yes max, some random quotes by supreme court justices.

I've cooperated with cops every time but once, sample about 7-10. It's situational and the one time was in a sketchy "empty your pockets and show ID" spot in the Philippines where I basically said I know what they're trying to do, they got defensive and left.

Other times have all been positive. They actually let me go once after having admitted guilt several times and told the whole story. They can be really sympathetic and understanding when you put it all out there. Note, small sample.
The one time I was suspected of something semi serious, I definitely would have been better off not talking to them and only the lawyer. But I'm fine with accepting appropriate punishment when I've done something wrong.

Note: Never had a spot with US Police and might treat it differently over there if they're very square

I have listened to the entire video and yes he assumes everyone is guilty or stupid. I am not against making those assumptions because they generally are true. I also not saying his advice isn't correct the vast majority of the time because but it is only correct because the vast majority of the time the assumptions he makes are true. Because something is the correct decision the vast majority of the time does not make it the correct decision all the time. I don't have a criminal record nor have I ever been charged with a criminal offence but I guarantee you that would not be the case if I followed this guy's advice.

Ok...I'll expect you to back up Suzzer next time he says we should but some stock in the opinions of Krugman/Bernake even if we can't totally understand why they are correct.

Though I think in this case it's even more clear cut. I imagine withholding exculpatory evidence from the police is something that no defense attorney ever recommends. If you are accused of a murder and you were with your wife at the time, not saying anything to the cops, spending multiple days in jail, losing your job and then suddenly saying at the trial "oh yeah....it wasn't me, just ask my wife" sounds like a pretty good way to get convicted.

Well, let's see what Jackson said:
hmmm....

BUT WAIT, you might have been on to something with:
Since Justice Jackson serves the distinction of being the last Justice to sit the Supreme Court bench without a law degree.

diddyeinstein,

There is nothing in the statement that supports the position of never cooperate or anything that is incompatible with claim that someone should never cooperate except with their lawyer present. I still disagree with the latter statement but it is one that I can understand someone having. It is a much weaker claim than what the video makes which if the first statement.

oops. nope, he says even experienced savy criminal attorneys should never talk to the police so pretty sure he's not making that assumption.

The case with the lawyer involves a dispute over if the lawyer told the police officer that he chocked the victim.

The presenter claims that if the lawyer had never spoken to the police the officer would not be able to say that.

So lets look at the possibilities --

1) The cop is for whatever reason lying. While that is possible if the cop is determined to lie not speaking to him is hardly a deterrent since he can just as easily lie about that aspect as well. Once we accept that the police are just going to make stuff up then nothing you do or don't do is going to impact that.

2) The lawyer did makes those statements and so incriminated himself and later regretted making them so denied them. If this is the case then he is guilty and falls into the category of people who should not speak to the police.

There actually is no example that either presenter makes the involves a mentally sound innocent person incriminating themselves. They use multiple examples of people getting into trouble because they spoke to the police but every single one involves someone who is guilty incriminating themselves.

to take a blanket stand of never talking, in the misguided hope of not have your words used against you at a trial is preposterous. Every lawyer knows that trial is the one place where you have no real control of the situation or outcome. So to hand over your life & liberty by following the video reasoning is more dangerous than finding a balance.

as for the hersay of 2 against one he railed about, this is the 21st century . you can't see a car wreck or fire without a score of people making a video documentary. to click a button and record the interaction on your phone is standard today. so if it turns out the cops violated your rights, you get kicked right away.

I'm not a lawyer or anything but talking to the cops in this situation is so bad.

First, you really haven't proven why talking to the cops right then and there is somehow better than contacting a lawyer first. It's not like your alibi disappears when you get a lawyer. Maybe you can explain your last sentence because it doesn't make sense.

Here's some hypothetical ways talking to the cops in this situation could hurt you. The next question the cops are going to ask you is the nature of your dispute with the victim. Now your giving them your motive. Say your story doesn't jive with the neighbor's story for whatever reason. Now you're lieing to the police. Even if your alibi does hold up your the only one they found with a motive and you lied to them. And you've suspiciously put yourself in a place on camera throughout the crime, how convenient.

Later on they find the real killer and he somehow makes a deal for a lesser sentence by saying you put him up to it. How'd he get that idea? The cops questioned him if he knew you and if you put him up to it. They tell him he can make a deal if he tells them about your involvment. He sees an opportunity and makes the deal.

yougonnagetraped.jpg

^^^But simply not talking does not guarantee that the cops won't strike a deal with the real killer to say you put him up to it etc...and it's hard to make the case it lowers the probability of it happening.

He means the tapes being deleted. Or being taped over. Howard, was saying where he had nothing to hide, he wanted to point the police to the cameras ASAP, since they might be reused.


Lets build the most hyper-specific example possible to prove our point, huh?

In the example given you can tell the cops about the tapes, not get a lawyer, and just not say a goddamn thing after that. You can very well be silent without a lawyer present. These are two separate rights.

Edit: Also how is it a confirmed lie just because it does not match up with the neighbor's account?

Also it's like you are assuming you will be put on trial and convicted without an attorney because you did not originally call one.

Yeah but they can't use your incriminating statments against you if you never talked to them in the first place.

Your post keeps changing so I hope I grabbed the last one.

This is a hypothetical. No one is saying everyone that talks to police is going to get charged with a crime. We're just saying it's a possibility.

Also, OP is not saying, I'm just going to say I was at the casino and remain silent after that. His whole hypothetical is about a situation where it's okay to talk to cops and clearly he could get himself into serious trouble by answering all of their questions. In fact it sounds like he wants to get in the cruiser and drive with the cops to the casino.

It's your word against your neighbor's word and why would your neighbor lie? It just becomes another piece of evidence to use against you. It cannot help you.

But it can help you. Police release people all the time because they are no longer suspects because their alibi checks out.

SCOTUS justices and an experienced veteran criminal defense attorney have explained why you guys are wrong. if they can't manage to make you see the obvious i'm pretty sure i won't be able to either. gg.

To my mind it seems that involving a lawyer has the effect of reducing variance, of course you may not have the very good out comes that may come from having an informal chat with a police office - but you won't have the very bad outcome where any responses actually inadvertently incriminate yourself in some way.

If you didn't actually do anything then it is pretty difficult to incriminate yourself.

Lol.

In my hypo it's the POLICE that don't have all of the information and once they check out my alibi that's going to be the end of the matter for me.

btw: If 100% of people are too stupid to evaluate the situation properly why bother hiring a lawyer at all?

If it's obvious why are you unable to defend the view without appeals to authority?

Having read the context under which Justice Jackson makes the statement relied on by the do not talk to cops side -- the speaker in the video intentionally misrepresents the sentiment that Justice Jackson was trying to convey.

the view has been defended. like i said, if you aren't able to understand it, i can't help any further without requiring a fee of some kind for my time. say...ehem, $100.00

Most cops wil tell you the same

I don't think you know what defended means. One guy making a video presenting why he thinks something is true doesn't establish anything. Maybe if it was a debate where both sides were argued and one side clearly one the debate then maybe some claims could be made. That though is not what we have here -- what we have here is a really bad argument presented unchallenged.