5 ms·

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 a

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-...
- throwaway0255 9y ago
  You can talk about rights and due process all you want, I’m not disagreeing with any of that, that’s great for people who can afford it. I’m talking about the practical outcome of this for average Americans. The practical outcome is that for every 1 time this advice prevents you from accidentally incriminating yourself, there will be 20 times that it just makes officers dislike you and abuse their authority over you, especially if you’re young and especially if they can tell you’re poor.
  - ivraatiems 9y ago
    > You can talk about rights and due process all you want, I’m not disagreeing with any of that, that’s great for people who can afford it. I’m talking about the practical outcome of this for average Americans. Rights and due process apply to everyone, not just people who can afford it or people the police like. Telling someone "don't assert your rights because you're poor" is telling them to self-subjugate; that's awful advice not only because it hurts the person, but also because it actively harms our system of justice. Again, everyone has the right to an attorney and the government must give you one. It's in the Constitution. A busy, tired public defender who is competent is still better than not having a lawyer. An incompetent attorney is also still better, because "my counsel was incompetent" is a solid way to win an appeal of a conviction if it can be proven. > The practical outcome is that for every 1 time this advice prevents you from accidentally incriminating yourself, there will be 20 times that it just makes officers dislike you and abuse their authority over you, especially if you’re young and especially if they can tell you’re poor. Do you have any evidence of this at all? That is, do you have evidence that going along with what an abusive officer tells you to do is going to prevent them from abusing you? If an officer doesn't like you and is willing to abuse their authority as a result, what are you supposed to do? Let them? You aren't going to stop them from doing so by "being nice," plenty of people are polite to police officers and get in trouble anyway. Let's play this out: If you say "I want a lawyer," and the officer arrests you and charges you, but you're innocent, the lawyer is there to prove your innocence. If you answer the officer's questions, you have no idea whether they'll arrest and charge you or not, and if they do, they now have evidence that will make proving your innocence much, much harder to do. If you say "I want a lawyer," and the officer hits you over the head or continues to scream questions at you, then arrests you and charges you, the officer has just committed a crime and their testimony is now suspect. Things proceed as above, but your lawyer now has ammunition to use to help you in court. Both of these outcomes are better in the long term than this bizarre "go along with whatever because the system sucks" approach.

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-...

throwaway0255 9y ago
You can talk about rights and due process all you want, I’m not disagreeing with any of that, that’s great for people who can afford it. I’m talking about the practical outcome of this for average Americans. The practical outcome is that for every 1 time this advice prevents you from accidentally incriminating yourself, there will be 20 times that it just makes officers dislike you and abuse their authority over you, especially if you’re young and especially if they can tell you’re poor.
- ivraatiems 9y ago
  > You can talk about rights and due process all you want, I’m not disagreeing with any of that, that’s great for people who can afford it. I’m talking about the practical outcome of this for average Americans. Rights and due process apply to everyone, not just people who can afford it or people the police like. Telling someone "don't assert your rights because you're poor" is telling them to self-subjugate; that's awful advice not only because it hurts the person, but also because it actively harms our system of justice. Again, everyone has the right to an attorney and the government must give you one. It's in the Constitution. A busy, tired public defender who is competent is still better than not having a lawyer. An incompetent attorney is also still better, because "my counsel was incompetent" is a solid way to win an appeal of a conviction if it can be proven. > The practical outcome is that for every 1 time this advice prevents you from accidentally incriminating yourself, there will be 20 times that it just makes officers dislike you and abuse their authority over you, especially if you’re young and especially if they can tell you’re poor. Do you have any evidence of this at all? That is, do you have evidence that going along with what an abusive officer tells you to do is going to prevent them from abusing you? If an officer doesn't like you and is willing to abuse their authority as a result, what are you supposed to do? Let them? You aren't going to stop them from doing so by "being nice," plenty of people are polite to police officers and get in trouble anyway. Let's play this out: If you say "I want a lawyer," and the officer arrests you and charges you, but you're innocent, the lawyer is there to prove your innocence. If you answer the officer's questions, you have no idea whether they'll arrest and charge you or not, and if they do, they now have evidence that will make proving your innocence much, much harder to do. If you say "I want a lawyer," and the officer hits you over the head or continues to scream questions at you, then arrests you and charges you, the officer has just committed a crime and their testimony is now suspect. Things proceed as above, but your lawyer now has ammunition to use to help you in court. Both of these outcomes are better in the long term than this bizarre "go along with whatever because the system sucks" approach.