12 ms·

Don't Talk to the Police (2012)

190 points by Red_Tarsius 9y ago

slazaro 9y ago
I keep rewatching this video every now and then, very recommended if you're from the U.S. I wonder how much does all this information apply to other countries (for instance, in the EU).
- microcolonel 9y ago
  In countries with rights, all of the same applies.
  - emodendroket 9y ago
    The way in which those rights are legally secured (in addition to the rights even conceived of) differs from one country to another, even in countries we'd generally consider as those which respect human rights and the rule of law.
- whamlastxmas 9y ago
  I think a lot of countries have the ability to hold your silence against you. Thankfully this isn't the case in the US.
  - the-dude 9y ago
    Citation needed.
    - blibble 9y ago
      in the UK there are specific circumstances where adverse inferences may be made from silence, the police caution is: > You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence. the wikipedia article goes into details: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence_in_England_and_Wales#Adverse_inferences_from_silence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence_in_England_an...
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - cortic 9y ago
      “You do not have to say anything. But, it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.” https://www.gov.uk/arrested-your-rights https://www.gov.uk/arrested-your-rights I imagine there is a sizable amount of injustice in the UK due to not having a 4th amendment like rights.
      - jopsen 9y ago
        If you listen to the video, the professor says that nothing you say to the US police can be used to defend you later. From your quote we see that this is not the case in the UK. Something you say can later be used in your defense, so clearly if you choose to say nothing -- you have less that could be used in your defense. > I imagine there is a sizable amount of injustice in the UK due to not having a 4th amendment like rights. Compared to the US?
        cortic 9y ago
        No, we have hearsay laws similar to the US. We can't compel an officer to testify on our behalf about something we said to them in questioning. its just in the UK, if you talk to the police, and forget something that is important you don't get to use it later, or its not as useful later. This has lead to a lot of unsound convictions of people who were intoxicated at the time of arrest; They tell some abridged version of their story to police, leaving half the important details out, leaving them with half a case to take to court. In Scotland they have started Requiring solicitors to be present at interviews of suspects (of some crimes) because of this, making statements inadmissible unless a solicitor was present.
  - floofyfloofer 9y ago
    False, since 2013, when the Supreme Court held that remaining silent wasn't sufficient to invoke your right to remain silent. "suspect did not sufficiently invoke the right to remain silent when he stubbornly refused to talk:" http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2013/06/salinas_v_texas_right_to_remain_silent_supreme_court_right_to_remain_silent.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudenc...
    - rocqua 9y ago
      The particulars of that case matter though. In this case, the suspect had spoken to the police, and during this didn't respond to a certain question / responded to the question with silence. If I recall correctly, the court reasoned that by first speaking, he gave up his right to remain silent. Moreover, he responded by silence rather that actively asserting his right to remain silent. Not to say I agree with the ruling, especially because he was never mirandized. However, it is not clear cut that simply remaining silent isn't enough to assert your right against self-incrimination.
      - dvtv75 9y ago
        Many years ago, in New Zealand, the flatmate of a friend of mine told me much the same: if you're questioned by the police, you can't just stop talking and claim your right to silence. You gave that up by answering questions.
- emodendroket 9y ago
  Well, for instance, not everyone has rules where the police need a warrant to search your home or vehicle.
  - jopsen 9y ago
    [citation needed] Article 8 of the ECHR seems to require a court orders of some kind: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_8_of_the_European_Convention_on_Human_Rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_8_of_the_European_Conv... Not all European countries have the same exact rules as the US, some have stronger privacy in some areas and some have weaker in some areas. But the US isn't exactly a poster child for privacy. Granted US rights on unlawful searches are for the most part decent.
    - emodendroket 9y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_warrant#United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_warrant#United_Kingdom > In England and Wales, a local magistrate issues search warrants, which require that a constable provide evidence that supports the warrant application. In the majority of cases where police already hold someone in custody, police can search premises without a search warrant under Section 18 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE), which requires only the authority of an inspector. > Under Section 18(5)a of PACE, a constable can conduct a search immediately without an inspector's authorisation. This subsection allows a constable to search the home of a suspect(s) under arrest in their presence before they take the suspect to a police station (or other custody location). Under Section 32 of PACE, a constable who arrests a person who is on their own property or has just left their premises, may immediately search both the suspect and the immediate area. At no point did I say that the US is a "poster child for privacy," but the laws work differently.
      - jopsen 9y ago
        > but the laws work differently The general concept is the same. Your original comments said: > "not everyone has rules where the police need a warrant to search your home or vehicle". EU membership nations have laws that require search warrants in some form. Most exceptions to this are reasonable, narrow and well defined. Similar to exceptions in the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrantless_searches_in_the_United_States#Exceptions_to_the_search_warrant_requirement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrantless_searches_in_the_Un... Your original comment: > "not everyone has rules where the police need a warrant to search your home or vehicle". Suggests that this is not the case in Europe.
- kaybe 9y ago
  All that happened to me after we called the police when we witnessed somebody breaking an ATM machine and driving off with a car was (apart from ID and telling them what we saw) a call a few weeks later from a police officer. He complained that the firewall at the office would not let him download the video I had uploaded to some 3rd party service and if I could just burn him a CD and bring it. (Seriously.) I talked him into trying some other things, and did not get contacted since. That was weird. edit: In Germany.
- nabla9 9y ago
  The main principles apply to all EU countries, the details differ. Each member state implemetns these thigns differently but they must comply with the European Convention on Human Rights See 24/67 Guide on Article 6 of the Convention – Right to a fair trial http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Guide_Art_6_criminal_ENG.pdf http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Guide_Art_6_criminal_ENG.p... >119. Anyone accused of a criminal offence has the right to remain silent and not to contribute to incriminating himself (Funke v. France, § 44; O'Halloran and Francis v. the United Kingdom [GC], § 45; Saunders v. the United Kingdom, § 60). Although not specifically mentioned in Article 6, the right to remain silent and the privilege against self-incrimination are generally recognised international standards which lie at the heart of the notion of a fair procedure under Article 6. By providing the accused with protection against improper compulsion by the authorities these immunities contribute to avoiding miscarriages of justice and to securing the aims of Article 6 (John Murray v. the United Kingdom, § 45). >120. The right not to incriminate oneself applies to criminal proceedings in respect of all types of criminal offences, from the most simple to the most complex (Saunders v. the United Kingdom, § 74). >121. The right to remain silent applies from the point at which the suspect is questioned by the police (John Murray v. the United Kingdom, § 45).
  - grooling 9y ago
    Thank you very much I've always wondered. Anywhere else I can read about my rights as an EU citizen? Its a lot harder to get information about it compared to the US I feel
- jopsen 9y ago
  I'm no lawyer, but I guess would be that: A) Prosecutors and judges are generally NOT elected or politically engaged. Nor are they politically appointed, with exception of some higher court judges. B) Police in many countries are required to conduct an independent study. The must present all evidence; and so contrary to the US what you say can be used to your advantage (that still doesn't always make talking advantageous). C) In civil law systems judges are often far more empowered to seek the truth. Where as in the US (common law), judges mainly facilitate an argument between defense and prosecutor in-front of a jury. D) prosecutors in other countries are often tasked with finding the truth, they are not elected, and the whole system is less adversarial than the US. E) Politics is less dysfunctional, and most European countries have civil law, which makes it easier to comply with the law. There isn't 10k statutes on the books. F) Police is better behaved; well trained; typically governed at country level (not by local politics). G) Many countries have a functional public defense system. All of this differs from country to country. Some countries might not have functional public defense (G), but on average it's my understanding that western European countries do better in these ways. That doesn't necessarily make talking to the police a good idea. But there are a lot of fewer traps people can fall into. And so I personally would feel more comfortable helping a European police officer. After all the downside of not talking to the police is that crimes won't be solved.
cryoshon 9y ago
tbqh i'm more worried about being gunned down by the police than being arrested or being searched at this point. exhibit A: https://twitter.com/ShaunKing/status/939014159726870530 https://twitter.com/ShaunKing/status/939014159726870530 (warning to system-believers: the link contains video of police executing a prone, face down, unarmed, nonviolent, nonresisting, white male; the officer was acquitted)
- backpropaganda 9y ago
  I don't think I can watch this video, but I would like to know what happened. Can someone perhaps provide a "transcript"?
  - cryoshon 9y ago
    imagine a man face down on the ground with his hands behind his head and his legs crossed in a narrow hallway. the man is sobbing in terror, and drunk. two cops are pointing assault weapons at the man and screaming at him from 20 feet down the hallway. eventually, they shoot him.
    - backpropaganda 9y ago
      Why do they shoot him? Did he move abruptly or something? What should I be doing if I find myself in a similar situation?
      - notatoad 9y ago
        I can't bring myself to watch it either, but from other descriptions: the police order the man to crawl towards them (while simultaneously yelling at him to put his hands in the air). As he's crawling along the floor, his pants start sliding off. When he reaches down to pull up his pants, the police kill him.
        mitchellberry 9y ago
        People don't realise how natural a reaction this is also, if your pants are coming off it's muscle memory to grab them.
marnett 9y ago
Very important citizen smarts here. Never. Period. It isn't unpatriotic, or anti-blue. It is really in your best interest to do so.
tzs 9y ago
How far do you take this? For example, suppose you hear someone down the street yell, "My baby!", look up, and see a man shove a woman to the ground, take a baby from a stroller, get into a car with the baby, and drive quickly up the street, leaving behind the woman screaming "He took my baby! Help!". They pass you, and a block farther up turn left onto a freeway on ramp. 30 seconds later a police officer drives by, stops, and asks if you saw the baby snatcher suspect, and if so which way they went. Do you say "it looked like he turned left a block up"? Or do you say "I will not answer without a lawyer"? I've run into a lot of people who go with the latter, citing that video.
- AimHere 9y ago
  If it looks like you're the suspect, then don't talk and get a lawyer. Otherwise, you should probably avoid doing anything that makes you a suspect, including demanding a lawyer prematurely.
  - hdlothia 9y ago
    There is no such thing as asking for a lawyer prematurely. Cops are allowed to lie , mislead anyone they want basically. Always make sure someone unaffiliated with law enforcement is around as a witness because they will lie for each other.
  - jwatte 9y ago
    Demanding a lawyer, and refusing to answer questions, explicitly should not make you look like a suspect in the eyes of the law. (The eyes of the investigating officer may be different, but they must follow the law in the end.)
    - acobster 9y ago
      Right. Good thing they do that. Every time. Yup.
- whamlastxmas 9y ago
  It's a matter of the risk you're willing to take. Sometimes refusing to answer a simple question is going to get you arrested. As long as you're willing to risk arrest and expensive lawyers, don't say anything.
briandear 9y ago
So don’t talk to the police. Yet the same people promoting that are against concealed carry and the castle doctrine. So how does one defend themselves and their property if we assume we aren’t supposed to cooperate with police. It’s a serious question — we are supposed to be opposed to self defense because ostensibly police exist to protect us, but then we aren’t supposed to actually talk to police? How does that work? Taken to a logical extreme, we aren’t even supposed to call the police right? We are supposed to trust big government with health care but we aren’t supposed to trust government in protecting fundamental rights to life, liberty and property? This position makes zero logical sense.
- whamlastxmas 9y ago
  Even if concealed carry and castle doctrine laws didn't exist, you'd still be able to arm yourself against intruders. What they will teach you in CHL classes is, if you shoot someone, to call the police and say "There was a shooting. Please send police and ambulance" and then hang up. You're not admitting anything, and asking for the ambulance is important because it displays concern for the person shot.
  - Tyrannosaur 9y ago
    "There was a shooting. Please send police and ambulance" and then hang up? Won't the police show up expecting an active armed gunman? Is there anything you can say to show that there is no new danger of violence without implicating yourself?
- AnodyneComplex 9y ago
  The whole point is that it doesn't benefit you, _if you're a potential suspect_ to talk to the police. This shouldn't be a surprise no matter how perfect the justice system is -- it's better to not be involved with it if you can. I'm not sure why healthcare makes for big government? We already have wildly successful healthcare programs in the US that are government managed and are cheaper than private alternatives. So we should trust the government can provide them because... it does. I wouldn't want the federal government running every pastry shop on the other hand. I have no idea where concealed carry fits into this.
dustingetz 9y ago
this may be true but there is a perverse incentive for lawyers to offer opinions that are both easily defensible and generate billable lawyer time
- the-dude 9y ago
  If this is the talk I think it is, there is 30 mins of laywer and then 30 mins of police officer, saying the exact same thing.
skrebbel 9y ago
Is the hidden motive here to sell lawyer services? This is a lawyer on a long and powerful rant about how you shouldn't do X without a lawyer. I'm not saying that this makes the point less valid, but beware that people are always better equipped to make powerful arguments when that argument aligns with their source of income.
- emodendroket 9y ago
  If you go talking to police about a crime you're accused of there's a good chance you'll need a lot more help from a lawyer than if you'd said nothing.
  - kolbe 9y ago
    How do you know what you are and are not accused of?
    - emodendroket 9y ago
      If in doubt you should probably assume you're accused of wrongdoing.
- sundarurfriend 9y ago
  He also gives several very clear examples of why this is the better course of action. Skepticism is good, but this is like looking for hidden motive when your doctor tells you to not swallow random pills without consultation.
  - skrebbel 9y ago
    Good point, thanks.
sp821543 9y ago
I believe the lawyer in the video, James Duane, now recommends the phrase, "I want a lawyer," as the correct response to any police question. As some have mentioned, mere silence is not enough to invoke one's constitutional rights and could in fact be used as a legal argument as to your guilt.
- gst 9y ago
  If I get arrested and say "I want a lawyer". What lawyer do I get? A random public defender? A private defender? If it's private defender, am I able to ask for another lawyer if the fees are too high? Will that lawyer refer me to another more specialized lawyer later on?
  - thomas_howland 9y ago
    The point is that after you have requested a lawyer they are obliged to refrain from questioning you.
    - Simon_says 9y ago
      They're obliged to, but do they actually? This guy asked for a "lawyer dog", which apparently is not a thing. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/true-crime/wp/2017/11/02/the-suspect-told-police-give-me-a-lawyer-dog-the-court-says-he-wasnt-asking-for-a-lawyer/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/true-crime/wp/2017/11/02... Or will asking for a lawyer work for me, since I'm not ethnically diverse?
      - bdowling 9y ago
        For another take on the “lawyer dog” case, see here[0]. The takeaway is that if you’re asking for a lawyer to be present during questioning, you need to be unequivocal about it. That, and Lawyer Dog is totally a real thing[1]. [0] https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/11/03/the-lawyer-dog-decision-isnt-obviously-wrong/ https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/... [1] http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/lawyer-dog http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/lawyer-dog
RomanPushkin 9y ago
about IRS at 7:30 what does it mean "won't talk to them without immunity"? Should I state this when they ask me some questions?
- Digory 9y ago
  No. You should not ask for immunity, which will be used to show you were concerned about needing immunity. You should ask for a lawyer.
- joeax 9y ago
  Because talking to them on even the smallest matter can land you in trouble, since lying to federal agents is a crime. TurboTax has this audit defense insurance add-on when you submit your taxes. If you read the verbiage, it explicitly states DO NOT answer any questions under any circumstances, and defer them to the audit defense. Don't even answer "How is the weather over there?" It's best to have some representation when dealing with the IRS or any federal agency. As the video continues on to show, Martha Stewart was convicted for lying because she decided to talk first and deny involvement before lawyering up.
- kolbe 9y ago
  It's a good way to find out if they were lying when they said you aren't a suspect. You should ask for it if their claim is that they want to talk to you about someone else's behavior. If they want to talk about your behavior, find a lawyer.
pps43 9y ago
This is probably too extreme. Andrew Branca recommends [1] to "say little" rather than to "say nothing". [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/CCW/comments/5sicm5/the_law_of_self_defense_by_andrew_branca/ https://www.reddit.com/r/CCW/comments/5sicm5/the_law_of_self...
- sundarurfriend 9y ago
  The link doesn't explain anything about his argument except that it's in his book. What does "say little" entail and why does he recommend that? Also, from the context it seems to be about what to do after a self-defense shooting - is his advice specific to that context, or a general argument?
  - dazc 9y ago
    'What does "say little" entail...' I'm guessing, saying nothing infers guilt whereas saying 'I can't remember...' (or similar) leaves room for manoeuvre at a later date?
    - pps43 9y ago
      "Saying little" means providing only the absolutely necessary information. If you were in a self-defense situation and your attacker threw his weapon in a bush, you want the police to know that so that they can find it. If there were witnesses who can corraborate your story then you want the police to talk to them before they disappear forever. If you need medical help, you should ask for it.
  - pps43 9y ago
    He's specializing in use of force for self-defence, not necessarily shooting. The argument goes like this: "Many people advocate that in the aftermath of a defensive use-of-force event you say literally nothing to the police except that you want to speak with your lawyer. And that 'Say NOTHING' approach is one way to go. At Law of Self Defense, however, we suggest you consider an alternative, the 'Say LITTLE' approach -- meaning, saying a few very specific things, then asserting your rights to silence and counsel. Among the things we suggest saying, even before having your attorney present, is that your use of force was an act of self-defense. One reason we suggest this is that most claims of self-defense are simply BS claims by bad guys, and these are often fabricated after the fact while they're sitting in their holding cell. If you defer claiming self-defense until hours after your first interaction with the police, you begin to look a lot like one of those fabricators. And if you DO, you can rest assured that this fact will be brought up in trial." There's more details in his book and classes that are not freely available online.
jwatte 9y ago
Society is better off if everyone can speak openly to police. Meanwhile, the risk to any one person that might accidentally mis-speak is wholly unacceptable to the individual. So we end up with tragedy of the commons. How did we fuck this up so badly as a society?
- yuhong 9y ago
  I wonder what if police was required to present details of the case before asking questions which may be used in a trial.
joshmn 9y ago
As someone who has been through the criminal justice system a handful of times, here's what I always tell people: If you are approached by a policeman/woman, you don't need to say anything other than, "I'm going to ask you to refer all questions to my counsel as I'm not prepared to handle or able to answer any questions you may have." Don't have counsel? Get some. Can't afford any? Tell the policeman/woman that you'll "confer with your legal team" and if your "legal team" believes it's appropriate to answer questions, you'll let them know. Oh, and call your local public defender's office. A policeman/woman may, "just want to talk" or, "ask you a few questions"; that's okay, just repeat what you said. They may say "you're not in trouble" and that's great, so repeat what you said. A policeman/woman can only get you in trouble, they cannot get you out of trouble. When it comes to court, our public defenders system, while it means well, is horribly broken. PDs are often assigned far too many cases they can reasonably handle. PDs don't go to trial often enough, because they can't handle the additional workload.
- kolbe 9y ago
  How do you balance that and obstruction of justice for crimes that you are not a suspect in? Especially ones where your knowledge is urgent and your silence is a public danger.
  - omegaham 9y ago
    I'm sure that there are situations where this is good to consider, but real life isn't a Criminal Minds episode where the lady's slowly getting lowered into the Pit of Misery while the police frantically try to get there in time. If you have important information, it can wait a day while you get your affairs in order. If it really is that urgent, yes, I would say something. Any other time? It can wait.
  - danenania 9y ago
    You can (and should) help out, but with a lawyer present.
- mistermann 9y ago
  It seems to me that this advice forgets it's own lesson: A policeman/woman can only get you in trouble. In many cases, a copy really does just want to have a 5 minute chat, and if you stonewall them (Am I being detained?), they might decide to exercise their power to get you in trouble, just to return the sentiment of unreasonableness.
nether 9y ago
Cops refer to videos like this as the YouTube School of Law. Be ready to possibly aggravate the situation if you go this route. Angry cops are not generally the safest cops.
raincom 9y ago
Police can get you for process crimes. That's why you should have a lawyer, when you are 'remotely' connected to what is being investigated.
blacktulip 9y ago
Good to know. So does the same principle apply in the UK?
kolbe 9y ago
It's not as simple as he makes it out to be. He breaks the problem down into an issue of protecting or violating your innocence. It would be a real shame (and possibly illegal) if your friend just got shot in the head, and police asked you "which way did the shooter flee?" and you reply that you need to confer with your lawyer before answering any questions.
- alangpierce 9y ago
  > and possibly illegal I'm not a lawyer, but I'm fairly sure that asking to see a lawyer in that situation would never be illegal. But I certainly agree that it would be a real shame and probably unethical.
  - kolbe 9y ago
    I think omission of information makes it aiding and abetting or accessory or something. Not a lawyer either, but a lawyer once told me that this was a notable exception to the rule in this video.
tscs37 9y ago
I think it's a sad statement for the american justice system that this is advice people want to follow. I feel lucky I don't have to live in the USA.
- Gorbzel 9y ago
  I feel lucky I live in the USA such that I am permitted to follow this advice.
  - jopsen 9y ago
    Where are you not? The right not to self-incriminate is pretty wide-spread :)
- MichaelApproved 9y ago
  What country do you live in that what you say to police can't be used against you?
  - tscs37 9y ago
    In Germany, after §163 StPO and related the police may interview you as part of an investigation but if you are a suspect you must be told so prior to any interview. You are allowed not to make any statements, which is not considered any crime. Additionally, any statements you make may only be used for discovery of the truth but are not in of themselves considered actual proof or evidence in absence of anything else, word of mouth is not fully sufficient with a few minor exceptions outside the scope of the StPO. The sentiment re. the police in germany is much different than in america, so my initial assertion does not at all equate to "what you say can't be used against you", rather "the police is in general trustworthy and non-malicious", which does not seem to hold true for america. You should consider that not all countries think like americans and do not hold the same sentiment as americans. People in other countries think different, not the same.
    - MichaelApproved 9y ago
      > You should consider that not all countries think like americans and do not hold the same sentiment as americans. People in other countries think different, not the same. You should consider that not all Americans think the same and do not hold the same sentiment as other Americans. People throughout the country think different, not the same. Also, I asked the question to learn more, so it should be apparent that I do understand other countries have different systems. My question was to learn how those systems work.
throwaway0255 9y ago
For most of the population this is very bad advice. It’s important to remember he’s assuming you have or can afford legal counsel. If you’re like most people and you can’t, ignoring or refusing to answer the questions of a police officer can seem rude, can make you appear guilty, and can get you singled out for charges, that later you won’t be able to afford to defend yourself against. I knew someone who took the advice of this video. He was driving in a car with multiple people, there were drugs in the car, cops pulled them over. “Whose drugs are these?” Everyone says “not mine officer.” This guy remained silent. “Are these yours?” Silence. All of the possession charges were put on him, and everyone else was free to go. The drugs weren’t his. I never followed up to see what happened to him, but he was completely broke, so I can’t imagine it was good.
- ivraatiems 9y ago
  > For most of the population this is very bad advice. No, you are not correct. In the United States - where this advice was given - it is excellent advice. It is the only advice any competent attorney or student of US law will ever give you. > It’s important to remember he’s assuming you have or can afford legal counsel. If you’re like most people and you can’t, ignoring or refusing to answer the questions of a police officer can seem rude, can make you appear guilty, and can get you singled out for charges, that later you won’t be able to afford to defend yourself against. You have the right to counsel, and you have the right to wait until you have obtained counsel to answer questions. It is the obligation of the state to provide you an attorney if you cannot afford one. In that case, you can and should still say "I cannot answer any questions until I've consulted with an attorney." > can make you appear guilty, and can get you singled out for charges, that later you won’t be able to afford to defend yourself against. In the United States, it has been broadly found to be unconstitutional to interpret someone's request for counsel as evidence of their guilt. Again, you have a constitutional right to counsel and you have a constitutional right to refuse to answer questions that might incriminate you. The attorney and police officer in the video, both of whom say this multiple times, are making the point that any questions answered without counsel can potentially incriminate you. > All of the possession charges were put on him, and everyone else was free to go. The drugs weren’t his. I never followed up to see what happened to him, but he was completely broke, so I can’t imagine it was good. It makes no sense for you to offer this advice, citing no authority, if you don't even know whether the example you have proves your argument. Please don't spread misinformation on the grounds that you once heard of a guy who might have had a bad experience with something. What is correct is that, in the case of the example you cite, it's important to remember that saying nothing is not the same as invoking your rights. It is always best to explicitly invoke your right to counsel and your right to stay silent. [1][2][3] Saying nothing does not necessarily imply your rights are being invoked; a reasonable person would not always interpret it that way. If this person had said "I'm not answering any questions, and I want to speak with an attorney," and the police kept questioning him, they would be in violation of the law. [1] http://www.nbcnews.com/id/37448356/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/right-remain-silent-suspect-better-speak/ http://www.nbcnews.com/id/37448356/ns/us_news-crime_and_cour... [2] http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-rights/invoking-the-right-to-remain-silent.html http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-rights/invoking-the-rig... [3] https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/you-still-have-right-remain-silent https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/you-still-have-right-...
edwhitesell 9y ago
While I have no law enforcement, or "lawyer-like" experience, I've been spending a fair amount of time with my local PD lately. A good friend is an assistant chief and I sometimes sit on the applicant Oral Board (the in-person interview board for people applying to be Officers). I'd sum up my comments in a couple of items: - Always be polite. Most officers aren't jerks; but some are, and those are will look for ways to get you in trouble just because you are acting like a jerk. - Unless you've been doing something wrong, or give them a reason to be suspicious (not answering questions is a GIANT red flag) officers almost always have good intentions. 99% of the time have better things to do than try to get someone in trouble who isn't already acting suspicious. - If you choose to answer questions (and you should answer basic stuff IMHO), always tell the truth. If you get caught in a lie it makes everything about your interaction 100-times more difficult. - If you choose not to answer any questions, for whatever reason, you should get to know your local/state laws regarding the things you MUST provide to officers when asked. Usually Identification is on that list, and choosing not to provide it means they can detain you. - "Policing" has been changing dramatically the last 10 years. Most agencies are trying to use community outreach to improve relations, and in some cases fix their bad reputations. Some aren't, it's valuable to know that going into a situation, if possible.
krystovv 9y ago
I've been sleeping in my car in Mountain View (it's legal here) for about six months now. A couple things I've learned: - Police are allowed to lie and coerce. Do not even admit to doing something legal -- if they think you're an easy target, they'll feign ignorance of its legality to blackmail you into talking more. Moreover, good cops only come to get you to talk or gain your trust. Unless you change your behavior, you'll get the bad one eventually, and it might even be the same guy. - There is no way to structure a good police force without statistics-based enforcement. No cop has stayed on the force after making zero arrests in a year. No cop is there to "make sure everything's okay". Police are going to profile you and there's no way around it. It sounds evil, but it's actually the way things have to be.

190 points by Red_Tarsius 9y ago

I keep rewatching this video every now and then, very recommended if you're from the U.S. I wonder how much does all this information apply to other countries (for instance, in the EU).

microcolonel 9y ago
In countries with rights, all of the same applies.
- emodendroket 9y ago
  The way in which those rights are legally secured (in addition to the rights even conceived of) differs from one country to another, even in countries we'd generally consider as those which respect human rights and the rule of law.
whamlastxmas 9y ago
I think a lot of countries have the ability to hold your silence against you. Thankfully this isn't the case in the US.
- the-dude 9y ago
  Citation needed.
  - blibble 9y ago
    in the UK there are specific circumstances where adverse inferences may be made from silence, the police caution is: > You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence. the wikipedia article goes into details: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence_in_England_and_Wales#Adverse_inferences_from_silence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence_in_England_an...
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - cortic 9y ago
    “You do not have to say anything. But, it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.” https://www.gov.uk/arrested-your-rights https://www.gov.uk/arrested-your-rights I imagine there is a sizable amount of injustice in the UK due to not having a 4th amendment like rights.
    - jopsen 9y ago
      If you listen to the video, the professor says that nothing you say to the US police can be used to defend you later. From your quote we see that this is not the case in the UK. Something you say can later be used in your defense, so clearly if you choose to say nothing -- you have less that could be used in your defense. > I imagine there is a sizable amount of injustice in the UK due to not having a 4th amendment like rights. Compared to the US?
      - cortic 9y ago
        No, we have hearsay laws similar to the US. We can't compel an officer to testify on our behalf about something we said to them in questioning. its just in the UK, if you talk to the police, and forget something that is important you don't get to use it later, or its not as useful later. This has lead to a lot of unsound convictions of people who were intoxicated at the time of arrest; They tell some abridged version of their story to police, leaving half the important details out, leaving them with half a case to take to court. In Scotland they have started Requiring solicitors to be present at interviews of suspects (of some crimes) because of this, making statements inadmissible unless a solicitor was present.
- floofyfloofer 9y ago
  False, since 2013, when the Supreme Court held that remaining silent wasn't sufficient to invoke your right to remain silent. "suspect did not sufficiently invoke the right to remain silent when he stubbornly refused to talk:" http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2013/06/salinas_v_texas_right_to_remain_silent_supreme_court_right_to_remain_silent.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudenc...
  - rocqua 9y ago
    The particulars of that case matter though. In this case, the suspect had spoken to the police, and during this didn't respond to a certain question / responded to the question with silence. If I recall correctly, the court reasoned that by first speaking, he gave up his right to remain silent. Moreover, he responded by silence rather that actively asserting his right to remain silent. Not to say I agree with the ruling, especially because he was never mirandized. However, it is not clear cut that simply remaining silent isn't enough to assert your right against self-incrimination.
    - dvtv75 9y ago
      Many years ago, in New Zealand, the flatmate of a friend of mine told me much the same: if you're questioned by the police, you can't just stop talking and claim your right to silence. You gave that up by answering questions.
emodendroket 9y ago
Well, for instance, not everyone has rules where the police need a warrant to search your home or vehicle.
- jopsen 9y ago
  [citation needed] Article 8 of the ECHR seems to require a court orders of some kind: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_8_of_the_European_Convention_on_Human_Rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_8_of_the_European_Conv... Not all European countries have the same exact rules as the US, some have stronger privacy in some areas and some have weaker in some areas. But the US isn't exactly a poster child for privacy. Granted US rights on unlawful searches are for the most part decent.
  - emodendroket 9y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_warrant#United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_warrant#United_Kingdom > In England and Wales, a local magistrate issues search warrants, which require that a constable provide evidence that supports the warrant application. In the majority of cases where police already hold someone in custody, police can search premises without a search warrant under Section 18 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE), which requires only the authority of an inspector. > Under Section 18(5)a of PACE, a constable can conduct a search immediately without an inspector's authorisation. This subsection allows a constable to search the home of a suspect(s) under arrest in their presence before they take the suspect to a police station (or other custody location). Under Section 32 of PACE, a constable who arrests a person who is on their own property or has just left their premises, may immediately search both the suspect and the immediate area. At no point did I say that the US is a "poster child for privacy," but the laws work differently.
    - jopsen 9y ago
      > but the laws work differently The general concept is the same. Your original comments said: > "not everyone has rules where the police need a warrant to search your home or vehicle". EU membership nations have laws that require search warrants in some form. Most exceptions to this are reasonable, narrow and well defined. Similar to exceptions in the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrantless_searches_in_the_United_States#Exceptions_to_the_search_warrant_requirement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrantless_searches_in_the_Un... Your original comment: > "not everyone has rules where the police need a warrant to search your home or vehicle". Suggests that this is not the case in Europe.
kaybe 9y ago
All that happened to me after we called the police when we witnessed somebody breaking an ATM machine and driving off with a car was (apart from ID and telling them what we saw) a call a few weeks later from a police officer. He complained that the firewall at the office would not let him download the video I had uploaded to some 3rd party service and if I could just burn him a CD and bring it. (Seriously.) I talked him into trying some other things, and did not get contacted since. That was weird. edit: In Germany.
nabla9 9y ago
The main principles apply to all EU countries, the details differ. Each member state implemetns these thigns differently but they must comply with the European Convention on Human Rights See 24/67 Guide on Article 6 of the Convention – Right to a fair trial http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Guide_Art_6_criminal_ENG.pdf http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Guide_Art_6_criminal_ENG.p... >119. Anyone accused of a criminal offence has the right to remain silent and not to contribute to incriminating himself (Funke v. France, § 44; O'Halloran and Francis v. the United Kingdom [GC], § 45; Saunders v. the United Kingdom, § 60). Although not specifically mentioned in Article 6, the right to remain silent and the privilege against self-incrimination are generally recognised international standards which lie at the heart of the notion of a fair procedure under Article 6. By providing the accused with protection against improper compulsion by the authorities these immunities contribute to avoiding miscarriages of justice and to securing the aims of Article 6 (John Murray v. the United Kingdom, § 45). >120. The right not to incriminate oneself applies to criminal proceedings in respect of all types of criminal offences, from the most simple to the most complex (Saunders v. the United Kingdom, § 74). >121. The right to remain silent applies from the point at which the suspect is questioned by the police (John Murray v. the United Kingdom, § 45).
- grooling 9y ago
  Thank you very much I've always wondered. Anywhere else I can read about my rights as an EU citizen? Its a lot harder to get information about it compared to the US I feel
jopsen 9y ago
I'm no lawyer, but I guess would be that: A) Prosecutors and judges are generally NOT elected or politically engaged. Nor are they politically appointed, with exception of some higher court judges. B) Police in many countries are required to conduct an independent study. The must present all evidence; and so contrary to the US what you say can be used to your advantage (that still doesn't always make talking advantageous). C) In civil law systems judges are often far more empowered to seek the truth. Where as in the US (common law), judges mainly facilitate an argument between defense and prosecutor in-front of a jury. D) prosecutors in other countries are often tasked with finding the truth, they are not elected, and the whole system is less adversarial than the US. E) Politics is less dysfunctional, and most European countries have civil law, which makes it easier to comply with the law. There isn't 10k statutes on the books. F) Police is better behaved; well trained; typically governed at country level (not by local politics). G) Many countries have a functional public defense system. All of this differs from country to country. Some countries might not have functional public defense (G), but on average it's my understanding that western European countries do better in these ways. That doesn't necessarily make talking to the police a good idea. But there are a lot of fewer traps people can fall into. And so I personally would feel more comfortable helping a European police officer. After all the downside of not talking to the police is that crimes won't be solved.

cryoshon 9y ago

tbqh i'm more worried about being gunned down by the police than being arrested or being searched at this point. exhibit A: https://twitter.com/ShaunKing/status/939014159726870530 https://twitter.com/ShaunKing/status/939014159726870530 (warning to system-believers: the link contains video of police executing a prone, face down, unarmed, nonviolent, nonresisting, white male; the officer was acquitted)

backpropaganda 9y ago
I don't think I can watch this video, but I would like to know what happened. Can someone perhaps provide a "transcript"?
- cryoshon 9y ago
  imagine a man face down on the ground with his hands behind his head and his legs crossed in a narrow hallway. the man is sobbing in terror, and drunk. two cops are pointing assault weapons at the man and screaming at him from 20 feet down the hallway. eventually, they shoot him.
  - backpropaganda 9y ago
    Why do they shoot him? Did he move abruptly or something? What should I be doing if I find myself in a similar situation?
    - notatoad 9y ago
      I can't bring myself to watch it either, but from other descriptions: the police order the man to crawl towards them (while simultaneously yelling at him to put his hands in the air). As he's crawling along the floor, his pants start sliding off. When he reaches down to pull up his pants, the police kill him.
      - mitchellberry 9y ago
        People don't realise how natural a reaction this is also, if your pants are coming off it's muscle memory to grab them.

marnett 9y ago

Very important citizen smarts here. Never. Period. It isn't unpatriotic, or anti-blue. It is really in your best interest to do so.

tzs 9y ago

How far do you take this? For example, suppose you hear someone down the street yell, "My baby!", look up, and see a man shove a woman to the ground, take a baby from a stroller, get into a car with the baby, and drive quickly up the street, leaving behind the woman screaming "He took my baby! Help!". They pass you, and a block farther up turn left onto a freeway on ramp. 30 seconds later a police officer drives by, stops, and asks if you saw the baby snatcher suspect, and if so which way they went. Do you say "it looked like he turned left a block up"? Or do you say "I will not answer without a lawyer"? I've run into a lot of people who go with the latter, citing that video.

AimHere 9y ago
If it looks like you're the suspect, then don't talk and get a lawyer. Otherwise, you should probably avoid doing anything that makes you a suspect, including demanding a lawyer prematurely.
- hdlothia 9y ago
  There is no such thing as asking for a lawyer prematurely. Cops are allowed to lie , mislead anyone they want basically. Always make sure someone unaffiliated with law enforcement is around as a witness because they will lie for each other.
- jwatte 9y ago
  Demanding a lawyer, and refusing to answer questions, explicitly should not make you look like a suspect in the eyes of the law. (The eyes of the investigating officer may be different, but they must follow the law in the end.)
  - acobster 9y ago
    Right. Good thing they do that. Every time. Yup.
whamlastxmas 9y ago
It's a matter of the risk you're willing to take. Sometimes refusing to answer a simple question is going to get you arrested. As long as you're willing to risk arrest and expensive lawyers, don't say anything.

briandear 9y ago

So don’t talk to the police. Yet the same people promoting that are against concealed carry and the castle doctrine. So how does one defend themselves and their property if we assume we aren’t supposed to cooperate with police. It’s a serious question — we are supposed to be opposed to self defense because ostensibly police exist to protect us, but then we aren’t supposed to actually talk to police? How does that work? Taken to a logical extreme, we aren’t even supposed to call the police right? We are supposed to trust big government with health care but we aren’t supposed to trust government in protecting fundamental rights to life, liberty and property? This position makes zero logical sense.

whamlastxmas 9y ago
Even if concealed carry and castle doctrine laws didn't exist, you'd still be able to arm yourself against intruders. What they will teach you in CHL classes is, if you shoot someone, to call the police and say "There was a shooting. Please send police and ambulance" and then hang up. You're not admitting anything, and asking for the ambulance is important because it displays concern for the person shot.
- Tyrannosaur 9y ago
  "There was a shooting. Please send police and ambulance" and then hang up? Won't the police show up expecting an active armed gunman? Is there anything you can say to show that there is no new danger of violence without implicating yourself?
AnodyneComplex 9y ago
The whole point is that it doesn't benefit you, _if you're a potential suspect_ to talk to the police. This shouldn't be a surprise no matter how perfect the justice system is -- it's better to not be involved with it if you can. I'm not sure why healthcare makes for big government? We already have wildly successful healthcare programs in the US that are government managed and are cheaper than private alternatives. So we should trust the government can provide them because... it does. I wouldn't want the federal government running every pastry shop on the other hand. I have no idea where concealed carry fits into this.

dustingetz 9y ago

this may be true but there is a perverse incentive for lawyers to offer opinions that are both easily defensible and generate billable lawyer time

the-dude 9y ago
If this is the talk I think it is, there is 30 mins of laywer and then 30 mins of police officer, saying the exact same thing.

skrebbel 9y ago

Is the hidden motive here to sell lawyer services? This is a lawyer on a long and powerful rant about how you shouldn't do X without a lawyer. I'm not saying that this makes the point less valid, but beware that people are always better equipped to make powerful arguments when that argument aligns with their source of income.

emodendroket 9y ago
If you go talking to police about a crime you're accused of there's a good chance you'll need a lot more help from a lawyer than if you'd said nothing.
- kolbe 9y ago
  How do you know what you are and are not accused of?
  - emodendroket 9y ago
    If in doubt you should probably assume you're accused of wrongdoing.
sundarurfriend 9y ago
He also gives several very clear examples of why this is the better course of action. Skepticism is good, but this is like looking for hidden motive when your doctor tells you to not swallow random pills without consultation.
- skrebbel 9y ago
  Good point, thanks.

sp821543 9y ago

I believe the lawyer in the video, James Duane, now recommends the phrase, "I want a lawyer," as the correct response to any police question. As some have mentioned, mere silence is not enough to invoke one's constitutional rights and could in fact be used as a legal argument as to your guilt.

gst 9y ago
If I get arrested and say "I want a lawyer". What lawyer do I get? A random public defender? A private defender? If it's private defender, am I able to ask for another lawyer if the fees are too high? Will that lawyer refer me to another more specialized lawyer later on?
- thomas_howland 9y ago
  The point is that after you have requested a lawyer they are obliged to refrain from questioning you.
  - Simon_says 9y ago
    They're obliged to, but do they actually? This guy asked for a "lawyer dog", which apparently is not a thing. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/true-crime/wp/2017/11/02/the-suspect-told-police-give-me-a-lawyer-dog-the-court-says-he-wasnt-asking-for-a-lawyer/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/true-crime/wp/2017/11/02... Or will asking for a lawyer work for me, since I'm not ethnically diverse?
    - bdowling 9y ago
      For another take on the “lawyer dog” case, see here[0]. The takeaway is that if you’re asking for a lawyer to be present during questioning, you need to be unequivocal about it. That, and Lawyer Dog is totally a real thing[1]. [0] https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/11/03/the-lawyer-dog-decision-isnt-obviously-wrong/ https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/... [1] http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/lawyer-dog http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/lawyer-dog

RomanPushkin 9y ago

about IRS at 7:30 what does it mean "won't talk to them without immunity"? Should I state this when they ask me some questions?

Digory 9y ago
No. You should not ask for immunity, which will be used to show you were concerned about needing immunity. You should ask for a lawyer.
joeax 9y ago
Because talking to them on even the smallest matter can land you in trouble, since lying to federal agents is a crime. TurboTax has this audit defense insurance add-on when you submit your taxes. If you read the verbiage, it explicitly states DO NOT answer any questions under any circumstances, and defer them to the audit defense. Don't even answer "How is the weather over there?" It's best to have some representation when dealing with the IRS or any federal agency. As the video continues on to show, Martha Stewart was convicted for lying because she decided to talk first and deny involvement before lawyering up.
kolbe 9y ago
It's a good way to find out if they were lying when they said you aren't a suspect. You should ask for it if their claim is that they want to talk to you about someone else's behavior. If they want to talk about your behavior, find a lawyer.

pps43 9y ago

This is probably too extreme. Andrew Branca recommends [1] to "say little" rather than to "say nothing". [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/CCW/comments/5sicm5/the_law_of_self_defense_by_andrew_branca/ https://www.reddit.com/r/CCW/comments/5sicm5/the_law_of_self...

sundarurfriend 9y ago
The link doesn't explain anything about his argument except that it's in his book. What does "say little" entail and why does he recommend that? Also, from the context it seems to be about what to do after a self-defense shooting - is his advice specific to that context, or a general argument?
- dazc 9y ago
  'What does "say little" entail...' I'm guessing, saying nothing infers guilt whereas saying 'I can't remember...' (or similar) leaves room for manoeuvre at a later date?
  - pps43 9y ago
    "Saying little" means providing only the absolutely necessary information. If you were in a self-defense situation and your attacker threw his weapon in a bush, you want the police to know that so that they can find it. If there were witnesses who can corraborate your story then you want the police to talk to them before they disappear forever. If you need medical help, you should ask for it.
- pps43 9y ago
  He's specializing in use of force for self-defence, not necessarily shooting. The argument goes like this: "Many people advocate that in the aftermath of a defensive use-of-force event you say literally nothing to the police except that you want to speak with your lawyer. And that 'Say NOTHING' approach is one way to go. At Law of Self Defense, however, we suggest you consider an alternative, the 'Say LITTLE' approach -- meaning, saying a few very specific things, then asserting your rights to silence and counsel. Among the things we suggest saying, even before having your attorney present, is that your use of force was an act of self-defense. One reason we suggest this is that most claims of self-defense are simply BS claims by bad guys, and these are often fabricated after the fact while they're sitting in their holding cell. If you defer claiming self-defense until hours after your first interaction with the police, you begin to look a lot like one of those fabricators. And if you DO, you can rest assured that this fact will be brought up in trial." There's more details in his book and classes that are not freely available online.

jwatte 9y ago

Society is better off if everyone can speak openly to police. Meanwhile, the risk to any one person that might accidentally mis-speak is wholly unacceptable to the individual. So we end up with tragedy of the commons. How did we fuck this up so badly as a society?

yuhong 9y ago
I wonder what if police was required to present details of the case before asking questions which may be used in a trial.

joshmn 9y ago

As someone who has been through the criminal justice system a handful of times, here's what I always tell people: If you are approached by a policeman/woman, you don't need to say anything other than, "I'm going to ask you to refer all questions to my counsel as I'm not prepared to handle or able to answer any questions you may have." Don't have counsel? Get some. Can't afford any? Tell the policeman/woman that you'll "confer with your legal team" and if your "legal team" believes it's appropriate to answer questions, you'll let them know. Oh, and call your local public defender's office. A policeman/woman may, "just want to talk" or, "ask you a few questions"; that's okay, just repeat what you said. They may say "you're not in trouble" and that's great, so repeat what you said. A policeman/woman can only get you in trouble, they cannot get you out of trouble. When it comes to court, our public defenders system, while it means well, is horribly broken. PDs are often assigned far too many cases they can reasonably handle. PDs don't go to trial often enough, because they can't handle the additional workload.

kolbe 9y ago
How do you balance that and obstruction of justice for crimes that you are not a suspect in? Especially ones where your knowledge is urgent and your silence is a public danger.
- omegaham 9y ago
  I'm sure that there are situations where this is good to consider, but real life isn't a Criminal Minds episode where the lady's slowly getting lowered into the Pit of Misery while the police frantically try to get there in time. If you have important information, it can wait a day while you get your affairs in order. If it really is that urgent, yes, I would say something. Any other time? It can wait.
- danenania 9y ago
  You can (and should) help out, but with a lawyer present.
mistermann 9y ago
It seems to me that this advice forgets it's own lesson: A policeman/woman can only get you in trouble. In many cases, a copy really does just want to have a 5 minute chat, and if you stonewall them (Am I being detained?), they might decide to exercise their power to get you in trouble, just to return the sentiment of unreasonableness.

nether 9y ago

Cops refer to videos like this as the YouTube School of Law. Be ready to possibly aggravate the situation if you go this route. Angry cops are not generally the safest cops.

raincom 9y ago

Police can get you for process crimes. That's why you should have a lawyer, when you are 'remotely' connected to what is being investigated.

blacktulip 9y ago

Good to know. So does the same principle apply in the UK?

kolbe 9y ago

It's not as simple as he makes it out to be. He breaks the problem down into an issue of protecting or violating your innocence. It would be a real shame (and possibly illegal) if your friend just got shot in the head, and police asked you "which way did the shooter flee?" and you reply that you need to confer with your lawyer before answering any questions.

alangpierce 9y ago
> and possibly illegal I'm not a lawyer, but I'm fairly sure that asking to see a lawyer in that situation would never be illegal. But I certainly agree that it would be a real shame and probably unethical.
- kolbe 9y ago
  I think omission of information makes it aiding and abetting or accessory or something. Not a lawyer either, but a lawyer once told me that this was a notable exception to the rule in this video.

tscs37 9y ago

I think it's a sad statement for the american justice system that this is advice people want to follow. I feel lucky I don't have to live in the USA.

Gorbzel 9y ago
I feel lucky I live in the USA such that I am permitted to follow this advice.
- jopsen 9y ago
  Where are you not? The right not to self-incriminate is pretty wide-spread :)
MichaelApproved 9y ago
What country do you live in that what you say to police can't be used against you?
- tscs37 9y ago
  In Germany, after §163 StPO and related the police may interview you as part of an investigation but if you are a suspect you must be told so prior to any interview. You are allowed not to make any statements, which is not considered any crime. Additionally, any statements you make may only be used for discovery of the truth but are not in of themselves considered actual proof or evidence in absence of anything else, word of mouth is not fully sufficient with a few minor exceptions outside the scope of the StPO. The sentiment re. the police in germany is much different than in america, so my initial assertion does not at all equate to "what you say can't be used against you", rather "the police is in general trustworthy and non-malicious", which does not seem to hold true for america. You should consider that not all countries think like americans and do not hold the same sentiment as americans. People in other countries think different, not the same.
  - MichaelApproved 9y ago
    > You should consider that not all countries think like americans and do not hold the same sentiment as americans. People in other countries think different, not the same. You should consider that not all Americans think the same and do not hold the same sentiment as other Americans. People throughout the country think different, not the same. Also, I asked the question to learn more, so it should be apparent that I do understand other countries have different systems. My question was to learn how those systems work.

throwaway0255 9y ago

For most of the population this is very bad advice. It’s important to remember he’s assuming you have or can afford legal counsel. If you’re like most people and you can’t, ignoring or refusing to answer the questions of a police officer can seem rude, can make you appear guilty, and can get you singled out for charges, that later you won’t be able to afford to defend yourself against. I knew someone who took the advice of this video. He was driving in a car with multiple people, there were drugs in the car, cops pulled them over. “Whose drugs are these?” Everyone says “not mine officer.” This guy remained silent. “Are these yours?” Silence. All of the possession charges were put on him, and everyone else was free to go. The drugs weren’t his. I never followed up to see what happened to him, but he was completely broke, so I can’t imagine it was good.

ivraatiems 9y ago
> For most of the population this is very bad advice. No, you are not correct. In the United States - where this advice was given - it is excellent advice. It is the only advice any competent attorney or student of US law will ever give you. > It’s important to remember he’s assuming you have or can afford legal counsel. If you’re like most people and you can’t, ignoring or refusing to answer the questions of a police officer can seem rude, can make you appear guilty, and can get you singled out for charges, that later you won’t be able to afford to defend yourself against. You have the right to counsel, and you have the right to wait until you have obtained counsel to answer questions. It is the obligation of the state to provide you an attorney if you cannot afford one. In that case, you can and should still say "I cannot answer any questions until I've consulted with an attorney." > can make you appear guilty, and can get you singled out for charges, that later you won’t be able to afford to defend yourself against. In the United States, it has been broadly found to be unconstitutional to interpret someone's request for counsel as evidence of their guilt. Again, you have a constitutional right to counsel and you have a constitutional right to refuse to answer questions that might incriminate you. The attorney and police officer in the video, both of whom say this multiple times, are making the point that any questions answered without counsel can potentially incriminate you. > All of the possession charges were put on him, and everyone else was free to go. The drugs weren’t his. I never followed up to see what happened to him, but he was completely broke, so I can’t imagine it was good. It makes no sense for you to offer this advice, citing no authority, if you don't even know whether the example you have proves your argument. Please don't spread misinformation on the grounds that you once heard of a guy who might have had a bad experience with something. What is correct is that, in the case of the example you cite, it's important to remember that saying nothing is not the same as invoking your rights. It is always best to explicitly invoke your right to counsel and your right to stay silent. [1][2][3] Saying nothing does not necessarily imply your rights are being invoked; a reasonable person would not always interpret it that way. If this person had said "I'm not answering any questions, and I want to speak with an attorney," and the police kept questioning him, they would be in violation of the law. [1] http://www.nbcnews.com/id/37448356/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/right-remain-silent-suspect-better-speak/ http://www.nbcnews.com/id/37448356/ns/us_news-crime_and_cour... [2] http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-rights/invoking-the-right-to-remain-silent.html http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-rights/invoking-the-rig... [3] https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/you-still-have-right-remain-silent https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/you-still-have-right-...

edwhitesell 9y ago

While I have no law enforcement, or "lawyer-like" experience, I've been spending a fair amount of time with my local PD lately. A good friend is an assistant chief and I sometimes sit on the applicant Oral Board (the in-person interview board for people applying to be Officers). I'd sum up my comments in a couple of items: - Always be polite. Most officers aren't jerks; but some are, and those are will look for ways to get you in trouble just because you are acting like a jerk. - Unless you've been doing something wrong, or give them a reason to be suspicious (not answering questions is a GIANT red flag) officers almost always have good intentions. 99% of the time have better things to do than try to get someone in trouble who isn't already acting suspicious. - If you choose to answer questions (and you should answer basic stuff IMHO), always tell the truth. If you get caught in a lie it makes everything about your interaction 100-times more difficult. - If you choose not to answer any questions, for whatever reason, you should get to know your local/state laws regarding the things you MUST provide to officers when asked. Usually Identification is on that list, and choosing not to provide it means they can detain you. - "Policing" has been changing dramatically the last 10 years. Most agencies are trying to use community outreach to improve relations, and in some cases fix their bad reputations. Some aren't, it's valuable to know that going into a situation, if possible.

krystovv 9y ago

I've been sleeping in my car in Mountain View (it's legal here) for about six months now. A couple things I've learned: - Police are allowed to lie and coerce. Do not even admit to doing something legal -- if they think you're an easy target, they'll feign ignorance of its legality to blackmail you into talking more. Moreover, good cops only come to get you to talk or gain your trust. Unless you change your behavior, you'll get the bad one eventually, and it might even be the same guy. - There is no way to structure a good police force without statistics-based enforcement. No cop has stayed on the force after making zero arrests in a year. No cop is there to "make sure everything's okay". Police are going to profile you and there's no way around it. It sounds evil, but it's actually the way things have to be.