>If the police are at your door, they might just know you might have been a witness to something, and are there to look for leads (i.e. "we know you were at [pl

>If the police are at your door, they might just know you might have been a witness to something, and are there to look for leads (i.e. "we know you were at [place] at [time]" or "[crime] happened in your building", followed by "did you see or hear anyone or anything suspicious?") And if you accidentally screw up the answer (very possible, people's memories are terrible even without stress and in a rush to answer) you may now be a criminal, or (possibly just as bad) might make them think you're a criminal. The latter isn't even just about you, it's about overall justice and society too: if they're spending time and resources investigating someone innocent, by definition that's time and resources not spent on whomever actually did it. Like all general guidelines, there are always limited exceptions to the rule, every adult should be able to use their brains a bit and know when considered deviation is justified. Yes, there may be times where instantaneous response really matters, you can perfectly well imagine scenarios where a criminal literally just ran by and an officer runs up asking if you saw them, no of course you don't need to insist on a lawyer. But in most cases seconds/minutes are not of the essence, and the benefit/risk ratio of just invoking your rights and going through the process carefully is so hilariously (or terrifyingly as the case may be) weighted towards counsel that it really should be considered the standard course of action. We are almost always operating at a vast situational knowledge disadvantage in any of these interactions, and it's prudent to take that into account. This isn't about not cooperating or not appreciating the police or importance of justice, it's about proceeding with due deliberation.