9 ms·

A Law Professor Explains Why You Should Never Talk to Police

188 points by monsieurpng 10y ago

tsomctl 10y ago
TLDR: The lawyer in the viral YouTube video on not talking to the police has written a book on it. Also, due to a Supreme Court ruling, saying that you invoke the 5th amendment can be seen as admitting guilt.
- SamReidHughes 10y ago
  > Also, due to a Supreme Court ruling, saying that you invoke the 5th amendment can be seen as admitting guilt. If you say it by not saying it, after answering a bunch of questions.
  - michaelmrose 10y ago
    If I badger you endlessly with false accusations it's likely that you will eventually stop replying.
    - SamReidHughes 10y ago
      So? My point is, the TLDR is just plain wrong.
      - michaelmrose 10y ago
        I don't think so. There are tons of great reasons not to answer police questions ruling puts innocent defendants in the position in the position of answering to their detriment or having their silence used against them. This shouldn't even be constitutionally allowed.
- pervycreeper 10y ago
  Also, his name is James Duane, and the book's title is "You Have the Right to Remain Innocent", in case anyone is interested.
- aidenn0 10y ago
  IANAL, but my understanding of the supreme court decision is that if you stop answering questions, that can be presented to a jury as evidence that you may be guilty. A stupid example: Q: Did you kill Alice? A: No. Q: Did you kill Bob? A: No. Q: Did you kill Carol? A: silence They can then make the argument in court that since you stopped answering questions at the 3rd one that you are trying to hide something. This is why the advice is to just straight up refuse to answer any questions without a lawyer. "I want a lawyer" is not refusing to answer the question, just delaying it, so may not be covered by the current precedent.
  - mark212 10y ago
    I am a lawyer, and a former prosecutor and former defense attorney (I do civil law now). And invocation of your right to counsel is supposed to terminate all questioning. Very clear that it cannot be presented as evidence if the matter goes to trial.
    - aidenn0 10y ago
      My understanding is that in Salinas v. Texas the issue was that the defendant did not explicitly invoke this right, but was quiet; though apparently, at least one of the Justices was of the opinion that the 5th amendment rights do not apply when the person being questioned is not being detained.
- angry_octet 10y ago
  Not just actively invoking the fifth, but talking non-specifically to the police, and then choosing not to answer further questions when it becomes clear they are investigating you, is now explicitly evidence of guilt, which is absurd. So the only option is not to speak at all beyond the required minimum. Also, I'd say this is not the sort of thing one should tldr.
LyalinDotCom 10y ago
As someone who used to put on the uniform i can tell you this is really good advice. Be smart, it can save you.
- oofabz 10y ago
  The surprising thing is, it can save you even if you're innocent.
  - jessaustin 10y ago
    ISTM silence is even better for the innocent than it is for the guilty. An innocent suspect has no idea what sorts of statements will be interpreted as incriminating.
paulsutter 10y ago
One flaw with this advice is that it's difficult, impolite, awkward and unrealistic to stay perfectly silent. How about "my lawyer would be happy to answer all your questions"? Does that work?
- sjcsjc 10y ago
  From the article: Other than that, Duane says, you should fall back on four short words: "I want a lawyer."
- ryanmonroe 10y ago
  If the police are trying to get you to talk without a lawyer, they're the ones being impolite. You're just trying to avoid being thrown in jail.
- Zigurd 10y ago
  Of course you should be polite. It's possible to speak and say nothing up until you need to say "I see you have some important questions. Let's arrange a time when my lawyer can be present."
- jimmywanger 10y ago
  That is _exactly_ what the police want to exploit when they're questioning you - social norms and politeness. When you're having a conversation, we're conditioned to find long pauses awkward and uncomfortable. That's why when you start not saying anything during a conversation, the other person will jump in and start filling the dead air. It's useful during negotiations, because the person will start jumping in with concessions, trying to make things less awkward, when you let silences stretch out when it's "your turn to talk". Just remember, the police are not your friends. They want something out of you. Don't give them a single inch. "I want a lawyer" or "I want my lawyer" and then shutting up has nothing difficult, impolite, awkward, or unrealistic about it. If you're worried about politeness when the cops are trying to pin a crime on you, I really don't know what to say except think about how impolite it would be for them to arrest you.
Waterluvian 10y ago
I would love to know how legally and practically this all works in Canada. I feel like it may be very similar, but different enough to matter.
- adrianratnapala 10y ago
  I can only offer vague prejudices here, but... My guess is that outside the USA your legal protections are likely similar or a bit weaker, but the cops are less likely to be antagonistic. (And even in the USA, it will depend on locality and all kinds of circumstances). Various incentives exist for police and prosecutors to aggressively put people behind bars. I think these are stronger in the populist US, than in other rich democracies where beaurocratic respectability is more valued.
- feklar 10y ago
  The same, by not saying anything to police who question you on the street it can be 'obstruction' if you don't ask for a lawyer first before being silent, unless you are arrested and your right to be silent is given to you. Also in Canada police don't have to stop talking to you if you've requested a lawyer they can still keep you in interrogation trying to get you to talk for as long as they want, which usually means all weekend until you see a judge on Monday morning. http://www.edelsonlaw.ca/news/show/40/8/0000/0 http://www.edelsonlaw.ca/news/show/40/8/0000/0 Any informants they place in your cell with you, regardless of you asking for a lawyer may continue to interrogate you as well. Your prison phone calls can also be recorded and used against you, again regardless if you've asked and not seen a lawyer so if you phone your job and make up an excuse why you won't be there on Monday morning, that excuse can be used against you in court. A well known trick is for the police to place you with an informant who offers you a cellphone, because typically you have to call 3-4 people when arrested (family/gf, job, a lawyer) instead of just the one phone call they have to give you (which they don't have to provide until days after you are arrested). This contraband phone will be recorded hoping you say something incriminating, or just hoping you lie so they can prove later you are a "known liar" since most people don't want to tell their employer they've just been arrested and will lie about it.
  - 10y ago
grecy 10y ago
>He didn't say a word. And there's no doubt that he was exercising his Fifth Amendment privilege, but he didn't [formally] assert his Fifth Amendment privilege. So the five Republican [appointees] on the Supreme Court said, Because you didn't tell the police that you were using your Fifth Amendment privilege, your exercise of the privilege, or your decision to remain silent can be used against you as evidence of guilt. Wow, just wow. Even when you choose to say nothing, that can be used against you as guilt. It really seems like the American way is guilty until proven innocent, and there will be no let up and everyone is in jail!
- noonespecial 10y ago
  They don't want to put everyone in jail, they just want to be able to put anyone in jail.
  - TeMPOraL 10y ago
    No, they want to keep the jail inflow at a steady level, to ensure profits for both police and the jails.
    - tptacek 10y ago
      The overwhelming majority of prisons are not run for profit, their staffing is a drain on public resources, and they're generally underfunded given their inmate population. There are privately run prisons in the US, but they do not define the system. Incarceration is expensive --- so expensive that criminal justice reform is starting to become a bipartisan issue at the federal level.
      - wfo 10y ago
        Private prisons are often used as a bogeyman because they are so obviously inarguably morally repulsive that they are an easy target. But they aren't as significant as most people would make them out to be. That being said, there is still an enormous profit motive attached to much of the current criminal justice system. There are a huge number of people who make their living off of it (and often times a whole lot more than a living) and have a vested economic interest in continuing business as usual. To pick a couple of easy examples, in California, the union for prison guards is an enormously powerful lobby (smaller than the teacher's union but more politically powerful) and spends a huge amount of time and money pushing for longer sentences and more incarceration. The alcohol industry very much likes that the criminal justice system is locking people in cages when they choose to use a competing product and is lobbying very hard to keep marijuana illegal wherever it can. Prisoners are used to work at slave wages for large private companies who make a killing off of it. So while I'll accept the dismissal of the private prison issue which is rarely significant but exhaustingly invariably raised in every single discussion even tangentially touching CJ, there's some meat to what GP is saying. And we're not quite anywhere near bipartisanship on CJ reform yet at least on a federal level; half the presidential candidates have decried any attempts to reform CJ and declared themselves the "law and order candidates"
aaronbrethorst 10y ago
Predictably, the SCOTUS case discussed in the article, Salinas v. Texas, split down conservative/progressive lines, with Kennedy casting the deciding vote to abrogate our 5th amendment privileges. Three members of the Supreme Court are over the age of 70—Kennedy is 80. Vote accordingly next month.
- briandear 10y ago
  However, Scalia's dissent in Maryland vs. King was a truly conservative-based dissent. You also have Kyllo vs. United States where 'liberals' Kennedy and O'Conner dissented and 'conservatives' Scalia and Thomas joined Ginsburg and Breyer in the majority that established using FLIR without a warrant was a violation of the 4th Amendment. In US vs. Jones, Scalia again wrote the majority opinion enstablisbing that a GPS tracker on a car is a violation of the 4th. We also have Riley vs. California, Hamdi vs. Rumsfeld (where Scalia'd dissent was joined by John Paul Stevens.) My point is that we need justices that follow the Constitution and not justices that follow a party. I don't particularly trust Clinton to pick constitutionalist justices while Trump is a wildcard (he isn't even remotely conservative, so it's likely his picks would likely be more centrist to please his own centrist views without alienating the Republican voters.) I don't like Trump or Clinton, but I think Trump picks will likely be more moderate than anyone Clinton might select. However my opinion doesn't matter, what I'm trying to say is that a vote for Hillary doesn't mean a vote for judges that will rule correctly. It doesn't mean a vote against those judges either. But 'vote accordingly' is meaningless because there is no 'accordingly.' For example, look at Kagan's opinion in Ransom v. FIA Card Services.. She sided with the credit card company over a consumer in a bankruptcy case while Scalia was the only dissent in the 8-1 decision. Vote accordingly.. ok how? Meaning, there is no such thing. "Liberal" justices aren't always "liberal" in ways that you might like and "conservative" doesn't always mean what you think. The court is far more nuanced. A balanced court is far safer than one ideologically disposed to one extreme or another. It would be very dangerous to have an entire court of John Paul Stevenses just as it would be dangerous to have a court filled with Clarence Thomases.
  - mseebach 10y ago
    You seem to imply that the court ruled incorrectly in the Ransom v. case. I skimmed through it (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ransom_v._FIA_Card_Services,_N.A. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ransom_v._FIA_Card_Services,...) and while I most certainly am not a legal scholar, it seems fairly straightforward? No, it doesn't cost $28k to own a car you already own outright for five years (operating expenses are claimed separately and not controversial here) and you don't get to protect that money in a bankruptcy. What am I not seeing? (To be fair, and to underscore the degree to which I am not a legal scholar, I don't understand the substance of Scalia's dissent.)
Diederich 10y ago
What's even more impressive about this old presentation is the second half: https://youtu.be/d-7o9xYp7eE?t=26m52s https://youtu.be/d-7o9xYp7eE?t=26m52s This is where a cop comes up after the 'slick lawyer' (who is giving fantastic advice the whole time) and completely agrees with him.
soVeryTired 10y ago
Some of what this guy is saying is moot because of the reprehensible tradition of plea bargaining in the United States. As far as I know (IANAL), most criminal accusations don't go to trial because the prosecutors throw everything they have at the defendant. If you're accused of a crime, it's often crazy to try to defend yourself: if you try to do so and lose, it'll ruin your life. Better just to plead out and take a deal. If the prosecutors can force you to gamble for your life and livelihood, it doesn't matter what evidence they have against you. The only way around the problem is to remain compliant and never get accused of anything.
- morganvachon 10y ago
  > The only way around the problem is to remain compliant and never get accused of anything. The issue with that is that it is becoming increasingly difficult to live a normal American life without breaking a few laws every now and then, and not even realizing it. The book's author touched on this during the interview, but basically more and more "everyday" actions are becoming criminalized over time. Technically, committing a crime implies criminal intent, but that notion has been absent from our justice system for a very long time. Look at how many laws are on the books about "negligent" crimes, those committed not out of intent but out of ignorance or forgetfulness. Traffic laws are easy to pick on for this metric, since in most states the driving tests barely scratch the surface of the body of traffic law. In some states you can be jailed over any moving violation at the officer's discretion, and that combined with the general attitude of "don't fight the ticket, just pay it" means you've just become part of the system, and this stacks the deck against you making it easier to gain a conviction if you're accused of a more serious crime later in life.
  - chx 10y ago
    > The issue with that is that it is becoming increasingly difficult to live a normal American life without breaking a few laws every now and then, and not even realizing it. Well that has been the case for a while now, the Three Felonies A Day book https://smile.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229 https://smile.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/... is from 2009. Although of course the bombastic claim in the title is disputed http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/22530/does-the-average-american-unwittingly-commit-three-felonies-a-day http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/22530/does-the-a... it essentially claims the exact same as you.
maxxxxx 10y ago
This may be good advice but it indicates that something is very, very wrong with this society if you can't talk to cops.
- praptak 10y ago
  Might it be as simple as the economy? I mean the police needs unchecked power to keep the bottom of the 99% in line.
  - DelaneyM 10y ago
    I don't think there's any indication that the bottom 99% commit fewer crimes or require less policing.
ap22213 10y ago
What does one do if stopped in traffic? Just say, 'I want a lawyer?' Seems like that would get you arrested (or worse).
- TeMPOraL 10y ago
  I'm waiting for this scene to really happen in the US: (A police officer walks into a doughnut shop.) - Good day Sir, how much these doughnuts cost? - I want a lawyer.
  - falcolas 10y ago
    Is it sad that I can visualize a scene where that's the right thing to do? Such as when the prices are clearly marked, and the person behind the counter is on parole (but hasn't violated it). Yeah, it is sad.
- alistairSH 10y ago
  Honestly, that would depend on whereI was pulled over and whether or not I had been speeding. If I get pulled over out-of-state for no apparent reason, I'm probably not saying anything other than my name, handing over my ID, and waiting for a ticket. An as soon as the cop asks me to leave the vehicle or asks about my reason for being where I am, I'm refusing to answer.
partycoder 10y ago
Some cops are more patient and compliant with the law than others. It does not matter how well you know the law, if you have someone that has a strong preference towards violence (e.g: asking for identification, then shooting you dead when you reach for your wallet = suspecting you are armed).
tzs 10y ago
How far do you take this? If I see someone in a car throw some trash at a bicyclist, and then swerve and knock the cyclist off the road...should I not give a description of the car and driver to the police? Or suppose a child disappears on the way home from school. Police ask people along the child's normal route if they saw her that day (they are trying to narrow down where she may have been abducted). I was out mowing the lawn that afternoon and did see her walk by, and know the time to within 5 minutes. Should I not tell the police? In prior discussions of this video on other forums, people have told me that based on it they would in fact not say anything in the above examples. If people won't tell the police these kind of things, it is going to be a lot easier to persuade people to support pervasive public surveillance.
- perlgeek 10y ago
  If this becomes pervasive, maybe there'll be some legislation that protects the population better from the police?
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- sandworm101 10y ago
  Yes. Remember that a lawyer only represents his client. The missing child is not his client. His client is the person on the street. That said, every interaction with police increasing your risk. If your only interest is in your own legal wellbeing, don't talk. In the cases of things like missing kids, there are normally anonymous tip lines for missing children. Beware the situation where there is no tip line. Cops are not above claiming to be searching for a lost kid when in reality they are looking for people who were on the street at a particular time. "I didn't see her" is an admission that you were there, which may result in a not-good interrogation as to some other things that happened. You may now be on their list of suspects for whatever they are actually investigating.
- rayiner 10y ago
  > I was out mowing the lawn that afternoon and did see her walk by, and know the time to within 5 minutes. Should I not tell the police? You do not want to be the last person who saw a missing kid.

188 points by monsieurpng 10y ago

TLDR: The lawyer in the viral YouTube video on not talking to the police has written a book on it. Also, due to a Supreme Court ruling, saying that you invoke the 5th amendment can be seen as admitting guilt.

SamReidHughes 10y ago
> Also, due to a Supreme Court ruling, saying that you invoke the 5th amendment can be seen as admitting guilt. If you say it by not saying it, after answering a bunch of questions.
- michaelmrose 10y ago
  If I badger you endlessly with false accusations it's likely that you will eventually stop replying.
  - SamReidHughes 10y ago
    So? My point is, the TLDR is just plain wrong.
    - michaelmrose 10y ago
      I don't think so. There are tons of great reasons not to answer police questions ruling puts innocent defendants in the position in the position of answering to their detriment or having their silence used against them. This shouldn't even be constitutionally allowed.
pervycreeper 10y ago
Also, his name is James Duane, and the book's title is "You Have the Right to Remain Innocent", in case anyone is interested.
aidenn0 10y ago
IANAL, but my understanding of the supreme court decision is that if you stop answering questions, that can be presented to a jury as evidence that you may be guilty. A stupid example: Q: Did you kill Alice? A: No. Q: Did you kill Bob? A: No. Q: Did you kill Carol? A: silence They can then make the argument in court that since you stopped answering questions at the 3rd one that you are trying to hide something. This is why the advice is to just straight up refuse to answer any questions without a lawyer. "I want a lawyer" is not refusing to answer the question, just delaying it, so may not be covered by the current precedent.
- mark212 10y ago
  I am a lawyer, and a former prosecutor and former defense attorney (I do civil law now). And invocation of your right to counsel is supposed to terminate all questioning. Very clear that it cannot be presented as evidence if the matter goes to trial.
  - aidenn0 10y ago
    My understanding is that in Salinas v. Texas the issue was that the defendant did not explicitly invoke this right, but was quiet; though apparently, at least one of the Justices was of the opinion that the 5th amendment rights do not apply when the person being questioned is not being detained.
angry_octet 10y ago
Not just actively invoking the fifth, but talking non-specifically to the police, and then choosing not to answer further questions when it becomes clear they are investigating you, is now explicitly evidence of guilt, which is absurd. So the only option is not to speak at all beyond the required minimum. Also, I'd say this is not the sort of thing one should tldr.

LyalinDotCom 10y ago

As someone who used to put on the uniform i can tell you this is really good advice. Be smart, it can save you.

oofabz 10y ago
The surprising thing is, it can save you even if you're innocent.
- jessaustin 10y ago
  ISTM silence is even better for the innocent than it is for the guilty. An innocent suspect has no idea what sorts of statements will be interpreted as incriminating.

paulsutter 10y ago

One flaw with this advice is that it's difficult, impolite, awkward and unrealistic to stay perfectly silent. How about "my lawyer would be happy to answer all your questions"? Does that work?

sjcsjc 10y ago
From the article: Other than that, Duane says, you should fall back on four short words: "I want a lawyer."
ryanmonroe 10y ago
If the police are trying to get you to talk without a lawyer, they're the ones being impolite. You're just trying to avoid being thrown in jail.
Zigurd 10y ago
Of course you should be polite. It's possible to speak and say nothing up until you need to say "I see you have some important questions. Let's arrange a time when my lawyer can be present."
jimmywanger 10y ago
That is _exactly_ what the police want to exploit when they're questioning you - social norms and politeness. When you're having a conversation, we're conditioned to find long pauses awkward and uncomfortable. That's why when you start not saying anything during a conversation, the other person will jump in and start filling the dead air. It's useful during negotiations, because the person will start jumping in with concessions, trying to make things less awkward, when you let silences stretch out when it's "your turn to talk". Just remember, the police are not your friends. They want something out of you. Don't give them a single inch. "I want a lawyer" or "I want my lawyer" and then shutting up has nothing difficult, impolite, awkward, or unrealistic about it. If you're worried about politeness when the cops are trying to pin a crime on you, I really don't know what to say except think about how impolite it would be for them to arrest you.

Waterluvian 10y ago

I would love to know how legally and practically this all works in Canada. I feel like it may be very similar, but different enough to matter.

adrianratnapala 10y ago
I can only offer vague prejudices here, but... My guess is that outside the USA your legal protections are likely similar or a bit weaker, but the cops are less likely to be antagonistic. (And even in the USA, it will depend on locality and all kinds of circumstances). Various incentives exist for police and prosecutors to aggressively put people behind bars. I think these are stronger in the populist US, than in other rich democracies where beaurocratic respectability is more valued.
feklar 10y ago
The same, by not saying anything to police who question you on the street it can be 'obstruction' if you don't ask for a lawyer first before being silent, unless you are arrested and your right to be silent is given to you. Also in Canada police don't have to stop talking to you if you've requested a lawyer they can still keep you in interrogation trying to get you to talk for as long as they want, which usually means all weekend until you see a judge on Monday morning. http://www.edelsonlaw.ca/news/show/40/8/0000/0 http://www.edelsonlaw.ca/news/show/40/8/0000/0 Any informants they place in your cell with you, regardless of you asking for a lawyer may continue to interrogate you as well. Your prison phone calls can also be recorded and used against you, again regardless if you've asked and not seen a lawyer so if you phone your job and make up an excuse why you won't be there on Monday morning, that excuse can be used against you in court. A well known trick is for the police to place you with an informant who offers you a cellphone, because typically you have to call 3-4 people when arrested (family/gf, job, a lawyer) instead of just the one phone call they have to give you (which they don't have to provide until days after you are arrested). This contraband phone will be recorded hoping you say something incriminating, or just hoping you lie so they can prove later you are a "known liar" since most people don't want to tell their employer they've just been arrested and will lie about it.
- 10y ago

grecy 10y ago

>He didn't say a word. And there's no doubt that he was exercising his Fifth Amendment privilege, but he didn't [formally] assert his Fifth Amendment privilege. So the five Republican [appointees] on the Supreme Court said, Because you didn't tell the police that you were using your Fifth Amendment privilege, your exercise of the privilege, or your decision to remain silent can be used against you as evidence of guilt. Wow, just wow. Even when you choose to say nothing, that can be used against you as guilt. It really seems like the American way is guilty until proven innocent, and there will be no let up and everyone is in jail!

noonespecial 10y ago
They don't want to put everyone in jail, they just want to be able to put anyone in jail.
- TeMPOraL 10y ago
  No, they want to keep the jail inflow at a steady level, to ensure profits for both police and the jails.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    The overwhelming majority of prisons are not run for profit, their staffing is a drain on public resources, and they're generally underfunded given their inmate population. There are privately run prisons in the US, but they do not define the system. Incarceration is expensive --- so expensive that criminal justice reform is starting to become a bipartisan issue at the federal level.
    - wfo 10y ago
      Private prisons are often used as a bogeyman because they are so obviously inarguably morally repulsive that they are an easy target. But they aren't as significant as most people would make them out to be. That being said, there is still an enormous profit motive attached to much of the current criminal justice system. There are a huge number of people who make their living off of it (and often times a whole lot more than a living) and have a vested economic interest in continuing business as usual. To pick a couple of easy examples, in California, the union for prison guards is an enormously powerful lobby (smaller than the teacher's union but more politically powerful) and spends a huge amount of time and money pushing for longer sentences and more incarceration. The alcohol industry very much likes that the criminal justice system is locking people in cages when they choose to use a competing product and is lobbying very hard to keep marijuana illegal wherever it can. Prisoners are used to work at slave wages for large private companies who make a killing off of it. So while I'll accept the dismissal of the private prison issue which is rarely significant but exhaustingly invariably raised in every single discussion even tangentially touching CJ, there's some meat to what GP is saying. And we're not quite anywhere near bipartisanship on CJ reform yet at least on a federal level; half the presidential candidates have decried any attempts to reform CJ and declared themselves the "law and order candidates"

aaronbrethorst 10y ago

Predictably, the SCOTUS case discussed in the article, Salinas v. Texas, split down conservative/progressive lines, with Kennedy casting the deciding vote to abrogate our 5th amendment privileges. Three members of the Supreme Court are over the age of 70—Kennedy is 80. Vote accordingly next month.

briandear 10y ago
However, Scalia's dissent in Maryland vs. King was a truly conservative-based dissent. You also have Kyllo vs. United States where 'liberals' Kennedy and O'Conner dissented and 'conservatives' Scalia and Thomas joined Ginsburg and Breyer in the majority that established using FLIR without a warrant was a violation of the 4th Amendment. In US vs. Jones, Scalia again wrote the majority opinion enstablisbing that a GPS tracker on a car is a violation of the 4th. We also have Riley vs. California, Hamdi vs. Rumsfeld (where Scalia'd dissent was joined by John Paul Stevens.) My point is that we need justices that follow the Constitution and not justices that follow a party. I don't particularly trust Clinton to pick constitutionalist justices while Trump is a wildcard (he isn't even remotely conservative, so it's likely his picks would likely be more centrist to please his own centrist views without alienating the Republican voters.) I don't like Trump or Clinton, but I think Trump picks will likely be more moderate than anyone Clinton might select. However my opinion doesn't matter, what I'm trying to say is that a vote for Hillary doesn't mean a vote for judges that will rule correctly. It doesn't mean a vote against those judges either. But 'vote accordingly' is meaningless because there is no 'accordingly.' For example, look at Kagan's opinion in Ransom v. FIA Card Services.. She sided with the credit card company over a consumer in a bankruptcy case while Scalia was the only dissent in the 8-1 decision. Vote accordingly.. ok how? Meaning, there is no such thing. "Liberal" justices aren't always "liberal" in ways that you might like and "conservative" doesn't always mean what you think. The court is far more nuanced. A balanced court is far safer than one ideologically disposed to one extreme or another. It would be very dangerous to have an entire court of John Paul Stevenses just as it would be dangerous to have a court filled with Clarence Thomases.
- mseebach 10y ago
  You seem to imply that the court ruled incorrectly in the Ransom v. case. I skimmed through it (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ransom_v._FIA_Card_Services,_N.A. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ransom_v._FIA_Card_Services,...) and while I most certainly am not a legal scholar, it seems fairly straightforward? No, it doesn't cost $28k to own a car you already own outright for five years (operating expenses are claimed separately and not controversial here) and you don't get to protect that money in a bankruptcy. What am I not seeing? (To be fair, and to underscore the degree to which I am not a legal scholar, I don't understand the substance of Scalia's dissent.)

Diederich 10y ago

What's even more impressive about this old presentation is the second half: https://youtu.be/d-7o9xYp7eE?t=26m52s https://youtu.be/d-7o9xYp7eE?t=26m52s This is where a cop comes up after the 'slick lawyer' (who is giving fantastic advice the whole time) and completely agrees with him.

soVeryTired 10y ago

Some of what this guy is saying is moot because of the reprehensible tradition of plea bargaining in the United States. As far as I know (IANAL), most criminal accusations don't go to trial because the prosecutors throw everything they have at the defendant. If you're accused of a crime, it's often crazy to try to defend yourself: if you try to do so and lose, it'll ruin your life. Better just to plead out and take a deal. If the prosecutors can force you to gamble for your life and livelihood, it doesn't matter what evidence they have against you. The only way around the problem is to remain compliant and never get accused of anything.

morganvachon 10y ago
> The only way around the problem is to remain compliant and never get accused of anything. The issue with that is that it is becoming increasingly difficult to live a normal American life without breaking a few laws every now and then, and not even realizing it. The book's author touched on this during the interview, but basically more and more "everyday" actions are becoming criminalized over time. Technically, committing a crime implies criminal intent, but that notion has been absent from our justice system for a very long time. Look at how many laws are on the books about "negligent" crimes, those committed not out of intent but out of ignorance or forgetfulness. Traffic laws are easy to pick on for this metric, since in most states the driving tests barely scratch the surface of the body of traffic law. In some states you can be jailed over any moving violation at the officer's discretion, and that combined with the general attitude of "don't fight the ticket, just pay it" means you've just become part of the system, and this stacks the deck against you making it easier to gain a conviction if you're accused of a more serious crime later in life.
- chx 10y ago
  > The issue with that is that it is becoming increasingly difficult to live a normal American life without breaking a few laws every now and then, and not even realizing it. Well that has been the case for a while now, the Three Felonies A Day book https://smile.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229 https://smile.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/... is from 2009. Although of course the bombastic claim in the title is disputed http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/22530/does-the-average-american-unwittingly-commit-three-felonies-a-day http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/22530/does-the-a... it essentially claims the exact same as you.

maxxxxx 10y ago

This may be good advice but it indicates that something is very, very wrong with this society if you can't talk to cops.

praptak 10y ago
Might it be as simple as the economy? I mean the police needs unchecked power to keep the bottom of the 99% in line.
- DelaneyM 10y ago
  I don't think there's any indication that the bottom 99% commit fewer crimes or require less policing.

ap22213 10y ago

What does one do if stopped in traffic? Just say, 'I want a lawyer?' Seems like that would get you arrested (or worse).

TeMPOraL 10y ago
I'm waiting for this scene to really happen in the US: (A police officer walks into a doughnut shop.) - Good day Sir, how much these doughnuts cost? - I want a lawyer.
- falcolas 10y ago
  Is it sad that I can visualize a scene where that's the right thing to do? Such as when the prices are clearly marked, and the person behind the counter is on parole (but hasn't violated it). Yeah, it is sad.
alistairSH 10y ago
Honestly, that would depend on whereI was pulled over and whether or not I had been speeding. If I get pulled over out-of-state for no apparent reason, I'm probably not saying anything other than my name, handing over my ID, and waiting for a ticket. An as soon as the cop asks me to leave the vehicle or asks about my reason for being where I am, I'm refusing to answer.

partycoder 10y ago

Some cops are more patient and compliant with the law than others. It does not matter how well you know the law, if you have someone that has a strong preference towards violence (e.g: asking for identification, then shooting you dead when you reach for your wallet = suspecting you are armed).

tzs 10y ago

How far do you take this? If I see someone in a car throw some trash at a bicyclist, and then swerve and knock the cyclist off the road...should I not give a description of the car and driver to the police? Or suppose a child disappears on the way home from school. Police ask people along the child's normal route if they saw her that day (they are trying to narrow down where she may have been abducted). I was out mowing the lawn that afternoon and did see her walk by, and know the time to within 5 minutes. Should I not tell the police? In prior discussions of this video on other forums, people have told me that based on it they would in fact not say anything in the above examples. If people won't tell the police these kind of things, it is going to be a lot easier to persuade people to support pervasive public surveillance.

perlgeek 10y ago
If this becomes pervasive, maybe there'll be some legislation that protects the population better from the police?
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
sandworm101 10y ago
Yes. Remember that a lawyer only represents his client. The missing child is not his client. His client is the person on the street. That said, every interaction with police increasing your risk. If your only interest is in your own legal wellbeing, don't talk. In the cases of things like missing kids, there are normally anonymous tip lines for missing children. Beware the situation where there is no tip line. Cops are not above claiming to be searching for a lost kid when in reality they are looking for people who were on the street at a particular time. "I didn't see her" is an admission that you were there, which may result in a not-good interrogation as to some other things that happened. You may now be on their list of suspects for whatever they are actually investigating.
rayiner 10y ago
> I was out mowing the lawn that afternoon and did see her walk by, and know the time to within 5 minutes. Should I not tell the police? You do not want to be the last person who saw a missing kid.