4 ms·

As soon as you open your mouth, "what you say" becomes your word against the officer's word. The officer can write down whatever notes he/she wants, however in

As soon as you open your mouth, "what you say" becomes your word against the officer's word. The officer can write down whatever notes he/she wants, however inaccurate, whether intentionally inaccurate or otherwise, then go testify in court later, under oath, that this is what you admitted to. Now you're trying to argue to a jury that you(the accused, but of course, presumed innocent...yea right) is telling the truth, and the sworn officer is lying. That's not a good situation to be in, regardless of your actual guilt or wrongdoing. There is a reason that anyone who has ever had any substantial contact with law enforcement will tell you NEVER TALK TO THE POLICE. You have a 5th amendment right, and a very well known Supreme Court case Miranda V Arizona that clarifies that. I personally have seen literally hundreds of cases that would have been dismissed before they ever made it to a jury had the defendant not opened his/her mouth. I make no judgments on the actual guilt of the defendant.

derefr 9y ago
Interesting. So, would you advise—if you do want to give a witness statement, because, say, someone close to you was attacked—just telling the officer (in not so many words) to go away; and then, later, writing out a witness statement and bringing it down to a police station?
- sathackr 9y ago
  Depending on the exigency of the circumstances I would definitely suggest not giving a verbal statement, and preferably consult a lawyer before giving any statement whatsoever to the police. If your friend's life is at risk or in danger, you may not have some of these options and would have to make a judgement call at that time. I personally would do almost anything to protect someone I cared without regard to the risk to myself.
  - derefr 9y ago
    See, that's the thing, though; I see this kind of weighted decision-tree logic as only being applicable exactly when the situation has dire risks on both sides. Disregarding risk when someone you care about is in danger, is exactly how people end up with charges pinned on them, no? If you, concerned about a missing friend, talk to police about how you were likely the last person to see them, then if they turn up dead, you might to blame. It's important exactly for these cases to be able to know what you should do, and how to do it properly, in order to be able to do the most to help those you love, with the least risk. Not to say "never"; not to say "screw it, this time's different, tell them everything"; but to know the precise shape of the middle path you must tread.
dragonwriter 9y ago
> The officer can write down whatever notes he/she wants, however inaccurate, whether intentionally inaccurate or otherwise, then go testify in court later, under oath, that this is what you admitted to. In a day and age when every is carrying around an audio recorder, this can be mitigated to some extent, in the case where there may be an exigency which motivated you not to want to wait to get a lawyer involved, by asking the officer to permit you to record the interview. (Police body cams may also mitigate it in principle, but even in departments which use them they seem to have been conveniently switched off when people are most interested in what they contain.) If the officer refuses, well, that's probably a pretty strong signal that despite the apparent exigency, you need to involve a lawyer.
- sathackr 9y ago
  I have done exactly this.

derefr 9y ago

Interesting. So, would you advise—if you do want to give a witness statement, because, say, someone close to you was attacked—just telling the officer (in not so many words) to go away; and then, later, writing out a witness statement and bringing it down to a police station?

sathackr 9y ago
Depending on the exigency of the circumstances I would definitely suggest not giving a verbal statement, and preferably consult a lawyer before giving any statement whatsoever to the police. If your friend's life is at risk or in danger, you may not have some of these options and would have to make a judgement call at that time. I personally would do almost anything to protect someone I cared without regard to the risk to myself.
- derefr 9y ago
  See, that's the thing, though; I see this kind of weighted decision-tree logic as only being applicable exactly when the situation has dire risks on both sides. Disregarding risk when someone you care about is in danger, is exactly how people end up with charges pinned on them, no? If you, concerned about a missing friend, talk to police about how you were likely the last person to see them, then if they turn up dead, you might to blame. It's important exactly for these cases to be able to know what you should do, and how to do it properly, in order to be able to do the most to help those you love, with the least risk. Not to say "never"; not to say "screw it, this time's different, tell them everything"; but to know the precise shape of the middle path you must tread.

dragonwriter 9y ago

> The officer can write down whatever notes he/she wants, however inaccurate, whether intentionally inaccurate or otherwise, then go testify in court later, under oath, that this is what you admitted to. In a day and age when every is carrying around an audio recorder, this can be mitigated to some extent, in the case where there may be an exigency which motivated you not to want to wait to get a lawyer involved, by asking the officer to permit you to record the interview. (Police body cams may also mitigate it in principle, but even in departments which use them they seem to have been conveniently switched off when people are most interested in what they contain.) If the officer refuses, well, that's probably a pretty strong signal that despite the apparent exigency, you need to involve a lawyer.

sathackr 9y ago
I have done exactly this.