell for about ten years, I almost lost my wife to a deep depression she evolved and at the end I didn't have enough strength anymore to finish my studies.
I know how it feels to be imprisoned without actually being in a prison.
This country lost me as a proud member of that community, as an excellent and highly motivated physician and as a well suited tax payer and my kids learn to be very sceptical against anything related to the state.
cb
And jury, and prosecuter, and your friend, and your lover, and....actually you better shut up and hope for the best, but be prepared for the worst :D
Given the premise of "Nobody talks, everyone walks", and the anarchist view of justice, how would an anarchist community conceptualize, agree upon, and enforce "justice" within their own community? Say you have an anarchist community, and someone acts against the consensus, then says "I'm innocent". What happens at that point? I'm genuinely curious about this, and would like to know the answer.
Here's to hot beer, cold women, and Glaswegian kisses for all.
"We should understand that any alleged crime can become life-ruining if it catches their eyes."
For me personally, I got charged with OWI because I made the wise decision to not drink and drive but instead sit in my vehicle on a cold winter day and sleep it off... But that cold winter day really bit me hard, hard enough to get charged for a OWI... I turned my heat on because I woke up very cold to the point that I was shaking from the cold. Early morning a cop came up to my window and pounded on my window for a "well-fare" check. I woke startled and of course rolled down my window to find out what the officer wanted, then he smelt alcohol and yanked my door open and made me step out of the car.
Now I have the same offense as someone who was on the road drinking and driving, putting other lives at risk!!! To top it off, the judge and DA refused to give me any other type of charge and even far worse I got more than the recommended minimum for that charge! Now trying to get a job is leaving me so shit-out-of-luck and fines to pay that are stopping me from getting my license back, stuck in a slippery hole that is going to take me getting a job at McDonalds and hoping to get every possible hour I can get... The law sucks, it is not to improve society, it is to enslave the population into prison labor jobs, taxes for privatized prisons that are making huge profits, fines to pay the criminal system judges/cops/etc, and basically ruin lives for greed in the disguise of punishing the criminals!
I'm all for people getting punished for their wrong-doings and especially for encouraging people to do good thru rehabilitation/etc, but this legal system is far out of control!
This fellow is extremely interesting for anyone who hasn't seen it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik
Nope, just an idiot.
I know it was long, but it also answered some of the questions you posed.
You asked if he wrote the manifesto or not. She explains that it had four authors - a group had written it during a conference in Italy, and Aaron brought it back to her, and yes, his name was on it. But she testified that there was no way to know whether he had authored a particular sentence.
The prosecutors were stretching to find some kind of motive in anything he had written. Ask yourself if this really makes sense. You've been on /. for some years now - I suppose it's fair game for prosecutors to go over every one of your comments with a fine-tooth comb, establishing a "motive" for something you've done?
"Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
Pretty much. That, and insisting on immunity before you open your mouth.
That poor woman. I hope she doesn't blame herself. These people are snakes.
I can not find it right now, but I remember an anecdote by a traveller - maybe Jacques-Yves Costeau? - returning to an island in the Pacific he had visited years before. He was surprised to find a police station, that was not there on his previous visit.
As he remembered the natives being the nicest and most peaceful fellows ever, he asked a police officer "Do you really mean, there is crime here now?" The candid answer was, "Of course sir, there is law enforcement now, there must be crime as well."
In the long run we are all dead. - John Maynard Keynes (1883 - 1946)
Bullshit. The thrust of that video, and all the videos out there that say the same thing, is really
"Don't talk to cops if they suspect you of something, without counsel, ever" which is reasonable advice.
But in the real world, on planet earth, people all over the country call cops all the time to report things stolen, or assaults, or thefts, and the cops don't immediately go after the person who reports the crime. It's asinine to think that cops generally operate that way.
Come back to reality.
AH, you making wide assertions based on your anecdote. Yes, you're an idiot.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Sadly, immunity wouldn't of helped Quinn Norton in this case as her words weren't being used against herself, but another.
Now if only such a similar criminal investigation would be brought against the people (and by people, I mean the federal prosecutors who targeted Swartz) who subverted the justice system to push corporate special interest.
The summary centers on the denial that Swartz was intending to mass-download JSTOR documents and distribute them for free, how it was supposedly a fraudulent prosecution based on "spun" falsehoods. Hasn't everyone up to now agreed that this is exactly what Swartz was doing, with the arguments being over whether it was appropriate for Swartz to do so, whether it was appropriate to prosecute Swartz for doing so, and the details of how the prosecution treated Swartz?
Now we are supposed to deny that Swartz was downloading JSTOR documents to liberate them from the pay service when he was caught red-handed downloading JSTOR documents to liberate them from the pay service. The cultlike attitude around him is getting out of hand.
I guess she learned the hard way...
Dont talk to cops....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=i8z7NC5sgik
--
Time is on my side
Do not speak to authorities. Teach this to your children. Everything you say can and will if at all possible likely be used against you or others in a court of law. Do not call in authorities for domestic issues - they come to kill. This has been repeatedly and tragically proven. The police have SWAT toys and want to try them out. Their goal is not to solve problems peacefully but rather to eliminate problems typically in violet ways with their toys. The police answer to no one outside their ranks as has repeatedly been shown and the result is bad behavior. Read the newspapers. Know this is true.
The 'never talk to cops' concept already accepts the 'lesser of two dangers' concept. It refers to situations where you MIGHT think that co-operating puts you in a better position, or gets the cops to see reason.
It does NOT refer to those times when it is just you and a uniformed thug (or group of thugs) with nothing better to do than beat you and frame you. In these situations (like the one you describe for yourself), the principle is the same as an African villager 'meeting' a tiger on a path the elders are supposed to ensure is safe. Yes you are pissed at the tiger and the elders, but at that very moment, the only concern you can afford to have is your personal safety.
Members of all US enforcement departments are violent tribal scumbags who see citizens as garbage. When they behave 'polite', it is ONLY out of fear of retribution if you prove to be a citizen with influence. When meeting these goons in a metaphorical 'dark alley' you say whatever you must to safely escape the situation. Your 'Rights' only come first if by giving them up you have something worse to fear (like contraband in your vehicle).
Again, 'never talk to cops' is about when you are arrested (or similar) and they are interrogating you in some sense. Again, in the 'wild' cops should be treated as a rogue killer animal. No cop will lose even one second sleep over the idea of hurting or causing the imprisonment of an innocent person.
This is entitled: Pocket letter to the authorities
I. Vehicle stop, answer to any questions:
Officer, my lawyer has informed me that all the information you need from me is on my driver's license.
II. Other encounters with the police:
I, being a law abiding citizen, never having participated in any criminal activities, therefore refuse to be interrogated or otherwise answer any questions asked by the police and/or prosecutors, not having any knowledge of or being able to be of any help or assistance to them concerning any crime.
If I, am arrested or detained by the police for any reason, do hereby through this written statement exercising my right to remain silent. If I am arrested or detained at a police station, I wish to see a lawyer as soon as possible. If questioned by a prosecutor, I will invoke my 5th amendment right after each question.
I, am familiar with the vicious Reid Interrogation Method, a system so brutal that Great Britain has outlawed its use, the use thereof being the cause of many innocent people falsely confessing to a crime that they did not commit.
I, have read the book The Lie Behind the Lie Detector found at antipolygraph.org, as well as read the Charlatanry in forensic speech science by Anders Eriksson and Francisco Lacerda, and thereby know that lie detectors are junk science and are a complete fraud. Therefore, I refuse to submit to a request to be examined by a polygraph. I also have read the article by the 'Oklahoma Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services' entitled Oklahoma Study Finds Voice Stress Analysis “Testing” No Better Than Random Chance, and therefore refuse to submit to a Voice Stress Analysis request.
I, being an educated senior citizen in the history of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, being concerned about the flagrant desires of today's U. S. government to create dossiers on every citizen, prejudging all citizens as being potential criminals, without prior legal counsel, refuse to give a DNA sample.
I, recognize and know the fact that all police, prosecutors, and government employees will attempt to elicit statements from people through deceptive lies, and therefore the authorities can never be trusted to be telling anyone the truth.
I, recognize that any and all questions asked by the authorities are for the purpose of trapping people in their words. I recognize that the authorities purposely ask the same or similar question multiple times, endangering the innocent of innocently forgetting a fact, misspeaking concerning a fact, or remembering a fact more clearly at a later time, and as a result, honestly answering a question truthfully, the authorities then using such innocent discrepancies to charge that innocent person with the crime of lying to the authorities (Scooter Libby, Martha Stewart).
I, knowing it to be one of the first thing law enforcement will attempt to do, will not sign any statement and will not make a written statement of any kind.
Also read:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2203713
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID2203713_code45302.pdf?abstractid=2203713&mirid=1
You do not have my consent to take my fingerprints. You do not have my consent to take my DNA. You do not have my consent to take a blood sample. You do not have my consent to take a urine sample. You do not have my consent to take my picture.
And always worth reposting:
Don't Talk To The Police
Watch that. Then watch it again. Then watch it a million times and memorize it.
Also expand it to apply to prosecutors, potential witnesses and, frankly, *anyone* that might possibly have the slightest reason not to have your best interests in mind (ie.: anyone other than your retained counsel)
There is nothing you can say, do, express, explain or expound that can help you in any way. You have the right to remain silent and it is *ALWAYS* in your best interest to do so. It's not that anything you say may be used against you, it's that it absolutely, most definitely, most assuredly will be. And they will twist, manipulate and pervert anything and everything to fit the preconceived ends they already had in mind before they even met you.
As they say, you can beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride. Give them nothing.
television, telephone and tell-a-woman.
women cannot keep their stupid mouths shut regardless of the consequences
The advice in the famous Youtube video "don't talk to the cops" in unassailable. Why then are the posts saying the very opposite scoring votes of '5'? This is a lesson to all of you about how Slashdot works, and why. The so-called 'Karma' system disguises the fact that the owners of Slashdot are able to give the ability to various groups to promote pro-establishment, anti-Muslim, and pro-Israel posts independent of any such system.
You see, propaganda operations like Slashdot fall prey to 'gaming theory'. This means when Slashdot's various propaganda organizations use their ability to promote any post, that very act makes us aware that Slashdot's voting system is purposely 'bent'.
In the case of this story, smart propaganda groups would resist the temptation to laughably describe cops and prosecutors as 'honest', having already clearly lost this battle. However, such groups usually employ knuckle-dragging wage-slaves who get paid for each propaganda act on Slashdot, be it the comment, or the automatic promotion of the comment.
Now some scumbag posted the old "which way did the mugger go" story, so here's a true story to counter that!
Cop "Did you see the man I'm chasing? Which way did the man go?" ...
You "Over that wall, down that garden"
15 minutes later
Cop accompanied by hand-cuffed man "Is THIS the man you saw me chasing"
This is a true story, and perfectly demonstrates why even in a seemingly ideal situation, it is better to keep your trap shut (or unprovable lie).
This is further proof that speaking - even for a second - to the cops is a big mistake. Keep quiet no matter what they say.
Generally speaking a police officer is indistinguishable from a criminal gang member. If you are going to do something you would not do in the presence of a gang member you might want to think twice about it. Again, ask yourself the question,"Is this something I would do if I were being detained by a violent street gang member with a gun?"
Any form of challenge, disagreement, lack of cooperation, hostility, anger, or anything that could be interpreted even as the most mild form of disrespect is highly dangerous. These are people who are often completely amoral sociopaths. They will not feel guilt or remorse about injuring or killing you or anyone else. They could frame you for even the most serious of crimes and not feel even a hint of guilt afterward. Whether a particular cop happens to interpret silence as disrespect depends on the individual in question. Some will and some won't. It's a roll of the dice. Same as with an armed street gang member.
If the cop dealing with you looks mean or violent or angry you may have no choice but to answer if you want to avoid a long hospital stay or getting zipped up in a body bag or just old fashioned brain damage. Keep in mind that some cops simply will not take no for an answer. They may keep repeating the question until they get worked up enough to throw you down or start choking you or beating you or using their tazer on you until you comply. You have to know when to change tactics by dropping the assumption that they will obey the law. In this case trying to answer their questions without incriminating yourself is the key. Keep in mind that the cops can claim that you said a particular thing and a jury is more likely to believe him than you. They don't really need you to confess to a crime. They can do that for you and will not mind it. They are used to lying in court all the time and their police reports are often more fiction than fact. This is the unfortunate reality. Most people don't realize it until they or someone they know are thrown into the system themselves. Even then few people truly want to believe it.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
When talking with a prosecutor, you should never say absolutely nothing. If you remain silent in the face of an accusation, your silence can be entered into evidence against you under the rules governing adoptive admission. If someone asks you, "So why did you kill him?" and you remain silent, your silence can be considered by a court to be an admission that you killed the person in question.
Not every instance of silence is admissible as an adoptive admission -- but the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure are complicated and varied and unless you're a criminal defense lawyer you probably have no way of telling when silence is a good policy and when it will get you in trouble.
So, instead of being silent, you instead say, "If you give me your card, I'll have my lawyer get in touch with you to answer your questions." You take the card, you give it to your lawyer, and you follow his or her advice.
A good overview of the law regarding adoptive admissions and your potential risk when facing prosecutors: How To Avoid Going To Jail Under 18 USC 1001 For Lying To Investigators.
We all seem to be so happy in giving up Amendments to the Constitution, she should be happy at the consequences. We should give them all up. If you don't have the Second Amendment, you have to worry about the Fifth.
I get where you are coming from, but how do you know the cop doesn't think you did these things? Cops will also lie and say they are investigating someone else.
What can happen is you end up with a basic societal break down. When cops are allowed to lie or distort to get evidence, you lose the ability to talk to them.
To a large extent that has happened in some communities, these types of tactics destroy the police's relationship with the community. It is very serious and I would rather a few criminals escape then undermine basic social stability.
" there is nothing you can ever say that will help your case"
I was with the President at the time of the porn store robbery.
Excuse me but I am on my way to hearing an appeal - I sit on the SCOTUS.
I had a similar incident. I was accused of a minor crime. When I invoked my 5th and asked for a lawyer, the cops put handcuffs on my hands which were turned over so that the backs faced each other and behind my back. Then they sat me down on them in the back of the cruiser and questioned the other witnesses. Even though I was drunk, it began to hurt. After about 20 min, I was ready to confess to all three of the Kennedy assassinations. Afterwards, when they were driving me to the station, they laughed that they did not think I would have held out much longer. I told my lawyer (former Jr-DA for 12 years as well as an ex-cop) about this and wanted to press charges. He said, "Do you want to make this any harder than it needs to be?" How did I get such a fine lawyer? The bail-bondsman gave me his telephone number (telling me that he thinks that I can afford the best in town), so there is a machinery going on to help grease the system. Once I paid the lawyer his fees (including his trial fees), all charges were dropped and the case was dismissed without appearing in court. How can I not be happy with an outcome like that? If I tried to hold out much longer, I would be writing from the prison library.
She violated that, and lost. Talk to Tyler Durden.
Rule no 2: do not talk to feds.
Rule no 3: do NOT talk to feds.
... bitch.
"The anarchist dictum when it comes to grand juries" sounds like the Wise Guy's Creed to me.
...for a supposed journalist. NOTHING you say to police can possibly help you, or anyone else, EVER. Period.
"Hot lesbian witches! It's fucking genius!"
Lawyer up? You watch too much television. If you're a witness in a grand jury, you _have_ to talk unless what you say could actually incriminate you. If you somehow successfully plead the Fifth, then they'll just grant you immunity and now you have to talk no matter what.
Likewise with a typical stop on the road. You have to talk. Do you all have collective amnesia? Does Slashdot not remember Hiibel v. Nevada?
You can't just shut your mouth and ask for a lawyer. That only works once you're under arrest. Outside of the fairly limited circumstance of a custodial interrogation, things get murky pretty fast. You have to say something. The problem is that people just don't know when to stop after they open their mouths.
No court is ever going to permit legal a rule which allows everybody to completely stonewall the police.
That was the prosecutors game. If he reads it on the blog and introduces it as evidence, then it's free speech, someone espousing ideas on the web. Nothing special.
On the other hand, if he gets Norton to TELL him about it, then she could have conspired with Aaron to create it. Suddenly it's a conspiracy, a plot. Neither of them can prove that she didn't conspire before hand and then the blog entry followed later. So the prosecutor can introduce it as a dark conspiracy and then the defender then has to show that it was made public, and introduced evidence (which probably didn't exist) showing she read it on his blog.
It has to be said again and again, DO NOT TALK TO THE POLICE believing it will help anyone. It's never helpful, it is always about seeking evidence to prosecute someone:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
Bullshit. The thrust of that video, and all the videos out there that say the same thing, is really "Don't talk to cops if they suspect you of something, without counsel, ever" which is reasonable advice.
But in the real world, on planet earth, people all over the country call cops all the time to report things stolen, or assaults, or thefts, and the cops don't immediately go after the person who reports the crime. It's asinine to think that cops generally operate that way.
Come back to reality.
a central point of the talk in the video is that talking to cops can lead to them suspecting you of a crime in the first place and that for a layman it is impossible to know that he didn't commit some crime he might inadvertently inform the police about while talking to them.
They likely would have found the blog post anyway, not to mention that the prosecutor was open to a deal to get out of it :
Marty Weinberg, who took the case over from [initial lawyer Andy] Good, said he nearly negotiated a plea bargain in which Swartz would not serve any time. He said JSTOR signed off on it, but MIT would not.
With that said, prosecutors obviously know how dumb and naive juries are and used it, people who hear the word Manifesto (or the idiots on the jury) conjure thoughts of the Uni-Bomber, or some crazed person. The other word in the title "Guerrilla", a label associated with warfare..
There are several things about this women you could think of..
she thought she was a freedom fighter and going to F' over, the government.. knowing full well she should have STFU to begin with..
she did it to add her name into history, or maybe she was upset Aaron was no longer with her.
she really is as dumb as a dip stick, and wanted to make it look like she was helping the cause out.
More importantly did prosecutors threaten her with prison time to con her into statements? And she still should have had enough presents of mind to say "I want a lawyer", and to STFU, with or without a lawyer. I would have called the EFF, to see what they would have done to tell prosecutors to F' off..
With or without her statements would prosecutors have had enough to try a political assassination of Aaron Swartz? Previous PACER incident, the Anti-SOPA activism, all directed at government and Big Media. I think they would have gone after anyone. Really disturbing that people are directing there anger at anyone that may have cause Aaron to end his own life.
Western society claims to be founded on two principles: democracy and "rule of law". I am disillusioned with both these claims. If there are so many laws that you are likely violating something at any point in time and not every violation is prosecuted, then the situation from enforcing laws is turned on its head to hunting people -- which is precisely what "rule of law" is claimed to not do. Having hierarchically structured political parties that the voter is restricted to chosing from extinguishes the benefits claimed of democracy.
And Hiibel v. Nevada isn't applicable to every state, only those with Stop & Identify laws. IIRC Hiibel v. Nevada even mentions this in reference to Kolender v. Lawson.
There is quite a bit of difference between complying with legal requests by a law enforcement officer and answering vague open-ended questions that are superfluous to a LEO's execution of their job. Questions like "Do you know why I pulled you over?", "Why are you in such a hurry?" and my all time favorite: "Is there anything illegal in your possession that I should know about?"
But to be fair, you are absolutely right. When subpoenaed to appear before a grand jury and give testimony there isn't much you can do. And historically federal criminal prosecutors have used subpoena's to force individuals to divulge sensitive information against other members of their family, friends, cliques, groups or organizations. But some subpoena's can be squashed (not saying that is very likely or easy with a federal subpoena...) and most importantly, going in with the mindset and knowledge that you aren't going to some how miraculously say the magic words that make the situation all better is an important piece of information to understand and remember when answering questions. I'm sure a practiced attorney could help coach an individual on how to answer questions and the exact scope of the required complicity a subpoenaed individual most provide.
I.E. if a criminal investigator is asking you questions, they aren't asking you questions to get information to exonerate your friend/family member/self, that is not their job (that is your friend/family's defense attorney's job). They are asking you questions to give them evidence and help them build a case to so they can bring charges and/or convict someone of a crime.
On a side note, I present this quote from Supreme Court Justice of the United States Stephen Breyer, quoted in the oft famous (and I think cited several times on by other commentators on this topic...) "Don't talk to the Police" youtube video, as quoted from Rubin v. United States (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/98-93.ZD.html)
“...the complexity of modern federal criminal law, codified in several thousand sections of the United States Code and the virtually infinite variety of factual circumstances that might trigger an investigation into a possible violation of the law, make it difficult for anyone to know, in advance, just when a particular set of statements might later appear (to a prosecutor) to be relevant to some such investigation.”
Again, you are absolutely right. There wasn't much Quinn Norton could do when subpoenaed, but still I think this quote is particularly applicable given the context of the situation that Quinn Norton found herself in her unwitting contribution to the miscarriage and perversion of justice executed against Aaron Swartz.
I think subpoenas and discovery motions are two elements of our legal system that are oft abused to the detriment of this nation as a whole. The former by the zealous over-criminalization of America and the latter by copyright attorneys extorting money from individuals otherwise protected from identification by law. This case is just yet another incident of the rampant abuse of our legal system and what saddens and disgusts me is that there isn't much that can be done about it.
In my youth, I was curious about pretty much every non-mainstream opinion, so I checked them out, either by reading or by meeting with people from the far-left to the far-right of the political spectrum, as well as conspiracy theories, esoteric stuff - well, and of course lots of science and techie things.
In the political area, one thing stuck out so much that I remember it still. No matter if they were left, right, center or just strange, every movement that had some experience in dealing with the police had the same advice: When dealing with the police, here are the two things that you need to do:
1. ask for a lawyer
2. shut up
They aren't kidding when they say that anything you say can and will be used against you. Get a lawyer and talk to him, and him alone. And that is whenever you are dealing with the police, no matter if you are the suspect or not.
Now over the years, I've had quite a bit of friendly contact with the local police force, both privately and professionally (I work in IT security. Sooner or later, you get to deal with the police.)
Still, as a guideline to remember, I think it's pretty good.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
You might want to check out the recent TV show "The Firm". MC is a defense lawyer (albeit a private defender). IANAL, and I'm not a fan of lawyer shows-- but even I found myself saying "wow, that's some good lawyering". Unfortunately cancelled after its first season, but there is at least one complete and satisfying story arc for the season.
UTF-8: There and Back Again
No, really. This is a law professor explaining why you should never, EVER talk to the police. Watch this. It's almost an hour long, but worth every single second.
Don't Talk to Police
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
He grew up rich off of his dad's software royalties, he went to private school and had ever advantage. Yet he spent his whole life trying to prevent other people from earning money from their intellectual property.
No one's giving software developers free housing, free cars, free food, or free clothing -- until that happens on a massive scale giving away the one valuable thing we have is just stupid.
No, no, no... He is lucky to be *alive*. From the assault.
Someone holds me up at gunpoint, and I fight them off, then defending against an assault or manslaughter charge by self-defense may not be the most fun thing in the world. It might ruin me financially. But I'm *alive*. And if the cops keep me that way, bully for them.