All that you said is true, but I think it's orthogonal to what I was wondering about -- actually, it just raised more questions for me. The common legal advice

All that you said is true, but I think it's orthogonal to what I was wondering about -- actually, it just raised more questions for me. The common legal advice is "do not talk to cop", which presumably because on average, you will actually get into trouble with it. So in a sense, the question was "Why would LEO cause you trouble for those technicality if you're innocent?". I mean, let's say the first innocent guy who got into the false statement trap actually just cooperate, got himself proven innocent, and the investigator let him go from the technicality, and then that's ... it, right? But I don't think that's what the story normally is (is it?). There seems to be too many stories of people getting into trouble for technicality/ trap, while committing no crime originally. There are several explanations I can think of for the behaviour (in which LEO follow up on trap when investigating innocence), most of them are quite unsettling. Notably, if criminal are getting good to the point that investigation can't truly tell without unreasonable doubt that a criminal has committed a crime, and so has to resort to trap to convict them (which leads using trap in any case they can), then well, isn't that just mean investigation are not effective as well? I know what we should do to (try to) protect ourselves from the current situation, I was just wondering how we get here. TL;DR: Law trap by itself is not good, however it's a necessity. But shouldn't it be used as last resort against criminal? Why does the population has to worry about trap as SOP of criminal investigator?