4 ms·
When the words of some lawyer in a YouTube video fly in the face of common sense, you should probably go with common sense, regardless of how emphatic the lawye
by alangpierce 9y ago
When the words of some lawyer in a YouTube video fly in the face of common sense, you should probably go with common sense, regardless of how emphatic the lawyer is. (tzs and I both believe it to be common sense that you should talk to the police here, although others may disagree.)
Edit: Currently there are some downvotes and no responses, so if anyone has a reasoned moral argument for why you should say "I will not answer without a lawyer" in tzs's example (for example, citing risks explained in the video and weighing them with the possible benefits of stopping a kidnapping), it would be great to hear that perspective. (Or any other criticisms of my comment are welcome.)
- Retra 9y agoPeople aren't tried in a court of common sense, they are tried in a court of law. If the law doesn't protect the use of common sense, then the law should change. "Some lawyer in a YouTube video" is still far more qualified to tell me how to behave around the police than you are. Regardless of whether you think it is common sense or not. Obviously, you have to weigh the risks and decide for yourself, but that is such a trivial statement that it really doesn't need to be said. What needs to be said is that you don't know the risks unless you know the law and the status of the investigation; thus common sense should tell you not to talk to the police at all.