3 ms·

>According to your suggested phrasing above, if your lawyer does not investigate and then prosecute any apparent law-breaking, then you have just lied to a poli

>According to your suggested phrasing above, if your lawyer does not investigate and then prosecute any apparent law-breaking, then you have just lied to a police officer. That can be an expensive phrase to follow up on. Where's the lie? In my case - it would be true. I'd investigate every single one of these rent-a-cops, and any laws they broke - they'd be prosecuted for it. Look - I agree, don't talk to cops. But these are rent-a-cops we're talking about (private cops on the private property of the movie theatre). I see no reason why civil society should just bend over and take it, just because 'the law will get you because it is harder than you'. Such conditions bely the fact that you are living in a tyrannical state, yo ..

dalke 13y ago
I said "if your lawyer does not investigate". You then said "I'd investigate ...", when you earlier asserted that you would have your lawyer do it. A lawyer's time costs money. Especially if, as was the case here, it doesn't seem like there was anything illegal. According to the account the Google Glass wearer was informed that he was not being detained. According the the account, the Google Glass wearer not only consented to a search but insisted upon a search. (There's also good odds that they training in ways to apply psychological pressure without breaking the law.) Nothing here is illegal, and you would have no case, so it's not like your lawyer would even have the possibility of taking it on contingency. But you are right. Assuming they were all "rent-a-cops" then there's no law against lying to them, and you could make whatever threats you want about lawyers, true or false. According to the report, it wasn't clear if they were or were not police officers. Which is why knowing one's rights is important. There's tyranny of oppression. There's also tyranny of ignorance.
- dalke 13y ago
  For the record, it wasn't all "rent-a-cops." Homeland Security's ICE division was there. See http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140121/15234325942/mpaa-ice-confirm-they-interrogated-guy-wearing-google-glass-during-movie.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140121/15234325942/mpaa-i... .

dalke 13y ago

I said "if your lawyer does not investigate". You then said "I'd investigate ...", when you earlier asserted that you would have your lawyer do it. A lawyer's time costs money. Especially if, as was the case here, it doesn't seem like there was anything illegal. According to the account the Google Glass wearer was informed that he was not being detained. According the the account, the Google Glass wearer not only consented to a search but insisted upon a search. (There's also good odds that they training in ways to apply psychological pressure without breaking the law.) Nothing here is illegal, and you would have no case, so it's not like your lawyer would even have the possibility of taking it on contingency. But you are right. Assuming they were all "rent-a-cops" then there's no law against lying to them, and you could make whatever threats you want about lawyers, true or false. According to the report, it wasn't clear if they were or were not police officers. Which is why knowing one's rights is important. There's tyranny of oppression. There's also tyranny of ignorance.

dalke 13y ago
For the record, it wasn't all "rent-a-cops." Homeland Security's ICE division was there. See http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140121/15234325942/mpaa-ice-confirm-they-interrogated-guy-wearing-google-glass-during-movie.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140121/15234325942/mpaa-i... .