4 ms·

I recommend everyone watch this video. It's geared towards lawyers. If the police are asking questions with any level of suspicion at all, don't talk to them. E

I recommend everyone watch this video. It's geared towards lawyers. If the police are asking questions with any level of suspicion at all, don't talk to them. Even if you do not lie, and are innocent, the things you say can still be used against you. Summarizing: 1. There is no way it can help. 2. If your client is guilty (or even innocent), they might admit guilt with nothing in return. 3. If your client is innocent, they can still make some small mistake or tiny mistruth that can be used to convict by seeding doubt. 4. If your client is innocent, and does not make any small mistake or tiny mistruth, what is said can still be used in court to convict. 5. If your client is innocent, and tells the police absolutely nothing incriminating at all, the police can still mis-remember the conversation and result in a conviction. 6. If your client is innocent, and tells the police absolutely nothing incriminating at all, and the clients statements are videotaped so it cannot be mischaracterized, the police can still augment the conversation from their personal knowledge and result in a conviction. There's more, it goes on and on and on. Don't talk to police if you are being questioned about something, whether you did it or not. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE

781 7y ago
That video is very US centric. In Europe in particular, police officers are not such an enemy. Also, in UK, refusing to talk to police at first contact can be used against you, for example it will be more difficult later to introduce exculpatory evidence that you were supposed to know of at the time you refused to speak. 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...
- chrisseaton 7y ago
  I believe the reason for this is the idea that it's a massive waste of the public's time and resources for you to refuse to reveal evidence which could have stopped the prosecution well before it went to trial.
  - elliekelly 7y ago
    Yes, most of Europe/the World uses a "civil law" system which is much less adversarial than the U.S. & U.K.'s "common law" system.[1] Fun fact: because of their French (and to a lesser degree, Spanish) influence, Louisiana's laws still follow a civil law system. [1] https://www.apprendre-le-droit.fr/anglais-juridique/what-is-the-difference-between-common-law-and-civil-law/ https://www.apprendre-le-droit.fr/anglais-juridique/what-is-...
    - ultrarunner 7y ago
      And yet Louisiana has one of the highest (if not the highest) rate of incarcerations per-100k in the country[0]. Perhaps ‘less adversarial’ doesn’t count for much when it comes to the business end of the law. [0]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_incarceration_and_correctional_supervision_rate https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_incar...
      - elliekelly 7y ago
        Since most European countries (civil law systems) don't have such high incarceration rates and considering the U.S. (common law system) has one of the highest I don't think it's fair to attribute Louisiana's high incarceration rate to the state's civil law system. Louisiana is one of the poorest states in the country and has one of the highest contracted private prison quotas in the country (96% occupancy).[1] And until recently, Louisiana had some of the harshest mandatory minimum drug sentencing requirements.[2] They still have harsh mandatory minimums for other offenses. If you're looking for an explanation for Louisiana's criminal justice issues those factors are the far more likely explanations than the existence of a civil law system. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisiana_Department_of_Public_Safety_%26_Corrections https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisiana_Department_of_Publ... [2] https://www.pewtrusts.org/-/media/assets/2018/03/pspp_louisianas_2017_criminal_justice_reforms.pdf https://www.pewtrusts.org/-/media/assets/2018/03/pspp_louisi...
- kjsbfkjbf 7y ago
  > In Europe in particular, police officers are not such an enemy. Everywhere in the world the police are your enemy. They exist as the manifestation of a state's domestic violence.
  - Retra 7y ago
    So we should abolish police worldwide? Or is there maybe some nuanced angle there that the state might be operating on your behalf?
    - MichaelBurge 7y ago
      They're operating on your behalf when they're talking to other people. When they're talking to you, they're your enemy.
      - Retra 7y ago
        I just don't think this 'enemy' rhetoric is all that accurate. Dealing with the police is like handling volatile high explosives; sometimes you have to do it, but they definitely have their purpose, but you'd be a fool to handle the interaction carelessly. Reducing that to merely 'enemy' conflates them with harmful things that serve no purpose at all. Like stupidity.
        Faark 7y ago
        Seems a lot like a typical prisoners dilemma. Everyone treating each other hostile would give a worse overall outcome, but individually it seems like the best strategy.
  - mcv 7y ago
    In a democracy, the state shouldn't be your enemy either. The state should represent you, as should the police.
    - danharaj 7y ago
- some_random 7y ago
  That sounds pretty dysfunctional to me, unless UK laws are so simple and clear cut that anyone can be expected to know and recall them.
- johnnycab 7y ago
  >in UK, refusing to talk to police at first contact can be used against you If you have read any of the anonymous blogs by those on the Job, they almost always tell you to either keep your mouth shut or say as little as possible ─ this was the wisdom imparted by 'Nightjack' before he got outed and had to delete his blog, subsequently going on to win accolades and the Orwell Prize.[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20090426201221/http://nightjack.wordpress.com/2008/07/24/a-survival-guide-for-decent-folk/ https://web.archive.org/web/20090426201221/http://nightjack.... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Horton_(blogger) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Horton_(blogger)
alexpotato 7y ago
This video is also very enlightening: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4nQ_mFJV4I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4nQ_mFJV4I The section on consenting to searches was the most interesting. E.g. you could consent to a search of your home thinking "I've done nothing wrong so come on in" only to find out someone (relative, maintenance person etc) left something illegal in your home without your knowledge.
Fogest 7y ago
The police in the past actually wanted me to come in and talk to them about an issue someone had reported. I came in and they surprised me with the line "My partner is just setting up the camera in the other room if that's okay". I was quite surprised and shocked that they wanted to record what they made sound like a friendly chat. I of course refused to give any kind of statement under video and instead just spoke privately with an officer and gave minimal details. However I fear that others less inclined about their rights or why they wanted to record would be screwing themselves. Essentially I had a false report made against me and there was no evidence. If I said anything incriminating in a video statement by accident I would have just made evidence for them. No one advised me of this. It felt like I should have brought a lawyer with me. Edit: This was in an Ontario based police department.
- sandworm101 7y ago
  >> I of course refused to give any kind of statement under video Realize too that a great many officers now don body cameras. If you aren't willing to say it on video, do not say it. No matter what they tell you, police officers are not capable of private conversations. Every conversation with a cop is a conversation between a person and a government. It might be recorded. The cop can take notes. They cop can get back to their car and relate the conversation to a camera, creating very powerful evidence. There is no concept of privacy when talking to police.
  - Fogest 7y ago
    Yes you're quite correct. I was in this case talking to more of a detective style person, not a regular in uniform police officer. They were taking notes while I was talking which was okay. However if anything went to court, or for it to go to court I would have had to had a video statement. Me being in the police officers messy office just having a conversation about an incident is much different from giving them a video statement. I am referring to a case where the only evidence against myself would be what I say. As such there is not much to go on if it's just some notes the officer took while informally talking with me in their office. They have no one else with them to back up what was said or anything to prove what I said is accurate/true. Since nothing was recorded not much could be done.
lbsnake7 7y ago
The other day I was reading about Miranda rights and I didn’t realize it wasn’t a thing until the 60s. It was heavily pushed and publicized by lawyers to make it a necessity to have lawyers at every step of the way. There is some debate about how harder it is to get convictions because of the Miranda rights. I’m not trying to say anything about how important the rights are when people go through the process, I just thought it was interesting. How does the rule about not talking to police work? What about when police are canvassing the neighborhood and they are knocking on every door? Are you supposed to talk then? What about when you have info of a crime? What about when you want to report a crime? Any of these situations is potentially a way for police to twist your words.
- 0xffff2 7y ago
  >How does the rule about not talking to police work? What about when police are canvassing the neighborhood and they are knocking on every door? Are you supposed to talk then? What about when you have info of a crime? What about when you want to report a crime? The important bit is "if the police are asking questions with any level of suspicion at all". Every person has to do their own personal risk assessment, and maybe you don't always know whether you're under suspicion, but if the police want to talk to you and you have any reason whatsoever to think that you're under suspicion, you're rolling the dice by agreeing to talk to them without a lawyer.

781 7y ago

That video is very US centric. In Europe in particular, police officers are not such an enemy. Also, in UK, refusing to talk to police at first contact can be used against you, for example it will be more difficult later to introduce exculpatory evidence that you were supposed to know of at the time you refused to speak. 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...

chrisseaton 7y ago
I believe the reason for this is the idea that it's a massive waste of the public's time and resources for you to refuse to reveal evidence which could have stopped the prosecution well before it went to trial.
- elliekelly 7y ago
  Yes, most of Europe/the World uses a "civil law" system which is much less adversarial than the U.S. & U.K.'s "common law" system.[1] Fun fact: because of their French (and to a lesser degree, Spanish) influence, Louisiana's laws still follow a civil law system. [1] https://www.apprendre-le-droit.fr/anglais-juridique/what-is-the-difference-between-common-law-and-civil-law/ https://www.apprendre-le-droit.fr/anglais-juridique/what-is-...
  - ultrarunner 7y ago
    And yet Louisiana has one of the highest (if not the highest) rate of incarcerations per-100k in the country[0]. Perhaps ‘less adversarial’ doesn’t count for much when it comes to the business end of the law. [0]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_incarceration_and_correctional_supervision_rate https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_incar...
    - elliekelly 7y ago
      Since most European countries (civil law systems) don't have such high incarceration rates and considering the U.S. (common law system) has one of the highest I don't think it's fair to attribute Louisiana's high incarceration rate to the state's civil law system. Louisiana is one of the poorest states in the country and has one of the highest contracted private prison quotas in the country (96% occupancy).[1] And until recently, Louisiana had some of the harshest mandatory minimum drug sentencing requirements.[2] They still have harsh mandatory minimums for other offenses. If you're looking for an explanation for Louisiana's criminal justice issues those factors are the far more likely explanations than the existence of a civil law system. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisiana_Department_of_Public_Safety_%26_Corrections https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisiana_Department_of_Publ... [2] https://www.pewtrusts.org/-/media/assets/2018/03/pspp_louisianas_2017_criminal_justice_reforms.pdf https://www.pewtrusts.org/-/media/assets/2018/03/pspp_louisi...
kjsbfkjbf 7y ago
> In Europe in particular, police officers are not such an enemy. Everywhere in the world the police are your enemy. They exist as the manifestation of a state's domestic violence.
- Retra 7y ago
  So we should abolish police worldwide? Or is there maybe some nuanced angle there that the state might be operating on your behalf?
  - MichaelBurge 7y ago
    They're operating on your behalf when they're talking to other people. When they're talking to you, they're your enemy.
    - Retra 7y ago
      I just don't think this 'enemy' rhetoric is all that accurate. Dealing with the police is like handling volatile high explosives; sometimes you have to do it, but they definitely have their purpose, but you'd be a fool to handle the interaction carelessly. Reducing that to merely 'enemy' conflates them with harmful things that serve no purpose at all. Like stupidity.
      - Faark 7y ago
        Seems a lot like a typical prisoners dilemma. Everyone treating each other hostile would give a worse overall outcome, but individually it seems like the best strategy.
- mcv 7y ago
  In a democracy, the state shouldn't be your enemy either. The state should represent you, as should the police.
  - danharaj 7y ago
some_random 7y ago
That sounds pretty dysfunctional to me, unless UK laws are so simple and clear cut that anyone can be expected to know and recall them.
johnnycab 7y ago
>in UK, refusing to talk to police at first contact can be used against you If you have read any of the anonymous blogs by those on the Job, they almost always tell you to either keep your mouth shut or say as little as possible ─ this was the wisdom imparted by 'Nightjack' before he got outed and had to delete his blog, subsequently going on to win accolades and the Orwell Prize.[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20090426201221/http://nightjack.wordpress.com/2008/07/24/a-survival-guide-for-decent-folk/ https://web.archive.org/web/20090426201221/http://nightjack.... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Horton_(blogger) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Horton_(blogger)

alexpotato 7y ago

This video is also very enlightening: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4nQ_mFJV4I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4nQ_mFJV4I The section on consenting to searches was the most interesting. E.g. you could consent to a search of your home thinking "I've done nothing wrong so come on in" only to find out someone (relative, maintenance person etc) left something illegal in your home without your knowledge.

Fogest 7y ago

The police in the past actually wanted me to come in and talk to them about an issue someone had reported. I came in and they surprised me with the line "My partner is just setting up the camera in the other room if that's okay". I was quite surprised and shocked that they wanted to record what they made sound like a friendly chat. I of course refused to give any kind of statement under video and instead just spoke privately with an officer and gave minimal details. However I fear that others less inclined about their rights or why they wanted to record would be screwing themselves. Essentially I had a false report made against me and there was no evidence. If I said anything incriminating in a video statement by accident I would have just made evidence for them. No one advised me of this. It felt like I should have brought a lawyer with me. Edit: This was in an Ontario based police department.

sandworm101 7y ago
>> I of course refused to give any kind of statement under video Realize too that a great many officers now don body cameras. If you aren't willing to say it on video, do not say it. No matter what they tell you, police officers are not capable of private conversations. Every conversation with a cop is a conversation between a person and a government. It might be recorded. The cop can take notes. They cop can get back to their car and relate the conversation to a camera, creating very powerful evidence. There is no concept of privacy when talking to police.
- Fogest 7y ago
  Yes you're quite correct. I was in this case talking to more of a detective style person, not a regular in uniform police officer. They were taking notes while I was talking which was okay. However if anything went to court, or for it to go to court I would have had to had a video statement. Me being in the police officers messy office just having a conversation about an incident is much different from giving them a video statement. I am referring to a case where the only evidence against myself would be what I say. As such there is not much to go on if it's just some notes the officer took while informally talking with me in their office. They have no one else with them to back up what was said or anything to prove what I said is accurate/true. Since nothing was recorded not much could be done.

lbsnake7 7y ago

The other day I was reading about Miranda rights and I didn’t realize it wasn’t a thing until the 60s. It was heavily pushed and publicized by lawyers to make it a necessity to have lawyers at every step of the way. There is some debate about how harder it is to get convictions because of the Miranda rights. I’m not trying to say anything about how important the rights are when people go through the process, I just thought it was interesting. How does the rule about not talking to police work? What about when police are canvassing the neighborhood and they are knocking on every door? Are you supposed to talk then? What about when you have info of a crime? What about when you want to report a crime? Any of these situations is potentially a way for police to twist your words.

0xffff2 7y ago
>How does the rule about not talking to police work? What about when police are canvassing the neighborhood and they are knocking on every door? Are you supposed to talk then? What about when you have info of a crime? What about when you want to report a crime? The important bit is "if the police are asking questions with any level of suspicion at all". Every person has to do their own personal risk assessment, and maybe you don't always know whether you're under suspicion, but if the police want to talk to you and you have any reason whatsoever to think that you're under suspicion, you're rolling the dice by agreeing to talk to them without a lawyer.