5 ms·

"Lie" in the eye of the beholder. To the cop, stating that you touched someone means that you've opened the door -- it's a thread connecting your story to the

• baddox 15y ago
  In the example, the cop testifies that when he first approached the defendant, the defendant admitted to placing his hand on the plaintiff's throat, but only as a joke. The defendant claimed that he never said anything of the sort to the cop. It was the cop's and plaintiff's word against the defendant's word, and the defendant was found guilty. How would it have helped if the defendant had said nothing to the cop? The cop lied about him talking. To me, the words of a cop and a plaintiff are "reasonably doubtful," but I guess not. Anyway, my point is that in this example, the cop lied about what the defendant said.
  • StavrosK 15y ago
    It's harder for the officer to lie and say that you said something when you refused to say anything. It's easier to just "slip" something in a conversation if you're talking to him in the first place.
    • baddox 15y ago
      How so? If your interaction with the cop wasn't recorded, even if you started out by saying "I choose to remain silent" and never said another word, the cop can easily testify that you said something. I don't see how it's "easier" to change an actual conversation than it is to completely fabricate one.
      • StavrosK 15y ago
        > I don't see how it's "easier" to change an actual conversation than it is to completely fabricate one. It's easier because, when you fabricate an entire conversation rather than one sentence, you have to make up more things. That's the purely technical argument. There are also psychological considerations on the part of the officer, people are more likely to rationalize making up one little thing than making up an entire conversation.
        • stretchwithme 15y ago
          Yes, they can ask you all kinds of questions about what you said and make you appear quite talkative. Say nothing and you can truthfully say repeatedly that you said nothing. You'll be able to consistently tell the truth on the stand without having to explain any of your statements, statements that the prosecution will attempt to twist into incriminating statements. Of course, if you do the same to the prosecutor before trial, the chances of you making it to trial go down. Prosecutors like to win their cases.
      • roel_v 15y ago
        Only in the very technical, abstract sense. Interrogations, testimony and memories are about psychology, what has actually happened is only superficially related. When you have a long conversation with someone, it's easy for them to remember things you didn't say because they think they heard them. Watch the video linked above, for the example about the story the guy read to the audience. This is exactly what happens to everybody - I myself thought I was smarter than that, but I'm really stupid and stubborn like that and it took me at least 10 times being proven wrong before I internalized that no, the things I think I see and hear and remember are quite likely to be different from what actually happened (in criminal psychology and evidence classes, this was). Anyway yes it's easier to change a conversation than to fabricate one; because "changing" can mean many things - intentionally lying is the least common occurrence, simple "neural" errors happen a lot more often.
      • a3camero 15y ago
        You don't know ahead of time what's going to happen. That's the key here. Maybe they'll lie (probably not that common), or maybe what you said will somehow implicate you in a crime, or maybe...? That's why it's important. It's not after the fact knowing the police lied but beforehand when you don't know how things will play out that remaining silent is important.