4 ms·

Maybe in Europe. Here in the USA, law enforcement is much more manipulative and narrow minded. If they're talking to you, they already think you're guilty, and

Maybe in Europe. Here in the USA, law enforcement is much more manipulative and narrow minded. If they're talking to you, they already think you're guilty, and they're trying to twist everything you tell them to fit their story. Don't ever interview with police without a lawyer present.

ars 15y ago
That interview you are thinking of is after arrest. In which case get a lawyer 100%. Before arrest they are much softer since you can leave at any time. And Europe is no different.
- milkshakes 15y ago
  I'm sorry, but no. You're wrong and this is horrible advice. The whole point of bringing the lawyer to any interview is to prevent you from saying something that could be twisted against you later. It doesn't matter if they're 'much softer' before they arrest you, anything you say at any time can and will still be used against you.
- furyg3 15y ago
  The police are trying to accomplish at least two objectives in the "information gathering" (pre-arrest) phase: 1. Figuring out what happened here, broadly. If you didn't do it, it truly seems like a good idea to help them with this function. It's easy to conceive of a situation where talking to them can help you here. 2. Collecting information to enable them to charge and testify against someone with. You really don't want to help them with this phase if the someone is you. Which it is. It's much better to deal with this area in court, where you get to see/evaluate/challenge their evidence before making statements. The problem with talking to the police in this pre-arrest phase is that you don't know what objective they're trying to achieve. Truth is, they don't either. They get to decide retroactively if something you said to them at this phase will be used as evidence against you, as evidence against someone else, or just discarded. Worse: in the US, what you said to them can never help you in court. "He told me he was at the scene of the crime" will help convict you, "He told me he he wasn't anywhere near the scene of the crime" will be thrown out as here-say. Given this situation, hindering objective #2 outweighs helping objective #1.

ars 15y ago

That interview you are thinking of is after arrest. In which case get a lawyer 100%. Before arrest they are much softer since you can leave at any time. And Europe is no different.

milkshakes 15y ago
I'm sorry, but no. You're wrong and this is horrible advice. The whole point of bringing the lawyer to any interview is to prevent you from saying something that could be twisted against you later. It doesn't matter if they're 'much softer' before they arrest you, anything you say at any time can and will still be used against you.
furyg3 15y ago
The police are trying to accomplish at least two objectives in the "information gathering" (pre-arrest) phase: 1. Figuring out what happened here, broadly. If you didn't do it, it truly seems like a good idea to help them with this function. It's easy to conceive of a situation where talking to them can help you here. 2. Collecting information to enable them to charge and testify against someone with. You really don't want to help them with this phase if the someone is you. Which it is. It's much better to deal with this area in court, where you get to see/evaluate/challenge their evidence before making statements. The problem with talking to the police in this pre-arrest phase is that you don't know what objective they're trying to achieve. Truth is, they don't either. They get to decide retroactively if something you said to them at this phase will be used as evidence against you, as evidence against someone else, or just discarded. Worse: in the US, what you said to them can never help you in court. "He told me he was at the scene of the crime" will help convict you, "He told me he he wasn't anywhere near the scene of the crime" will be thrown out as here-say. Given this situation, hindering objective #2 outweighs helping objective #1.