As someone who has been through the criminal justice system a handful of times, here's what I always tell people:
If you are approached by a policeman/woman, you don't need to say anything other than, "I'm going to ask you to refer all questions to my counsel as I'm not prepared to handle or able to answer any questions you may have."
Don't have counsel? Get some. Can't afford any? Tell the policeman/woman that you'll "confer with your legal team" and if your "legal team" believes it's appropriate to answer questions, you'll let them know. Oh, and call your local public defender's office.
A policeman/woman may, "just want to talk" or, "ask you a few questions"; that's okay, just repeat what you said. They may say "you're not in trouble" and that's great, so repeat what you said.
A policeman/woman can only get you in trouble, they cannot get you out of trouble.
When it comes to court, our public defenders system, while it means well, is horribly broken. PDs are often assigned far too many cases they can reasonably handle. PDs don't go to trial often enough, because they can't handle the additional workload.
I grew up in a very privileged white world, with an attitude that I could always talk to the police because they were never interested in me. I felt that there would be unlikely to be an outcome where I got in any real trouble even if I had been breaking the law in some childish but “not actually bad” kind of way. Doing some dumb stunt or smoking a little weed - “nothing serious”.
A friend from a different place helped me see that in so many ways that attitude was only one I could hold from my position of extreme privilege. The world was in a sense made for me, or rather people like me. As a “normal” white male the system had built-in leniency. White judges would “understand I was a good kid” who “meant no harm”. The law had a built in amount of forgiveness for me. I could risk doing dumb things and still talk to police.
For everyone who isn’t amongst the class this world was build for, the reality is very different. Even my outlook was a fantasy that may not always hold true, but for others there is not even the comfort of that belief. People like me who are comfortable will perpetuate the system because it “works” for us, but everyone else is terrorized by it.
I have a different outlook now, and I can begin to understand why talking to the police is so risky for most people. I understand too that it is risky for me. The system does not in fact care for me. I am more cautious now. And I desire a system that is more fair - though I have so much more I need to learn, and I need to get more out of my comfort zone to better serve the others most affected by the injustice of our system.
> I grew up in a very privileged white world, with an attitude that I could always talk to the police because they were never interested in me. I felt that there would be unlikely to be an outcome where I got in any real trouble even if I had been breaking the law in some childish but “not actually bad” kind of way. Doing some dumb stunt or smoking a little weed - “nothing serious”.
What you describe as the "very privileged white world" sounds exactly how the citizen/police interactions ought to be.
It is a fragile balance that has been built and maintained by your society. The way you describe such as legacy is problematic, as people often see 'privilege' as something 'unfair', something to distance ourselves from. And by saying that the correct citizen/police interactions are a privilege, you push for everyone to average down, rather than make a better world for everyone.
You should instead focus on making sure everyone has the best chance of having a decent civil society. The best start is by using your everyday language as a way to anchor the correct interaction as the goal, not something to be avoided.
Ex:
"Last Friday night two officers brought me to my parents. I was a little too 'agitated'. It scared the shit out of me, but they let me go with a warning. I tell you man, I'm happy to have such friendly officers in my city." (<---
anchor it as a goal)
"My friend from a different place got in trouble with the police last week. It looks like it's a pattern. Hopefully we'll find what is causing this friction soon and stop this shit." (<--- point out it's an unwanted consequence and that something has to change.)
Thank you for this comment. I 100% agree and will try to take this to heart. I do believe friendly fair police should be the goal. I expect it will take a very different approach to policing (laws and power structures need to change), but always anchoring the goal of fair and respectful interaction is the right idea.
I've heard this advice a lot. Have you ever followed this in real life? How did it work out for you? I worry that cops have the potential to make my life very unpleasant if I annoy them.
Yes. All the time. They get annoyed. Sometimes they shout or make empty threats. Eventually they tuck their tails between their legs and run off, realizing that I have no interesting in giving them any ammo against me.
Ever been arrested? It's no fun, and there's understandably a presumption by pretty much all concerned that the cop is telling the truth and the accused perp is not.
What you say is indeed how the law is written, sure, but the truth on the ground is different.
They absolutely can arrest you without probable cause. It’s illegal but that is to be decided later - and your case may never be decided if they find some excuse after the fact to legitimize an illegitimate arrest. This is made easy by the protectionism that happens amongst the police.
Yeah, like, it's as easy as not responding with an answer when they ask you if you know how fast you were going. It's not that hard and if you're polite and you're white you're probably going to be okay.
How do you balance that and obstruction of justice for crimes that you are not a suspect in? Especially ones where your knowledge is urgent and your silence is a public danger.
I'm sure that there are situations where this is good to consider, but real life isn't a Criminal Minds episode where the lady's slowly getting lowered into the Pit of Misery while the police frantically try to get there in time. If you have important information, it can wait a day while you get your affairs in order.
If it really is that urgent, yes, I would say something. Any other time? It can wait.
It seems to me that this advice forgets it's own lesson: A policeman/woman can only get you in trouble.
In many cases, a copy really does just want to have a 5 minute chat, and if you stonewall them (Am I being detained?), they might decide to exercise their power to get you in trouble, just to return the sentiment of unreasonableness.
Right, telling someone to "say the bare minimum" doesn't mean saying nothing at all and treating the officer poorly. Don't act superior because you happen to know your rights, that's basically as bad as being a two-bit criminal in their eyes. Police don't recruit people based on their sensitivity and grasp of common sense, they are people who enjoy the power dynamic the job gives them and for the most part 99% of the time people go out of their way to respect them (for better or worse) and whenever someone doesn't they over react, like a slighted bully in elementary school.
Police culture and training promotes this toxic type of no-common sense approach to handling situations, it trains them to be assertive and the 'alpha-male' in all situations, so any type of rebellion against this idea to them is treated as sacrosanct, at least by the average (aka dumb) officer.
And yes, for the most part if you are respectful and non-confrontational you won't have any problems.
Some people reject this entirely and think they have rights so they should assert them always. But ultimately these are social situations in which one party is given a significant imbalance of power, that goes well beyond the rational/common-sense "I didnt do anything wrong" context, and which goes well beyond the rights you do actually have - in a courtroom in front a judge.
The simple fact is police can make your life miserable without crossing any legal/employer boundaries. The bureaucracy, political culture, and power structures allow this to happen.
So if you care about this try to focus your energy on changing politics, police training, and the accepted police culture at the society/community level. In individual moments it's probably not worth the energy.
But that said, never ever say anything you don't want to reveal to a police officer, even (or especially) if you broke a law, and never trust a single thing they say about it being "the best thing for you to do at this moment". Be polite and listen to what they say in terms of behaviours, but if you are pressed repeatedly after not wanting to say something, then say you want a lawyer present because you don't feel comfortable in this situation. And yes sometimes that requires you being a "dick" to be assertive, but that's because the police have an incentive to make you feel that way. As long as you are a good citizen otherwise they have nothing on you and the truth will come out in court, if they can prove you did anything to get to that point.
Just the entirety of my life experience and listening to endless hours of police arrest interrogations videos daily which my partner works on in my home office as a defense attorney. Plus the hundreds of true crime documentaries and books we watch/read.
If a researcher was to measure the average IQ of a police officer and it's affect on wrongful arrests/convictions I would more than support such a study....
Even if you tell the absolute truth, the cops _might_ be able to twist that against you somehow.
Don't give them any ammunition. Sure, if the cop wants to be a hard-ass, let him haul you in. He probably won't because of all the paperwork.
The point of the video is that it's the cop's job to try to haul you in. Don't do the cop's job for him - he's much better at it than you are defending your innocence.
For an example, watch "My Cousin Vinnie". The sheriff accuses the defendant of shooting a clerk. The defendant responds incredulously "I shot him?" How do you think that reads in court in a deadpan voice?
For example, suppose you hear someone down the street yell, "My baby!", look up, and see a man shove a woman to the ground, take a baby from a stroller, get into a car with the baby, and drive quickly up the street, leaving behind the woman screaming "He took my baby! Help!". They pass you, and a block farther up turn left onto a freeway on ramp.
30 seconds later a police officer drives by, stops, and asks if you saw the baby snatcher suspect, and if so which way they went.
Do you say "it looked like he turned left a block up"? Or do you say "I will not answer without a lawyer"? I've run into a lot of people who go with the latter, citing that video.
I think maybe a more nuanced rephrasing of "never talk to the police" is "talking to the police will only make you more likely, not less likely, to be convicted of a crime".
If your values system is to minimize your chance of being convicted of a crime above all other things, then you'd say "I will not answer without a lawyer" in this situation. But if you're a compassionate human being and want to help others, even if it sometimes means a minor risk to yourself, then there are plenty of situations in which you should talk to the police, including this one.
Possibly an issue here is that the lawyer in the video is giving both a legal recommendation and a moral recommendation. I certainly have no objection to his legal assessment of the outcomes of talking to the police, but I don't think he has any authority to say that I should be a selfish person.
You are talking as if not talking to the police is by itself a moral abomination, but there's a lot of points you're not considering.
a) Odds of getting into that situation are a million to one, against.
b) Odds of your information helping to find said baby are a million to one, against (and even that is very optimistic I would say)
c) Odds of a police officer asking you that question because they want to have someone to blame for the crime are low, but significantly higher than 1/1e12
So I think that both on moral grounds, and on legal grounds, you should say something evasive first, and if the officer doesn't go away at that point you definitely should say the "any question you can send to my lawyer, and we will do our best to answer as soon as possible" line.
And, by the way, your lawyer will be angry if you do anything else.
More generally I would encourage you to think about the role of the police in a society. Not in the "the state is right and absolutely moral" way you seem to be stuck in. A state is fundamentally unjust. No matter how democratic, no matter how well it's going economically. I have worked as a consultant at a ton of "high" state organisations and I guarantee you, a month at any of them is enough to cure anyone of the notions you have.
At best, states are a necessary evil. They make some necessary things happen that would otherwise not happen. The police are their enforcers. Like any other power structure, they give ego-satisfying perks and social status to their enforcers, and so you can imagine the kind of person and motivation that a police officer generally is. And if there's one thing that can be absolutely guaranteed, it's that there is no just way to use violence to resolve situations (but a few good looks at the law will quickly absolve you of the notion that they're just, or even intended to be just). The state is not your friend. And especially the police is not your friend.
And I realize this point is contentious, but have you ever thought about how arrogant it is to assume there is a single "just" system at all ? There's many models of morality, from natural morality, to utilitarianism, to the various religions, to ... Important to remember is that they're all different, conflicting and self-contradictory.
We obviously have very different perspectives on this, but a few thoughts:
> Odds of getting into that situation are a million to one, against.
It's a thought experiment. Within the thought experiment, it already happened, and the chances are 100%. "This is an unlikely scenario for me find myself in" probably shouldn't affect your decision-making. You can argue that it's not a worthwhile thought experiment because it's unlikely, but it doesn't sound like that's what you're arguing.
> Odds of your information helping to find said baby are a million to one, against
It's unclear if you're saying it's a lost cause or if the direction the kidnapper went wouldn't be useful, but according to https://www.parents.com/kids/safety/stranger-safety/child-ab..., 80% of children are found alive in nonfamily abductions reported to NCMEC, so my impression is that information soon after a kidnapping has much higher than a one in a million chance of helping.
Alternatively, you could adjust the thought experiment to be "At what probability of saving the baby's life should I give an answer?". "Never talk to the police under any circumstances" (the quote from the video that people seem to be defending literally) means you say nothing even if your chance of saving the baby's life is 100%.
> Not in the "the state is right and absolutely moral" way you seem to be stuck in.
I didn't say that, I didn't imply it, and I don't believe it. This is both a straw man argument and a false dichotomy.
You seem to be putting a very high amount of weight on the fact that the person trying to stop the kidnapping is a police officer. I would try to help regardless of who it is. You really should not be using theory about the role of the state to decide whether or not to help a human being trying to save the life of another human being in an urgent situation.
Urgency can change the moral imperative if the situation. When police "just wanna talk", there isn't urgency, so they can wait a bit longer for legal council to arrive, or provide immunity.
A request to 'come down to the station to answer a few questions' is a bit different than being asked questions on your doorstep. "Down at the station" is an automatic "not w/o an attorney".
And for that matter the police coming into your home or office is not the same as 'coming down to the station'. Sure there is risk in answering any questions at all but there is also risk in not answering questions (the suspicion factor) you could say. Like computer security there are always tradeoffs.
Now many times if you are stopped by the police for speeding they will often ask you 'where you are going to or coming from'. How do you answer that? If you say "I won't tell you" you are more likely to get a ticket common sense says. If you answer the question you might still get the ticket but if there is a chance you would get a warning that could be helpful.
I think one natural thing to say if you are in a position where you could be considered a suspect is to simply say "Since it is reasonable for me to be considered a suspect I would need to have an attorney present before answering any questions". So for example if your business partner or even a neighbor is killed it's probably not a good idea to 'go down to the station to answer questions' etc. w/o an attorney. Answering at your front door? I would tend to think that is ok to do. Allowing detectives into your house to question you? Probably not.
Do you say "it looked like he turned left a block up"? Or do you say "I will not answer without a lawyer"? I've run into a lot of people who go with the latter, citing that video.
Then the police need to work on policy and community relations if people are reticent to help them, when altruism can be a punishable act.
Predicting is hard, especially about the future. Countries have gotten much, much worse before collapsing, and there are too many connections with international finance for the world to just let it happen to the US. See also: moral hazard.
It's a matter of the risk you're willing to take. Sometimes refusing to answer a simple question is going to get you arrested. As long as you're willing to risk arrest and expensive lawyers, don't say anything.
> As long as you're willing to risk arrest and expensive lawyers, don't say anything.
Lawyers are not automatically expensive. In fact, a decent lawyer can often save you money. It does require that you have the resources to pay for the lawyer in advance, and if you cannot then you have my sympathy, but my default position is yes. I get a lawyer for everything, even simple driving violations.
In the kidnapping scenario described above, I would definitely have tried to help the responding officer by describing what I saw and where the person fled, but anything beyond a very cursory exchange and it's 'I would like to help you but I have no further comment without speaking to a lawyer first'.
Or its a balance between the moral imperative to help and the risk of harm to yourself? Maybe the urgency of a stolen baby is more important to you then fairly small risk of accidental self implication?
> Sometimes refusing to answer a simple question is going to get you arrested
This is not true. To arrest someone (in theory sure a rogue cop can do anything) police need probable cause. Probable cause is not 'refusing to answer questions'. If they have enough to arrest you answering questions is not going to make them decide to not arrest you. Why? Because why would they believe just what you say verbally if there is no easy way to prove what you are saying?
Fine, then your omission can be considered aiding and abetting. My point is that of you want to follow a rule like 'never talk to the police' dogmatically, with no context, that in and of itself can put you in a worse position than before. 99% of the time, it's best to just request a lawyer, but not 100%.
Everyone draws the line somewhere different. Certainly, if someone's life is in danger and I can help save them by telling a police officer who is nearby immediately, I'd do that. If I were in a traffic accident and I needed to call the police to document it, or I was the victim of a minor crime, I'd probably talk to them about that, too. I've gone down to the station to talk to the police about an incident report on a traffic accident. Even doing that is a risk, but it was a very minor accident and I had already agreed to pay for the damages, so it didn't seem like my exposure was high.
On the other hand, if I were the victim or came across the scene of a major crime - e. g. a robbery, a murder, etc. - once any immediate danger was resolved, I would probably contact my attorney and tell them. (Your mileage may vary; not everyone has an attorney to contact right away.) It's easy to go from a bystander or victim to being the suspect. If police showed up at my home without warning, and I didn't call them, I wouldn't talk to them.
Or, how about, you just pulled into your garage and got carjacked. Do you call the police? That will involve talking to them, and they might think it's all just an insurance scam.
A good rule of thumb (I teach all of my children relatives this) is that if you approach somebody they're probably ok. If they approach you, watch out.
In your example, you reached out to the police. If I called the police, I'd talk to them, as they'd be predisposed to like me. Otherwise, if they just come up to me and start asking random questions, I'll tell them to go away politely unless they had a warrant.
The police can't arrest you without probable cause. And just saying nothing is not probable cause.
As a counter-point... why should we take your word on this over the word of the lawyer(s) in the talk. "Under no circumstances" pretty clearly includes the ones you've given.
When the words of some lawyer in a YouTube video fly in the face of common sense, you should probably go with common sense, regardless of how emphatic the lawyer is. (tzs and I both believe it to be common sense that you should talk to the police here, although others may disagree.)
Edit: Currently there are some downvotes and no responses, so if anyone has a reasoned moral argument for why you should say "I will not answer without a lawyer" in tzs's example (for example, citing risks explained in the video and weighing them with the possible benefits of stopping a kidnapping), it would be great to hear that perspective. (Or any other criticisms of my comment are welcome.)
People aren't tried in a court of common sense, they are tried in a court of law. If the law doesn't protect the use of common sense, then the law should change.
"Some lawyer in a YouTube video" is still far more qualified to tell me how to behave around the police than you are. Regardless of whether you think it is common sense or not. Obviously, you have to weigh the risks and decide for yourself, but that is such a trivial statement that it really doesn't need to be said. What needs to be said is that you don't know the risks unless you know the law and the status of the investigation; thus common sense should tell you not to talk to the police at all.
There is no such thing as asking for a lawyer prematurely. Cops are allowed to lie , mislead anyone they want basically. Always make sure someone unaffiliated with law enforcement is around as a witness because they will lie for each other.
Demanding a lawyer, and refusing to answer questions, explicitly should not make you look like a suspect in the eyes of the law.
(The eyes of the investigating officer may be different, but they must follow the law in the end.)
I believe the lawyer in the video, James Duane, now recommends the phrase, "I want a lawyer," as the correct response to any police question. As some have mentioned, mere silence is not enough to invoke one's constitutional rights and could in fact be used as a legal argument as to your guilt.
If I get arrested and say "I want a lawyer". What lawyer do I get? A random public defender? A private defender? If it's private defender, am I able to ask for another lawyer if the fees are too high? Will that lawyer refer me to another more specialized lawyer later on?
I always wonder this when people bring this up. Am I a weirdo for not having a lawyer on retainer at all times? That doesn’t sound like something that would be affordable for most people. And quite frankly, I don’t even know how I’d go about looking for or evaluating a lawyer.
You don't need a lawyer on retainer, but it's probably good to know the phone number of one. If they can't take your case they will let you know and likely refer you to a colleague.
I've never had to have any sort of interaction with the justice system and have never talked to a lawyer (even a friend or in a social setting). I thought I was a proper adult for having a regular accountant I talk to once a year.
I keep the business cards of a couple of lawyers in my wallet. One I've dealt with on business matters (but certainly isn't on retainer) and one I know socially who does criminal defense. As you say, I figure if they can't help me personally, they'll know someone who can.
You're not a weirdo, but you would be a weirdo for not having, say, insurance (health/car/home/whatever). Unfortunately, the world is such that we're coming to the point where this just needs to be another item on the checklist.
People find the resources to cover the things they need, and lawyers aren't all crazy unaffordable.
Speaking of insurance, is there something like legal insurance where you pay your monthly premiums or whatever and then when you finally need a lawyer, your insurance policy pays for one?
Some employers provide this for about $5-15/month. It usually doesn’t cover everything, but it will cover routine stuff like wills, powers of attorney, real estate transactions, etc.
For the purposes of your invoking your right, it doesn't matter. You have a right to a lawyer of some kind, and the purpose of saying that is to make them stop asking questions. You could just as easily say "I want to speak with my lawyer," if you've already got one, or, "I want to speak with a public defender," or something similar.
> What lawyer do I get? A random public defender? A private defender?
Generally speaking, somebody who's arrested falls into one of these categories:
A. They have a lawyer already, and will contact that person or instruct the police to contact that person
B. They don't have a lawyer, but can afford to retain one, and can contact someone who will take care of that for them or do it themselves
C. They don't have a lawyer, and can't afford one, in which case they will be given a public defender
Courts generally won't give you a private attorney if you request a lawyer and can't pay for one - that's what public defenders are for. (Sometimes, private practice attorneys work with the public defender's office and take cases that way, but in that case, you still are not necessarily the one paying them.) In any of those cases, a person is always free to fire their counsel, retain different counsel, or represent themselves.
The basic rule - don't talk to police without a lawyer - applies no matter which case you fall into.
The main principles apply to all EU countries, the details differ. Each member state implemetns these thigns differently but they must comply with
the European Convention on Human Rights
See 24/67 Guide on Article 6 of the Convention – Right to a fair trial
>119. Anyone accused of a criminal offence has the right to remain silent and not to contribute to incriminating himself (Funke v. France, § 44; O'Halloran and Francis v. the United Kingdom [GC], § 45; Saunders v. the United Kingdom, § 60). Although not specifically mentioned in Article 6, the right to remain silent and the privilege against self-incrimination are generally recognised international standards which lie at the heart of the notion of a fair procedure under Article 6. By providing the accused with protection against improper compulsion by the authorities these immunities contribute to avoiding miscarriages of justice and to securing the aims of Article 6 (John Murray v. the United Kingdom, § 45).
>120. The right not to incriminate oneself applies to criminal proceedings in respect of all types of criminal offences, from the most simple to the most complex (Saunders v. the United Kingdom, § 74).
>121. The right to remain silent applies from the point at which the suspect is questioned by the police (John Murray v. the United Kingdom, § 45).
Thank you very much I've always wondered. Anywhere else I can read about my rights as an EU citizen? Its a lot harder to get information about it compared to the US I feel
All that happened to me after we called the police when we witnessed somebody breaking an ATM machine and driving off with a car was (apart from ID and telling them what we saw) a call a few weeks later from a police officer.
He complained that the firewall at the office would not let him download the video I had uploaded to some 3rd party service and if I could just burn him a CD and bring it. (Seriously.) I talked him into trying some other things, and did not get contacted since. That was weird.
A) Prosecutors and judges are generally NOT elected or politically engaged. Nor are they politically appointed, with exception of some higher court judges.
B) Police in many countries are required to conduct an independent study. The must present all evidence; and so contrary to the US what you say can be used to your advantage (that still doesn't always make talking advantageous).
C) In civil law systems judges are often far more empowered to seek the truth. Where as in the US (common law), judges mainly facilitate an argument between defense and prosecutor in-front of a jury.
D) prosecutors in other countries are often tasked with finding the truth, they are not elected, and the whole system is less adversarial than the US.
E) Politics is less dysfunctional, and most European countries have civil law, which makes it easier to comply with the law. There isn't 10k statutes on the books.
F) Police is better behaved; well trained; typically governed at country level (not by local politics).
G) Many countries have a functional public defense system.
All of this differs from country to country. Some countries might not have functional public defense (G), but on average it's my understanding that western European countries do better in these ways.
That doesn't necessarily make talking to the police a good idea. But there are a lot of fewer traps people can fall into.
And so I personally would feel more comfortable helping a European police officer. After all the downside of not talking to the police is that crimes won't be solved.
> In England and Wales, a local magistrate issues search warrants, which require that a constable provide evidence that supports the warrant application. In the majority of cases where police already hold someone in custody, police can search premises without a search warrant under Section 18 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE), which requires only the authority of an inspector.
> Under Section 18(5)a of PACE, a constable can conduct a search immediately without an inspector's authorisation. This subsection allows a constable to search the home of a suspect(s) under arrest in their presence before they take the suspect to a police station (or other custody location). Under Section 32 of PACE, a constable who arrests a person who is on their own property or has just left their premises, may immediately search both the suspect and the immediate area.
At no point did I say that the US is a "poster child for privacy," but the laws work differently.
In this case, the suspect had spoken to the police, and during this didn't respond to a certain question / responded to the question with silence.
If I recall correctly, the court reasoned that by first speaking, he gave up his right to remain silent. Moreover, he responded by silence rather that actively asserting his right to remain silent.
Not to say I agree with the ruling, especially because he was never mirandized. However, it is not clear cut that simply remaining silent isn't enough to assert your right against self-incrimination.
Many years ago, in New Zealand, the flatmate of a friend of mine told me much the same: if you're questioned by the police, you can't just stop talking and claim your right to silence. You gave that up by answering questions.
“You do not have to say anything. But, it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.”
If you listen to the video, the professor says that nothing you say to the US police can be used to defend you later.
From your quote we see that this is not the case in the UK.
Something you say can later be used in your defense, so clearly if you choose to say nothing -- you have less that could be used in your defense.
> I imagine there is a sizable amount of injustice in the UK due to not having a 4th amendment like rights.
No, we have hearsay laws similar to the US. We can't compel an officer to testify on our behalf about something we said to them in questioning. its just in the UK, if you talk to the police, and forget something that is important you don't get to use it later, or its not as useful later.
This has lead to a lot of unsound convictions of people who were intoxicated at the time of arrest; They tell some abridged version of their story to police, leaving half the important details out, leaving them with half a case to take to court. In Scotland they have started Requiring solicitors to be present at interviews of suspects (of some crimes) because of this, making statements inadmissible unless a solicitor was present.
in the UK there are specific circumstances where adverse inferences may be made from silence, the police caution is:
> You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.
The way in which those rights are legally secured (in addition to the rights even conceived of) differs from one country to another, even in countries we'd generally consider as those which respect human rights and the rule of law.
I've been sleeping in my car in Mountain View (it's legal here) for about six months now. A couple things I've learned:
- Police are allowed to lie and coerce. Do not even admit to doing something legal -- if they think you're an easy target, they'll feign ignorance of its legality to blackmail you into talking more. Moreover, good cops only come to get you to talk or gain your trust. Unless you change your behavior, you'll get the bad one eventually, and it might even be the same guy.
- There is no way to structure a good police force without statistics-based enforcement. No cop has stayed on the force after making zero arrests in a year. No cop is there to "make sure everything's okay". Police are going to profile you and there's no way around it. It sounds evil, but it's actually the way things have to be.
He's specializing in use of force for self-defence, not necessarily shooting. The argument goes like this:
"Many people advocate that in the aftermath of a defensive use-of-force event you say literally nothing to the police except that you want to speak with your lawyer. And that 'Say NOTHING' approach is one way to go.
At Law of Self Defense, however, we suggest you consider an alternative, the 'Say LITTLE' approach -- meaning, saying a few very specific things, then asserting your rights to silence and counsel. Among the things we suggest saying, even before having your attorney present, is that your use of force was an act of self-defense.
One reason we suggest this is that most claims of self-defense are simply BS claims by bad guys, and these are often fabricated after the fact while they're sitting in their holding cell. If you defer claiming self-defense until hours after your first interaction with the police, you begin to look a lot like one of those fabricators. And if you DO, you can rest assured that this fact will be brought up in trial."
There's more details in his book and classes that are not freely available online.
"Saying little" means providing only the absolutely necessary information. If you were in a self-defense situation and your attacker threw his weapon in a bush, you want the police to know that so that they can find it. If there were witnesses who can corraborate your story then you want the police to talk to them before they disappear forever. If you need medical help, you should ask for it.
For most of the population this is very bad advice.
It’s important to remember he’s assuming you have or can afford legal counsel. If you’re like most people and you can’t, ignoring or refusing to answer the questions of a police officer can seem rude, can make you appear guilty, and can get you singled out for charges, that later you won’t be able to afford to defend yourself against.
I knew someone who took the advice of this video. He was driving in a car with multiple people, there were drugs in the car, cops pulled them over. “Whose drugs are these?” Everyone says “not mine officer.” This guy remained silent. “Are these yours?” Silence.
All of the possession charges were put on him, and everyone else was free to go. The drugs weren’t his.
I never followed up to see what happened to him, but he was completely broke, so I can’t imagine it was good.
> For most of the population this is very bad advice.
No, you are not correct. In the United States - where this advice was given - it is excellent advice. It is the only advice any competent attorney or student of US law will ever give you.
> It’s important to remember he’s assuming you have or can afford legal counsel. If you’re like most people and you can’t, ignoring or refusing to answer the questions of a police officer can seem rude, can make you appear guilty, and can get you singled out for charges, that later you won’t be able to afford to defend yourself against.
You have the right to counsel, and you have the right to wait until you have obtained counsel to answer questions. It is the obligation of the state to provide you an attorney if you cannot afford one. In that case, you can and should still say "I cannot answer any questions until I've consulted with an attorney."
> can make you appear guilty, and can get you singled out for charges, that later you won’t be able to afford to defend yourself against.
In the United States, it has been broadly found to be unconstitutional to interpret someone's request for counsel as evidence of their guilt. Again, you have a constitutional right to counsel and you have a constitutional right to refuse to answer questions that might incriminate you. The attorney and police officer in the video, both of whom say this multiple times, are making the point that any questions answered without counsel can potentially incriminate you.
> All of the possession charges were put on him, and everyone else was free to go. The drugs weren’t his. I never followed up to see what happened to him, but he was completely broke, so I can’t imagine it was good.
It makes no sense for you to offer this advice, citing no authority, if you don't even know whether the example you have proves your argument. Please don't spread misinformation on the grounds that you once heard of a guy who might have had a bad experience with something.
What is correct is that, in the case of the example you cite, it's important to remember that saying nothing is not the same as invoking your rights. It is always best to explicitly invoke your right to counsel and your right to stay silent. [1][2][3] Saying nothing does not necessarily imply your rights are being invoked; a reasonable person would not always interpret it that way. If this person had said "I'm not answering any questions, and I want to speak with an attorney," and the police kept questioning him, they would be in violation of the law.
You can talk about rights and due process all you want, I’m not disagreeing with any of that, that’s great for people who can afford it. I’m talking about the practical outcome of this for average Americans.
The practical outcome is that for every 1 time this advice prevents you from accidentally incriminating yourself, there will be 20 times that it just makes officers dislike you and abuse their authority over you, especially if you’re young and especially if they can tell you’re poor.
> You can talk about rights and due process all you want, I’m not disagreeing with any of that, that’s great for people who can afford it. I’m talking about the practical outcome of this for average Americans.
Rights and due process apply to everyone, not just people who can afford it or people the police like. Telling someone "don't assert your rights because you're poor" is telling them to self-subjugate; that's awful advice not only because it hurts the person, but also because it actively harms our system of justice.
Again, everyone has the right to an attorney and the government must give you one. It's in the Constitution. A busy, tired public defender who is competent is still better than not having a lawyer. An incompetent attorney is also still better, because "my counsel was incompetent" is a solid way to win an appeal of a conviction if it can be proven.
> The practical outcome is that for every 1 time this advice prevents you from accidentally incriminating yourself, there will be 20 times that it just makes officers dislike you and abuse their authority over you, especially if you’re young and especially if they can tell you’re poor.
Do you have any evidence of this at all? That is, do you have evidence that going along with what an abusive officer tells you to do is going to prevent them from abusing you?
If an officer doesn't like you and is willing to abuse their authority as a result, what are you supposed to do? Let them? You aren't going to stop them from doing so by "being nice," plenty of people are polite to police officers and get in trouble anyway.
Let's play this out:
If you say "I want a lawyer," and the officer arrests you and charges you, but you're innocent, the lawyer is there to prove your innocence. If you answer the officer's questions, you have no idea whether they'll arrest and charge you or not, and if they do, they now have evidence that will make proving your innocence much, much harder to do.
If you say "I want a lawyer," and the officer hits you over the head or continues to scream questions at you, then arrests you and charges you, the officer has just committed a crime and their testimony is now suspect. Things proceed as above, but your lawyer now has ammunition to use to help you in court.
Both of these outcomes are better in the long term than this bizarre "go along with whatever because the system sucks" approach.
Being young and poor and interacting with the police.
Their behavior changes when the other upstanding members of society aren’t in the room.
There’s a way to navigate that situation favorably, and it doesn’t involve refusing to speak to them and hoping you get a good public defender.
Speak without saying a lot, be careful what you say, sure. But refusing to speak entirely and pretending you have an attorney is likely to just anger them (if you’re poor), and they do have the power to subject you to our criminal justice system, and people do get treated unfairly and wrongfully imprisoned all the time.
> But refusing to speak entirely and pretending you have an attorney is likely to just anger them (if you’re poor), and they do have the power to subject you to our criminal justice system, and people do get treated unfairly and wrongfully imprisoned all the time.
You're not pretending to do anything. You're invoking a right you actually, absolutely have. They know (or should know) the difference and that they have an obligation to do certain things in that situation.
> Being young and poor and interacting with the police.
> Their behavior changes when the other upstanding members of society aren’t in the room.
I believe you. But I also believe that you have societal protections you're choosing not to use. I understand that I'm probably not going to convince you of this in the face of your lived experience. I just think that if we continue to perpetuate the idea that some people can't and will never get what in fact everyone is entitled to, we're never going to solve the problem.
> Things proceed as above, but your lawyer now has ammunition to use to help you in court.
We see it in the news time and time again, that public defenders spend a total of 15 minutes with their clients before trial. If they meet them at all.
We see time and time again that poor Americans spend months waiting for trial. In jail or out on bond (unable to get a job because of the bond).
For poor Americans self-subjugation might be a reasonable legal strategy.
We certainly hear of many innocent people taking a plea bargain, because it was faster than waiting for trial. And because they had no faith in the US justice system.
Just google around, there's lots of problems, pretrial detention is just one reason why poor Americans would be encouraged to submit, rather than demand justice:
http://www.pretrial.org/the-problem/
(warning to system-believers: the link contains video of police executing a prone, face down, unarmed, nonviolent, nonresisting, white male; the officer was acquitted)
The question is: When police are holding you at gunpoint, and yelling inconsistent commands at you, and tell you to shut up when you ask for clarification, what are you supposed to do to survive the encounter? Answer: IT doesn't matter. The police are so hyped up, even laying on the ground unconscious can get you killed: 1: Alabama police officers beat an unconscious man who was ejected after a car crash. 2: 3-5 police officers piled up on a skinny kid that can't breathe, let alone move, and still one of them pulls out a gun and shoots him in the head like it's just another Tuesday. 3: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/... (Source Reddit, right now)
I watched the video and read some background, basically my understanding is that the entire series of events went like this, at a high level:
The guy in the hotel room had been showing someone his pellet gun. Someone saw this through the hotel room window, thinking it was a real gun, and called the cops.
The cops arrived, expecting someone armed and dangerous. They seem really amped up on adrenaline.
A woman and the man come out of the hotel room, and the cop with the assault rifle screams at them to get down on the ground. They comply, but seem scared and confused. The cop asks if they are drunk, which they deny. He asks if they'll be able to understand all his commands, and they say yes. He keeps screaming at them and cutting them off when they try to talk.
The woman follows instructions and is successfully cuffed and taken away. The man tries to comply, but is sobbing and appears drunk. The cop gives him some (what seemed to me) not entirely clear instructions, and then tells the man to crawl toward him. After about 5 feet the man seems to lose his balance and try to pull up his pants, at which point the cop repeatly shoots him.
At the end the two cops try to get in to the hotel room, but the key cards they are given don't work. The second cop drops a key card after trying it a handful of times, picks it up, and keeps trying, seemingly extremely agitated. The video then cuts out.
As the suspect was crawling toward the police, he moved his right arm to adjust his pants. Bang, dead. None of this would have happened if the sergeant hadn't given many contradictory instructions to the drunk victim. The team was allegedly afraid of an ambush from the adjacent room, but they
throw any caution to the wind straight after that. That video is a masterclass in incompetence. Neither the sergeant nor the shooter received any meaningful punishment.
imagine a man face down on the ground with his hands behind his head and his legs crossed in a narrow hallway. the man is sobbing in terror, and drunk. two cops are pointing assault weapons at the man and screaming at him from 20 feet down the hallway. eventually, they shoot him.
In hindsight, I think the only way he could have survived would have been to not move at all. The trigger-happy lunatic was going to shoot him the instant he made any "unexpected" motion, which was inevitable given the confusing and contradictory orders being shouted at him.
I can't bring myself to watch it either, but from other descriptions: the police order the man to crawl towards them (while simultaneously yelling at him to put his hands in the air). As he's crawling along the floor, his pants start sliding off. When he reaches down to pull up his pants, the police kill him.
"Jurors in the Daniel Shaver case were not allowed to know that the police officer who shot him had scratched “you’re fucked” into his service weapon."
These cases are all pretty damn ridiculous, but do always seem to involve the victim doing something with the hands.
Goes without saying this shouldn't be happening, but makes me think as a member of the public, step one is just, keep your hands where they can see them. (Which isn't big news)
So, the situation in the video goes like this: (1) police had reason to believe that the man was armed and (2) man made a movement that was looking like he was reaching for a firearm.
Now, what police should do in a situation which combines data points (1) and (2)?
They should put a higher priority on "don't kill an innocent person" than on "immediately eliminate anything that could be a threat". Police officers should be trained based on the principle that the loss of an officer's life, while awful, is still less of a tragedy than the death of someone who could be an innocent bystander. They should be trained that when confronting a suspect, an outcome in which the officer and the suspect are both badly injured but alive is better than an outcome where the officer is unharmed and the suspect is dead. It should not be the role of police officers to kill anyone unless that person is unambiguously attempting violence or is planning imminent violence and cannot be deterred in any other way.
So applied to this case, the police officers should not have shot the suspect until they unambiguously saw a gun in his hand. Does that mean that they would be running the risk that the suspect had been faking his sobbing terror and his panicked, confused attempts at immediate compliance for the past three minutes, and that he had in fact decided to pull out a handgun to attack an entire team of police officers who had rifles aimed at his head? Yes, it does mean that they would be running that risk. By waiting until they could clearly see a gun in his hand, there would indeed be a chance that a suspect irrational and suicidal enough to try that could get off one or two hastily aimed shots in the general direction of the officers before being killed by their overwhelmingly superior firepower. But in the actual situation, and I suspect in a great many similar situations, an unnecessary death would have been avoided.
It should be. Society is better off when the trained, paid officers, bear the risk, rather than unarmed civilians.
As it is, any police officer can claim "I felt threatened" and do whatever they want. That is 100% a recipe for thuggery and oppression that does not belong in a civilized democracy.
Proposal: always verify the gun. If you shoot someone that actually didn't have a weapon, it's manslaughter. If you plant a gun, it's murder.
The situation was not ONLY about those two data points. I think you're conveniently ignoring other facts like: he complied with police orders from the beginning, they had ample time to handcuff him, the police officer was imprecise in giving instructions and constantly threatened to kill him, etc, etc, etc.
Police officers carrying Semi-Automatic weapons should not get a free pass to act as robots without situational awareness.
You appear to be fishing for an answer you are expecting but are not getting. Please explain why you want the answer to be "no" or "the shooting was correct".
See, here's the difference - I'm talking about a pattern, and you're talking about the exact situation. You can't train most people to act according to each individual situation in an intelligent manner, especially when situation is very scary, and those rare people who can be trained to do this are usually in special ops, not in regular police. So, when considering a police or military response to a situation, consider a typical situation with these data points.
Oh, and I completely forgot the fact that a decision like this should be taken in a VERY short span of time - you can't turn on intelligence for this, it HAS to be trained.
For me, algorithm adds "possible weapon", "suspect understands that we're pointing guns at him" and "arm reaching down" and automatically goes to "open fire" is the only possible one.
The officer said he was afraid for his life and "terrified".
You know who would be terrified in a situation like that? Me. I have never even held a gun and I have no training whatsoever.
A police officer shouldn't be terrified in a situation like that. He had a suspect with hands in the air clearly willing to comply. This is such bullshit.
Very short span of time? He had minutes of saying things like "you disobey me again and there is a strong possibility you end up dead" "shut up" and "you do that again we're shooting you". And your excuse is that they're too dumb to not shoot?
> You can't train most people to act according to each individual situation in an intelligent manner, especially when situation is very scary
How does this not apply more to the guy who was killed? He had guns pointed at him, at least one of them an assault rifle, was drunk and surprised. There were at least 3 cops there who certainly had more training than the civilian in being in that situation. The blame lies squarely with them.
In Germany, after §163 StPO and related the police may interview you as part of an investigation but if you are a suspect you must be told so prior to any interview. You are allowed not to make any statements, which is not considered any crime. Additionally, any statements you make may only be used for discovery of the truth but are not in of themselves considered actual proof or evidence in absence of anything else, word of mouth is not fully sufficient with a few minor exceptions outside the scope of the StPO.
The sentiment re. the police in germany is much different than in america, so my initial assertion does not at all equate to "what you say can't be used against you", rather "the police is in general trustworthy and non-malicious", which does not seem to hold true for america.
You should consider that not all countries think like americans and do not hold the same sentiment as americans. People in other countries think different, not the same.
> You should consider that not all countries think like americans and do not hold the same sentiment as americans. People in other countries think different, not the same.
You should consider that not all Americans think the same and do not hold the same sentiment as other Americans. People throughout the country think different, not the same.
Also, I asked the question to learn more, so it should be apparent that I do understand other countries have different systems. My question was to learn how those systems work.
Society is better off if everyone can speak openly to police.
Meanwhile, the risk to any one person that might accidentally mis-speak is wholly unacceptable to the individual. So we end up with tragedy of the commons.
While I have no law enforcement, or "lawyer-like" experience, I've been spending a fair amount of time with my local PD lately. A good friend is an assistant chief and I sometimes sit on the applicant Oral Board (the in-person interview board for people applying to be Officers). I'd sum up my comments in a couple of items:
- Always be polite. Most officers aren't jerks; but some are, and those are will look for ways to get you in trouble just because you are acting like a jerk.
- Unless you've been doing something wrong, or give them a reason to be suspicious (not answering questions is a GIANT red flag) officers almost always have good intentions. 99% of the time have better things to do than try to get someone in trouble who isn't already acting suspicious.
- If you choose to answer questions (and you should answer basic stuff IMHO), always tell the truth. If you get caught in a lie it makes everything about your interaction 100-times more difficult.
- If you choose not to answer any questions, for whatever reason, you should get to know your local/state laws regarding the things you MUST provide to officers when asked. Usually Identification is on that list, and choosing not to provide it means they can detain you.
- "Policing" has been changing dramatically the last 10 years. Most agencies are trying to use community outreach to improve relations, and in some cases fix their bad reputations. Some aren't, it's valuable to know that going into a situation, if possible.
It's not as simple as he makes it out to be. He breaks the problem down into an issue of protecting or violating your innocence.
It would be a real shame (and possibly illegal) if your friend just got shot in the head, and police asked you "which way did the shooter flee?" and you reply that you need to confer with your lawyer before answering any questions.
I'm not a lawyer, but I'm fairly sure that asking to see a lawyer in that situation would never be illegal. But I certainly agree that it would be a real shame and probably unethical.
I think omission of information makes it aiding and abetting or accessory or something. Not a lawyer either, but a lawyer once told me that this was a notable exception to the rule in this video.
Because talking to them on even the smallest matter can land you in trouble, since lying to federal agents is a crime.
TurboTax has this audit defense insurance add-on when you submit your taxes. If you read the verbiage, it explicitly states DO NOT answer any questions under any circumstances, and defer them to the audit defense. Don't even answer "How is the weather over there?"
It's best to have some representation when dealing with the IRS or any federal agency. As the video continues on to show, Martha Stewart was convicted for lying because she decided to talk first and deny involvement before lawyering up.
It's a good way to find out if they were lying when they said you aren't a suspect. You should ask for it if their claim is that they want to talk to you about someone else's behavior. If they want to talk about your behavior, find a lawyer.
Is the hidden motive here to sell lawyer services? This is a lawyer on a long and powerful rant about how you shouldn't do X without a lawyer.
I'm not saying that this makes the point less valid, but beware that people are always better equipped to make powerful arguments when that argument aligns with their source of income.
He also gives several very clear examples of why this is the better course of action. Skepticism is good, but this is like looking for hidden motive when your doctor tells you to not swallow random pills without consultation.
If you go talking to police about a crime you're accused of there's a good chance you'll need a lot more help from a lawyer than if you'd said nothing.
So don’t talk to the police. Yet the same people promoting that are against concealed carry and the castle doctrine.
So how does one defend themselves and their property if we assume we aren’t supposed to cooperate with police.
It’s a serious question — we are supposed to be opposed to self defense because ostensibly police exist to protect us, but then we aren’t supposed to actually talk to police? How does that work? Taken to a logical extreme, we aren’t even supposed to call the police right?
We are supposed to trust big government with health care but we aren’t supposed to trust government in protecting fundamental rights to life, liberty and property?
You’re not supposed to talk to police without the advice of a lawyer. Especially not after you’ve been detained or asked to come down to the station.
You should absolutely trust the police to try to find a suspect to prosecute because that is their job, as currently widely understood.
Also, small clarification: policing in the US has nothing to do with big government generally; there are thousands of police departments and each one is independent of all the others. Maybe the FBI counts as ‘big fovernment’, but they certainly aren’t your everyday police officers.
Even if concealed carry and castle doctrine laws didn't exist, you'd still be able to arm yourself against intruders.
What they will teach you in CHL classes is, if you shoot someone, to call the police and say "There was a shooting. Please send police and ambulance" and then hang up. You're not admitting anything, and asking for the ambulance is important because it displays concern for the person shot.
"There was a shooting. Please send police and ambulance" and then hang up?
Won't the police show up expecting an active armed gunman? Is there anything you can say to show that there is no new danger of violence without implicating yourself?
The whole point is that it doesn't benefit you, _if you're a potential suspect_ to talk to the police. This shouldn't be a surprise no matter how perfect the justice system is -- it's better to not be involved with it if you can.
I'm not sure why healthcare makes for big government? We already have wildly successful healthcare programs in the US that are government managed and are cheaper than private alternatives. So we should trust the government can provide them because... it does. I wouldn't want the federal government running every pastry shop on the other hand.
I have no idea where concealed carry fits into this.
If you are approached by a policeman/woman, you don't need to say anything other than, "I'm going to ask you to refer all questions to my counsel as I'm not prepared to handle or able to answer any questions you may have."
Don't have counsel? Get some. Can't afford any? Tell the policeman/woman that you'll "confer with your legal team" and if your "legal team" believes it's appropriate to answer questions, you'll let them know. Oh, and call your local public defender's office.
A policeman/woman may, "just want to talk" or, "ask you a few questions"; that's okay, just repeat what you said. They may say "you're not in trouble" and that's great, so repeat what you said.
A policeman/woman can only get you in trouble, they cannot get you out of trouble.
When it comes to court, our public defenders system, while it means well, is horribly broken. PDs are often assigned far too many cases they can reasonably handle. PDs don't go to trial often enough, because they can't handle the additional workload.