4 ms·

But the sample of people that your friend saw is biased. She only saw the people who talked to the police and ended up in prison, but doesn't know about the peo

by gst 13y ago

But the sample of people that your friend saw is biased. She only saw the people who talked to the police and ended up in prison, but doesn't know about the people who showed to the police that they are innocent, and who then left, without the interaction being recorded anywhere. The same is true for lawyers who tell you to never talk to the police. They only see the cases that get to a court, and don't see the cases that never make it that far. I'm not saying that you should always talk to the police, but it very much depends on the situation. In that particular case I'd have probably talked with them and insisted that they look at the actual data on the glass, if the alternative is to spend the night in jail, waiting for someone to look at the evidence.

fjhqjv 13y ago
It's not that lawyers think you should never talk to police, it's that you should wait until you have legal counsel to do so.
x0054 13y ago
This is a terrible advice! NEVER talk to the police. I have seen a lot of innocent people talk themselves into an arrest. Sure, none of them got convicted, but they spent a lot of time in the court system and thousands of dollars on attorney fees. This is my professional advise, and if you need more proof, here is a Detective giving the same advice on youtube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1t3vtr0kxk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1t3vtr0kxk
- x0054 13y ago
  Repsilat, you are mistaken. There is never any benefit to talking to the police (as a suspect). If you are a witness to the crime, and want to do your civic duty, be my guest. But as a suspect the cops are not at all interested in what you have to say. They are not interested in the truth, they are interested in probable cause to arrest you. All they are looking for is probable cause. In their mind it's arrest first, find out the truth later. Why do you think it took them that long to connect a laptop to the Google Glass and see if any video was recorded. They probably suspected it was empty. They tried to brake the guy first, to find any reason to arrest him, so they can go to his house and search all of his computers. They asked him a ton of questions, and I can guarantee you, they were looking for any unrelated excuse to arrest him.
  - kybernetyk 13y ago
    Sorry for accidentally downvoting you. I meant to upvote :(
  - mirkules 13y ago
    There is a saying: "You can't talk yourself out of being arrested, but you can talk yourself into being arrested."
- quadyeast 13y ago
  What if you are a witness to a crime? Do you still only communicate to the police through an attorney?
- repsilat 13y ago
  Talking to the police is cooperating in the prisoners dilemma. It isn't in your personal interest to do it, but the world is a better place if everyone does. Encouraging people not to talk to the police is actively making society worse. I talk to the police, even when it isn't in my personal interest, because I'm not a huge dickhead. I believe in a moral obligation to uphold the qualities that helped make my life livable in the first place.
  - busterarm 13y ago
    This seems like not only a poor analogy and poor understanding of the prisoner's dilemma but probably the hugest amount of wishful thinking I've seen perpetrated. You are guaranteed that some party is going to be a betrayer. A criminal and an innocent person aren't even playing the same game stakes-wise. In the prisoner's dilemma, both parties have to be guilty to begin with. More importantly, it requires knowledge of each party's existence by the other. Edit: Sort of an aside (it seems you may be focused on the idea of talking for the purpose of snitching?), but I think Immortal Technique brought up a good point when he said that ordinary people (well, he said blacks and latinos) shouldn't snitch on each other until cops start doing it first. There are very obvious reasons why cops don't do it (along a scale from Adrian Schoolcraft to Frank Serpico) and maybe citizens are right not to do it either.
    - repsilat 13y ago
      You've taken the analogy more literally than it was intended. I didn't mean to say that "if everyone (including guilty people) is honest with the police then guilty people will be caught." That would have been naive. My point is that talking to the police is a prisoners dilemma when considered as a game played only between innocent people. My point is that the police can't do their job without information, and almost all information given to the police is volunteered by innocent people. Far fewer crimes would be solved if everyone clammed up when the police knocked on their doors, and that'll inevitably lead to more crime.
      - busterarm 13y ago
busterarm 13y ago
Yes, generally lawyers and people in legal support professions have biased interpretations on matters of law. They're supposed to. It is completely accurate for a lawyer to say it cannot help you _in court_ to talk to police. It cannot as a matter of law. The Miranda warning makes this pretty plain in that: "Anything you say or do may be used against you in a court of law." and many now read "may" as "can and will". The police officer does not make the decision to charge you; that is done by a district attorney. The district attorney's job is to decide if they can get a conviction. It's also their job to get as many convictions as possible. You may have read recently that 97% of federal drug convictions are plea bargains; the tl;dr being that people are forced to weigh a short sentence vs a brutally long one with a costly defense. So a district attorney isn't making the decision solely on whether they can convict you in court but on if they can get you to plea as well. When the severity of the charge is high, say for example a mandatory minimum 15 year prison sentence (even for first offenders or even if you're only tangentially responsible for the crime (not exactly the same but Ryan Holle's story is a good read here)) if you're convicted, it is a lot easier for them to get you people to plea and they are more likely to proceed with charges. When you interview with police, you have absolutely no idea what they plan to charge you with. They could charge you with things after speaking to you that have absolutely no relation to what they initially intend to question you about. This is why you should never, ever, ever, ever take an interview with an investigating officer without a lawyer present. The safest and most paranoid extension of that is not to talk to police at all (like for reporting crimes, etc) and honestly I cannot fault anyone for that logic.
mikeash 13y ago
There are four possible cases: A) Somebody talked to the police, the police gave them no trouble, and they went about their lives. B) Somebody talked to the police, they got themselves in trouble, and they went to prison unnecessarily. C) Somebody didn't talk to the police, the police gave them no trouble, and they went about their lives. D) Somebody didn't talk to the police, they got themselves in trouble, and they went to prison unnecessarily. You're saying that lawyers and prosecutors and such will see B but not A. This is true! However, when you consider all four cases, you must consider that these people will also see case D. And yet I have never once heard of anyone involved in the system who said, man, that guy really screwed himself by not talking to the police, if only he had just cooperated with them. Not once have I ever heard this. If it happened, they would see it, so the only conclusion I can draw is that it does not happen.

by gst 13y ago

fjhqjv 13y ago

It's not that lawyers think you should never talk to police, it's that you should wait until you have legal counsel to do so.

x0054 13y ago

This is a terrible advice! NEVER talk to the police. I have seen a lot of innocent people talk themselves into an arrest. Sure, none of them got convicted, but they spent a lot of time in the court system and thousands of dollars on attorney fees. This is my professional advise, and if you need more proof, here is a Detective giving the same advice on youtube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1t3vtr0kxk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1t3vtr0kxk

x0054 13y ago
Repsilat, you are mistaken. There is never any benefit to talking to the police (as a suspect). If you are a witness to the crime, and want to do your civic duty, be my guest. But as a suspect the cops are not at all interested in what you have to say. They are not interested in the truth, they are interested in probable cause to arrest you. All they are looking for is probable cause. In their mind it's arrest first, find out the truth later. Why do you think it took them that long to connect a laptop to the Google Glass and see if any video was recorded. They probably suspected it was empty. They tried to brake the guy first, to find any reason to arrest him, so they can go to his house and search all of his computers. They asked him a ton of questions, and I can guarantee you, they were looking for any unrelated excuse to arrest him.
- kybernetyk 13y ago
  Sorry for accidentally downvoting you. I meant to upvote :(
- mirkules 13y ago
  There is a saying: "You can't talk yourself out of being arrested, but you can talk yourself into being arrested."
quadyeast 13y ago
What if you are a witness to a crime? Do you still only communicate to the police through an attorney?
repsilat 13y ago
Talking to the police is cooperating in the prisoners dilemma. It isn't in your personal interest to do it, but the world is a better place if everyone does. Encouraging people not to talk to the police is actively making society worse. I talk to the police, even when it isn't in my personal interest, because I'm not a huge dickhead. I believe in a moral obligation to uphold the qualities that helped make my life livable in the first place.
- busterarm 13y ago
  This seems like not only a poor analogy and poor understanding of the prisoner's dilemma but probably the hugest amount of wishful thinking I've seen perpetrated. You are guaranteed that some party is going to be a betrayer. A criminal and an innocent person aren't even playing the same game stakes-wise. In the prisoner's dilemma, both parties have to be guilty to begin with. More importantly, it requires knowledge of each party's existence by the other. Edit: Sort of an aside (it seems you may be focused on the idea of talking for the purpose of snitching?), but I think Immortal Technique brought up a good point when he said that ordinary people (well, he said blacks and latinos) shouldn't snitch on each other until cops start doing it first. There are very obvious reasons why cops don't do it (along a scale from Adrian Schoolcraft to Frank Serpico) and maybe citizens are right not to do it either.
  - repsilat 13y ago
    You've taken the analogy more literally than it was intended. I didn't mean to say that "if everyone (including guilty people) is honest with the police then guilty people will be caught." That would have been naive. My point is that talking to the police is a prisoners dilemma when considered as a game played only between innocent people. My point is that the police can't do their job without information, and almost all information given to the police is volunteered by innocent people. Far fewer crimes would be solved if everyone clammed up when the police knocked on their doors, and that'll inevitably lead to more crime.
    - busterarm 13y ago

busterarm 13y ago

Yes, generally lawyers and people in legal support professions have biased interpretations on matters of law. They're supposed to. It is completely accurate for a lawyer to say it cannot help you _in court_ to talk to police. It cannot as a matter of law. The Miranda warning makes this pretty plain in that: "Anything you say or do may be used against you in a court of law." and many now read "may" as "can and will". The police officer does not make the decision to charge you; that is done by a district attorney. The district attorney's job is to decide if they can get a conviction. It's also their job to get as many convictions as possible. You may have read recently that 97% of federal drug convictions are plea bargains; the tl;dr being that people are forced to weigh a short sentence vs a brutally long one with a costly defense. So a district attorney isn't making the decision solely on whether they can convict you in court but on if they can get you to plea as well. When the severity of the charge is high, say for example a mandatory minimum 15 year prison sentence (even for first offenders or even if you're only tangentially responsible for the crime (not exactly the same but Ryan Holle's story is a good read here)) if you're convicted, it is a lot easier for them to get you people to plea and they are more likely to proceed with charges. When you interview with police, you have absolutely no idea what they plan to charge you with. They could charge you with things after speaking to you that have absolutely no relation to what they initially intend to question you about. This is why you should never, ever, ever, ever take an interview with an investigating officer without a lawyer present. The safest and most paranoid extension of that is not to talk to police at all (like for reporting crimes, etc) and honestly I cannot fault anyone for that logic.

mikeash 13y ago

There are four possible cases: A) Somebody talked to the police, the police gave them no trouble, and they went about their lives. B) Somebody talked to the police, they got themselves in trouble, and they went to prison unnecessarily. C) Somebody didn't talk to the police, the police gave them no trouble, and they went about their lives. D) Somebody didn't talk to the police, they got themselves in trouble, and they went to prison unnecessarily. You're saying that lawyers and prosecutors and such will see B but not A. This is true! However, when you consider all four cases, you must consider that these people will also see case D. And yet I have never once heard of anyone involved in the system who said, man, that guy really screwed himself by not talking to the police, if only he had just cooperated with them. Not once have I ever heard this. If it happened, they would see it, so the only conclusion I can draw is that it does not happen.