9 ms·

> 3. Never ever ever ever talk to the cops. Retain your right for silence. It's the greatest gift you have. The cops don't want to sort anything out, they aren'

> 3. Never ever ever ever talk to the cops. Retain your right for silence. It's the greatest gift you have. The cops don't want to sort anything out, they aren't on your side. They want to nail you. That's all they care about. They have a job to do. That job is to find someone to blame for this problem. So they're gonna do that. Don't help them do that. Save your ammunition for trial. My jury ended up laughing at the prosecutor and the investigating officer in the trial. That's the same advice usually given here when someone is asking how to deal with HR.

Angostura 7y ago
I was on a jury a few months ago (in the UK) where we were given the transcript of the police interview. If it had been a series of refusals to answer, it would have looked very shady. The shock and surprise of the accused was palpable from the transcript and believeable.
- edoo 7y ago
  In the UK silence can be taken as proof of criminality. In the US the following statement would mean there is no transcript: "I'm asserting my 5th amendment right to silence not because I believe I have done anything wrong but because anything I say can and will be used against me in a court of law"
  - philjohn 7y ago
    The "miranda" rights in the UK are "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." But the usual advice of - don't say a damn thing until you have legal representation still stands.
- polymatter 7y ago
  The UK doesn't have the same right to silence. Nor anything about taking the fifth either. Refusal to answer could be taken as obstruction of justice or contempt of court, and will likely be considered relevant information for a jury.
  - jmkni 7y ago
    It goes further in Northern Ireland, the jury are allowed to infer guilt from your silence - https://cain.ulster.ac.uk/othelem/organ/ai/1993-02-01_ai.pdf https://cain.ulster.ac.uk/othelem/organ/ai/1993-02-01_ai.pdf
    - Joeboy 7y ago
      Also in England and Wales, since the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act of 1994 I believe.
  - marksweston 7y ago
    This is strongly overstating the case: The UK right to silence is pretty well summarised in the modern wording of the police caution: "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." Staying silent is not obstruction of justice or contempt of court. No one is ever required to respond to questioning. But it might lose you credibility in court of you produce an alibi or other defence at trial that you didn't mention during questioning. The only exception is passwords and encryption keys, which have to be supplied if a court order is obtained and aren't considered testimony.
    - andyjpb 7y ago
      The right to silence was changed to this in the 1994 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act. The reason for the change (AIUI) was due to the arrest of IRA dissidents who remained silent and then produced alibis in court that would have been easy to dispel at the time but were not so easily dismissed in court, once they had gathered support from their communities. Incidentally, the 1994 act also banned music containing "repetitive beats" and legalised anal sex between heterosexual couples, albeit with a number of caveats and conditions. More info is available at the Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_Justice_and_Public_Order_Act_1994 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_Justice_and_Public_Or...
  - cameronh90 7y ago
- tyingq 7y ago
  That goes hand in hand with the UK providing you with a higher quality lawyer if you can't afford it. In the US, the cops try very hard to question you (for hours) without one. And while there is a public defender system, it doesn't usually provide a competent lawyer.
  - chimprich 7y ago
    The UK's budget for legal aid has been slashed dramatically in recent years under the Conservative government under the guise of austerity. This is well documented in the (very readable) book "The Secret Barrister". https://thesecretbarrister.com/ https://thesecretbarrister.com/ The author claims that the cuts are not even cost-effective, often leading to more spending by government to deal with the consequences.
    - johnnycab 7y ago
      I will second the book. The author also has a presence on Twitter: https://twitter.com/BarristerSecret https://twitter.com/BarristerSecret
  - teddyuk 7y ago
    How do you get to be a lawyer in the US if you aren't competent?
    - tyingq 7y ago
      Passing the bar implies some level of technical competence. It doesn't say much about the service delivered to indigent defendants. I suspect it is a mix of overworked, burned out, jaded, pressure to take a plea deal to reduce load, etc.
    - Broken_Hippo 7y ago
      Well, it isn't always that they aren't competent. Put that same lawyer in a position where they are paid, and I'm guessing things would improve. But what actually happens is that the system makes them incompetent simply being in the job. For example, the caseload is too high, which means that they cannot spend the time a paid lawyer would spend on it. Folks also get little choice in which of these cases they take and which they do not. On top of all of this, they are working in a system stacked against them and they usually aren't getting paid much.
- wil421 7y ago
  You are not allowed to take the persons silence as a sign of guilt in the US. If you invoke your right there wouldn’t be a transcript.
  - n8henry 7y ago
    The US Supreme Court has said that you must invoke your right to remain silent. It doesn't seem constitutional, but it is currently the law. (Salinas v. Texas and People v. Tom)
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - testvox 7y ago
      That's not entirely true. They ruled that silence in a non-custodial interview could be admissable at trial. Silence in custodial interviews is still not admissable and they didn't actually decide the question of whether or not silence can be taken as substantive evidence of guilt.
      - khuey 7y ago
        What is "silence in a non-custodial interview" and how is that different from no interview at all?
        n8henry 7y ago
        It means remaining silent when you are not under arrest or being detained.
        testvox 7y ago
        Sadly the court considers detainment to be non-custodial and rarely do they venture to better define when a detainment turns into an arrest.
  - bnegreve 7y ago
- gdfasfklshg4 7y ago
  You have no obligation to say anything until provided with a solicitor.
  - chrisseaton 7y ago
    You have no obligation to... but the jury can hold that against you. It seems somewhat reasonable to me - if you have an alibi then you should tell that to the Police as soon as practical. Otherwise you're wasting everyone's time.
    - MereInterest 7y ago
      I am not a lawyer. I have not studied law, and do not know what comments are innocuous to make, and what comments would be used against me. I do not know what constitutes an alibi in the eyes of the law. I do not know what questions police are legally allowed to ask. It is unreasonable to expect a person to know the detailed workings of the legal system. It is therefore unreasonable for there to be any negative consequences whatsoever for waiting until there is a legal expert present.
      - chrisseaton 7y ago
        > It is therefore unreasonable for there to be any negative consequences whatsoever for waiting until there is a legal expert present. You don't need to be a legal expert to answer basic questions from a Police officer about did you do something or were you in a location at a time. They aren't lawyers either! And I didn't say you couldn't ask for a lawyer and wait for one to turn up before answering... But if they charge you for speeding, and then you wait six months until the trial, and claim only at that point that you weren't the one driving. Come on... that's a waste of society's time.
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
        mattlutze 7y ago
        In many jurisdictions, law enforcement have gray areas as to what they can ask, how they can ask it, and how they can use your answers. Their job is to collect evidence and send it to the prosecutor. They're given wide latitude to collect it as quickly as possible, and while law enforcement and the public attorney's offices are by and large just trying to see justice done fairly, they're almost always understaffed and over-pressured. People act weird in pressure situations. Law enforcement personnel deal with law breaking every day, but the rest of us don't. If you're innocent and confronted with an accusation of a crime, in your resulting heightened emotional state, you don't want to say something stupid or in a way that makes you look unnecessarily suspicious. In this situation it should be ok for you to not answer questions, wait until your involuntary adrenaline reaction wears off, and then have a conversation about it.
- bobloblaw45 7y ago
  I think this is where having a great lawyer comes in.
- 3fe9a03ccd14ca5 7y ago
  I don’t think he meant never talk to them, but never talk to them until have you’ve set up your legal counsel and sought their advice. People talk all of the time without lawyers, thinking lawyering up might make them look guilty.
- jopsen 7y ago
  There is a difference been the US and many other places. For starters the prosecution isn't trying to scare people into a plea bargain. Many places the police aren't allowed to lie to you. And many places the police can be called to testify on your behalf.
bromuro 7y ago
What is HR?
- pseudolus 7y ago
  Human Resources.
- mc32 7y ago
  Human Resources, not home run.
- have_faith 7y ago
  Humility Resistance /s
ken 7y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weingarten_Rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weingarten_Rights These days it doesn't seem to apply to non-union workers, unfortunately -- which is like reason #93 to want a union.
Yajirobe 7y ago
Could you expand on that? What does it mean to 'not talk to HR'? Isn't it unavoidable in a job application process?
- anbotero 7y ago
  Perhaps he means when you’re already part of the company. You should nonetheless fight for your rights, but HR is not there to help you as employee, I suppose is what the message is about. They are there to safeguard the company from employee wrongdoings (be it true or not). I’d say talk to HR, but be 100% prepared to get backlash (maybe fire you) from them just in case. Sue them, move on.
  - kazagistar 7y ago
    Yep. Build your own case, maybe even consult a lawyer, _then_ talk to HR.
- mLuby 7y ago
  They mean for workplace problems, like complaints, harassment, etc. The line is "HR's job is to protect the company not you." HR's normal functions like hiring, compensation, benefits, transfers, etc are fine to talk about.
  - Scarblac 7y ago
    It's so dystopian though. The company consists of its employees. Usually the interests should be aligned.
    - zentiggr 7y ago
      Ahh... welcome to the world. You are a cost center. You are a potential legal liability if anything you do could cause the company to have to defend itself. And you may also do great things, and help do awesome corporate projects. But first and foremost, your employment is a bet by the company that your usefulness will outweigh your potential minefields.

Angostura 7y ago

I was on a jury a few months ago (in the UK) where we were given the transcript of the police interview. If it had been a series of refusals to answer, it would have looked very shady. The shock and surprise of the accused was palpable from the transcript and believeable.

edoo 7y ago
In the UK silence can be taken as proof of criminality. In the US the following statement would mean there is no transcript: "I'm asserting my 5th amendment right to silence not because I believe I have done anything wrong but because anything I say can and will be used against me in a court of law"
- philjohn 7y ago
  The "miranda" rights in the UK are "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." But the usual advice of - don't say a damn thing until you have legal representation still stands.
polymatter 7y ago
The UK doesn't have the same right to silence. Nor anything about taking the fifth either. Refusal to answer could be taken as obstruction of justice or contempt of court, and will likely be considered relevant information for a jury.
- jmkni 7y ago
  It goes further in Northern Ireland, the jury are allowed to infer guilt from your silence - https://cain.ulster.ac.uk/othelem/organ/ai/1993-02-01_ai.pdf https://cain.ulster.ac.uk/othelem/organ/ai/1993-02-01_ai.pdf
  - Joeboy 7y ago
    Also in England and Wales, since the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act of 1994 I believe.
- marksweston 7y ago
  This is strongly overstating the case: The UK right to silence is pretty well summarised in the modern wording of the police caution: "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." Staying silent is not obstruction of justice or contempt of court. No one is ever required to respond to questioning. But it might lose you credibility in court of you produce an alibi or other defence at trial that you didn't mention during questioning. The only exception is passwords and encryption keys, which have to be supplied if a court order is obtained and aren't considered testimony.
  - andyjpb 7y ago
    The right to silence was changed to this in the 1994 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act. The reason for the change (AIUI) was due to the arrest of IRA dissidents who remained silent and then produced alibis in court that would have been easy to dispel at the time but were not so easily dismissed in court, once they had gathered support from their communities. Incidentally, the 1994 act also banned music containing "repetitive beats" and legalised anal sex between heterosexual couples, albeit with a number of caveats and conditions. More info is available at the Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_Justice_and_Public_Order_Act_1994 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_Justice_and_Public_Or...
- cameronh90 7y ago
tyingq 7y ago
That goes hand in hand with the UK providing you with a higher quality lawyer if you can't afford it. In the US, the cops try very hard to question you (for hours) without one. And while there is a public defender system, it doesn't usually provide a competent lawyer.
- chimprich 7y ago
  The UK's budget for legal aid has been slashed dramatically in recent years under the Conservative government under the guise of austerity. This is well documented in the (very readable) book "The Secret Barrister". https://thesecretbarrister.com/ https://thesecretbarrister.com/ The author claims that the cuts are not even cost-effective, often leading to more spending by government to deal with the consequences.
  - johnnycab 7y ago
    I will second the book. The author also has a presence on Twitter: https://twitter.com/BarristerSecret https://twitter.com/BarristerSecret
- teddyuk 7y ago
  How do you get to be a lawyer in the US if you aren't competent?
  - tyingq 7y ago
    Passing the bar implies some level of technical competence. It doesn't say much about the service delivered to indigent defendants. I suspect it is a mix of overworked, burned out, jaded, pressure to take a plea deal to reduce load, etc.
  - Broken_Hippo 7y ago
    Well, it isn't always that they aren't competent. Put that same lawyer in a position where they are paid, and I'm guessing things would improve. But what actually happens is that the system makes them incompetent simply being in the job. For example, the caseload is too high, which means that they cannot spend the time a paid lawyer would spend on it. Folks also get little choice in which of these cases they take and which they do not. On top of all of this, they are working in a system stacked against them and they usually aren't getting paid much.
wil421 7y ago
You are not allowed to take the persons silence as a sign of guilt in the US. If you invoke your right there wouldn’t be a transcript.
- n8henry 7y ago
  The US Supreme Court has said that you must invoke your right to remain silent. It doesn't seem constitutional, but it is currently the law. (Salinas v. Texas and People v. Tom)
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - testvox 7y ago
    That's not entirely true. They ruled that silence in a non-custodial interview could be admissable at trial. Silence in custodial interviews is still not admissable and they didn't actually decide the question of whether or not silence can be taken as substantive evidence of guilt.
    - khuey 7y ago
      What is "silence in a non-custodial interview" and how is that different from no interview at all?
      - n8henry 7y ago
        It means remaining silent when you are not under arrest or being detained.
        testvox 7y ago
        Sadly the court considers detainment to be non-custodial and rarely do they venture to better define when a detainment turns into an arrest.
- bnegreve 7y ago
gdfasfklshg4 7y ago
You have no obligation to say anything until provided with a solicitor.
- chrisseaton 7y ago
  You have no obligation to... but the jury can hold that against you. It seems somewhat reasonable to me - if you have an alibi then you should tell that to the Police as soon as practical. Otherwise you're wasting everyone's time.
  - MereInterest 7y ago
    I am not a lawyer. I have not studied law, and do not know what comments are innocuous to make, and what comments would be used against me. I do not know what constitutes an alibi in the eyes of the law. I do not know what questions police are legally allowed to ask. It is unreasonable to expect a person to know the detailed workings of the legal system. It is therefore unreasonable for there to be any negative consequences whatsoever for waiting until there is a legal expert present.
    - chrisseaton 7y ago
      > It is therefore unreasonable for there to be any negative consequences whatsoever for waiting until there is a legal expert present. You don't need to be a legal expert to answer basic questions from a Police officer about did you do something or were you in a location at a time. They aren't lawyers either! And I didn't say you couldn't ask for a lawyer and wait for one to turn up before answering... But if they charge you for speeding, and then you wait six months until the trial, and claim only at that point that you weren't the one driving. Come on... that's a waste of society's time.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - mattlutze 7y ago
        In many jurisdictions, law enforcement have gray areas as to what they can ask, how they can ask it, and how they can use your answers. Their job is to collect evidence and send it to the prosecutor. They're given wide latitude to collect it as quickly as possible, and while law enforcement and the public attorney's offices are by and large just trying to see justice done fairly, they're almost always understaffed and over-pressured. People act weird in pressure situations. Law enforcement personnel deal with law breaking every day, but the rest of us don't. If you're innocent and confronted with an accusation of a crime, in your resulting heightened emotional state, you don't want to say something stupid or in a way that makes you look unnecessarily suspicious. In this situation it should be ok for you to not answer questions, wait until your involuntary adrenaline reaction wears off, and then have a conversation about it.
bobloblaw45 7y ago
I think this is where having a great lawyer comes in.
3fe9a03ccd14ca5 7y ago
I don’t think he meant never talk to them, but never talk to them until have you’ve set up your legal counsel and sought their advice. People talk all of the time without lawyers, thinking lawyering up might make them look guilty.
jopsen 7y ago
There is a difference been the US and many other places. For starters the prosecution isn't trying to scare people into a plea bargain. Many places the police aren't allowed to lie to you. And many places the police can be called to testify on your behalf.

bromuro 7y ago

What is HR?

pseudolus 7y ago
Human Resources.
mc32 7y ago
Human Resources, not home run.
have_faith 7y ago
Humility Resistance /s

ken 7y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weingarten_Rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weingarten_Rights These days it doesn't seem to apply to non-union workers, unfortunately -- which is like reason #93 to want a union.

Yajirobe 7y ago

Could you expand on that? What does it mean to 'not talk to HR'? Isn't it unavoidable in a job application process?

anbotero 7y ago
Perhaps he means when you’re already part of the company. You should nonetheless fight for your rights, but HR is not there to help you as employee, I suppose is what the message is about. They are there to safeguard the company from employee wrongdoings (be it true or not). I’d say talk to HR, but be 100% prepared to get backlash (maybe fire you) from them just in case. Sue them, move on.
- kazagistar 7y ago
  Yep. Build your own case, maybe even consult a lawyer, _then_ talk to HR.
mLuby 7y ago
They mean for workplace problems, like complaints, harassment, etc. The line is "HR's job is to protect the company not you." HR's normal functions like hiring, compensation, benefits, transfers, etc are fine to talk about.
- Scarblac 7y ago
  It's so dystopian though. The company consists of its employees. Usually the interests should be aligned.
  - zentiggr 7y ago
    Ahh... welcome to the world. You are a cost center. You are a potential legal liability if anything you do could cause the company to have to defend itself. And you may also do great things, and help do awesome corporate projects. But first and foremost, your employment is a bet by the company that your usefulness will outweigh your potential minefields.