This isn't really a story about the woes of being a google glass user, it's a story about how people don't know their rights and how to apply them.
This man is lucky that he didn't end up accidentally giving the authorities some tiny piece of information to make his life worse. You should absolutely never talk to the authorities even if you think you have nothing to hide and especially when they're actively trying to pin something on you. It is perfectly legal for them to threaten you with harsher legal penalties, and it is perfectly legal for you to say I need to speak with a lawyer before I make any decisions or say anything. This account is a CLEAR illustration of how they ONLY want you to confess to something and once they don't think they can they no longer care about you in the tiniest bit. It's not about justice, it's about catching people.
Also, don't wear a goddamn camera on your head to the movies. The man must certainly own a pair of regular prescription glasses and was being extremely naive.
No, this is what they rely on. It is the basic "If you have nothing to hide, why are you hiding" line of questioning. It's especially used to search cars at traffic stops.
Correct:
"Am I being detained? Am I free to go?" (repeat until one gets an answer)
If free to go - leave
If not free to go - don't say another word
Don't consent to a search. Don't try to be nice. Don't believe any bullshit you are told:
"Look, we're trying to be nice here, if you don't want to be nice, we can take you down to the station."
"You know what happens if we have to call to wake up a judge at this hour to get a search warrant?"
"Ok, then we'll just wait here until the dogs come"
or the almost always used -
"Am I being arrested?" "Do you want to be?"
--
It's all bullshit and used to get verbal consent to searches and verbal answers to questions. You may feel like an asshole, especially if you really do have "nothing to hide". The cops will do their best to make you feel scared of what they will do if you don't cooperate. You may have a ton of privilege (perhaps you are a cis-gendered white man) and you feel that cashing it in and talking man-to-man in a nice way with the cops will get you on your way quicker. And it may. But one time, it may not, and you'll wish you hadn't talked. And of the larger overarching issue of living a police state with nominal checks and balances on what the cops can and can't do, it behooves us all to limit their power to their legal minimum as much as possible.
The only thing I would add to this is don't be a dick, you don't want them to have an excuse to arrest you. Ask in a nice and polite voice "Am I under arrest?" If the verbal answer from the police is anything but a short and clear "Yes," tell the cop "I understand your answer to mean that No, I am not under arrest. I am terminating this conversation and I am going to leave now." This doesn't apply to traffic stops for speeding or something like that, in those cases being nice will get you far. But if you are suspected of a real crime, for god sakes, keep your mouth shot, and if you are not under arrest, leave ASAP.
Sorry, but it absolutely does also apply during traffic stops. Many a routine traffic stop for a broken taillight or some such other nonsense has turned into something else as soon as someone said "sure, no problem" when the cops asked, "You mind if I just take a quick look around?"
You are right. What I meant is don't be a dick to cops if they are pulling you over for speeding. If they ask you how fast you were going, don't start reciting the 5th amendment. If they ask you if they can look in your trunk, just say no, you have nothing to hide, but unless they have a warrant or probable cause, they can not look.
I say that because I had a friend who got arrested at one of those sobriety checkpoints. They stopped him and asked him if he has been drinking. He said no, and he hasn't. But then to prove his point he started yelling that he demands that they test him because they wasted his time, so now he wants them to breathalyze him. They arrested him on a suspicion of being high on drugs instead. He wasn't, but I still had to bail him out of prison in the middle of the night. The charges were dropped, of course.
The lesson is, be firm but polite and respectful. Know you rights, and exercise them, but don't be a dick about it.
Seems to me that it's the same in all cases, whether it's a traffic stop or you're being questioned in connection to a murder: be firm but polite. Don't give out any info you're not required to, but don't be an asshole. Clearly there will be some differences (i.e. you should insist on a lawyer if you're being questioned about a murder, but should not do this during a traffic stop) but my point is that we should not consider a polite insistence on your rights and polite refusal to give out information beyond what's required to be in and of itself being a dick.
"Am I being detained", not "am I under arrest"; there are plenty of forms of temporary detention which are not arrest but where walking off right then becomes PC to do more (and potentially a crime/beating/anal-rape-with-or-without-medical-personnel incident).
You want to do the "am I being detained" thing while at the same time being physically non-threatening -- keep your hands visible (in a traffic stop, on your steering while), etc.
Depending on the state, there's a requirement to ID (particularly in a motor vehicle, even as a non-driver). I generally am willing to comply with ID requests even when they're not mandatory, with a few exceptions (i.e. where it will prolong the interaction, like open carry in Oregon seems).
If a search happens anyway (either terry stop patdown or something more serious), the "I do not consent to search" should be repeated and very audible (ideally for any recording device), but don't physically resist.
OTOH, in NM, I'd probably not get out of my car even if demanded, but I'm currently boycotting the state.
Look, I understand these guys have a job to do, and they have a certain toolset they're allowed to use to do it. I don't begrudge them that. But damned if I'm going to let a sense of civic duty lead to my self-incrimination.
A friend of mine spent some time at the Public Defenders office. The number of times she saw people send themselves up for long stretches in prison, under circumstances in which the authorities would /never/ have gotten a conviction otherwise, led her to give me the same advice you see every single lawyer on television offer their clients: don't say anything!
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
But innocent people would have no obvious reason to know the existence of each other in relation to the investigation of a crime - in fact, investigators would tend to think that indicated some knowledge of the crime and make that person a viable suspect, in which case you are not suspected innocent and it's not in your interest to talk to the police.
The prisoner's dilemma is specific for a reason - nothing in its description is ambiguous. Please do not call this situation a prisoner's dilemma when it is not. The prisoner's dilemma implies a game with specific rules, and by applying that name to some other situation, you are changing the rules of the game and making it into something else entirely.
Information to help solve crimes can still be provided to police with a lawyer present, which is something that everyone should do when being questioned. Full stop. It's not about being moral or immoral, it's about basic self-preservation.
It's easy enough to ground this in game theory to make the analogy more explicit.
Say there's a street with two houses. In the event of a crime, people in the houses can volunteer information to the police. They don't know ahead of time whether their information is pertinent to the investigation or self-incriminating. Crime goes down by half if one house regularly snitches, and crime is eliminated if both do.
The expected cost of self-incrimination when volunteering information (with all probabilities worked out) is 3. The cost of unchecked crime in the neighbourhood is 4, applied to each house. The payoffs, then:
- If neither house snitches, payoffs are -4/-4.
- If one house snitches, payoffs are -2/-5 (against the snitch)
- If both houses snitch, payoffs are -3/-3.
This is classic prisoner's dilemma. I thought the general idea was clear enough in my initial post, but at this point the analogy I was making should be impossible to miss.
I don't disagree with your third paragraph. A lawyer will decrease your personal expected negative payoff without compromising the societal benefit of coming forward.
'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.'
Right. So let's just remove the need for a warrant, and revoke the fifth amendment. You have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide, citizen.
That isn't really fair. I took great care not to say that people should feel compelled to give information, only that we should feel obliged to provide it voluntarily under many situations. (Certainly not all situations, either -- information given in confidence should be inviolable without a warrant, for one thing.)
Where is that Immortal Technique quote from? Love IT, have you seen his documentary? (of course now I've asked that, it will turn out to be that the quote is from the documentary :)
Excuse the delay. Thanks I'll have a read of that. Agreed, he hertainly is an inspirational character, have seen him in concert twice now and both times were fantastic
I would argue the reverse. Talking to the cops in a nice way, letting them search your car because you have "nothing to hide" etc etc may help you in the short term, but it further erodes all of our rights in the long term, and makes us all less safe and more subject to the whims of a police-industrial complex that it out of control.
I love this objection because it uses my own argument against me. I think any argument from here goes away from moral principles and towards politics.
My personal view is that rights are most greatly abridged in crises, and that the voluntary cooperation is less likely to beget oppression than is the unrest and crime prevented by cooperation. Moreover, I think a culture of forcibly requiring information is more likely to arise in a culture of reticence.
You're right that it's a difficult line to walk, though -- defending a cultural value of openness and strong rights to silence and privacy is a subtle point.
I think the more important distinction to make is between compelled testimony and voluntary testimony.
I think we should encourage people to come forward of their own free will, both by making it safer to do so and by educating them on the benefits to society. In a sense I think this because I have faith in my local police, and see them as a part of the community, not as an "other."
Same as you, though, I don't believe believe in expanding their powers to compel people to come forward, because that obviously has scary negative consequences.
Will you still have faith in your local police and see them as a part of your community after the conduct a triple anal probe on you or your children and hand you with the invoice for the procedure?
While I generally support unions, the police fraternity mindset is troubling. There are no good cops as long as the blue code of silence is the de facto mode of operation.
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.
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.
Never talk to the cops. Period. You can't help yourself by proving you have "nothing to hide." The only word emanating from your vocal cords should be "lawyer."
That is good legal advice. Not necessarily good advice for a person's well-being. Cops throw people in jail and let them die there, or even kill them directly, for less than this.
Please cite references if you're suggesting that people in the U.S. are routinely killed or jailed for life without trial for requesting legal council.
I never asked for references of police killing civilians, as I'm aware that this happens. I'm specifically interested in references of police killing civilians for requesting legal counsel, especially in the course of questioning.
If this isn't something that routinely happens, then it is not a significant danger to the life or liberty of the average citizen to request counsel while being interrogated.
I know, but it seemed such a ridiculous request. It's a really weak attack on their argument that it's in your personal interest to cooperate with police. It drew the attention to something that wasn't really up for debate and looked more like a troll than anything. Also, these events aren't something that everyone is aware of, so it's more for the public attention than your own.
Basically I was just asking for you to say what you just did.
If someone makes an argument that asking for legal counsel has a reasonable chance of leading to being killed or imprisoned for life, I would expect them to backup that assertion with some evidence upon request.
Stories about people being killed by police in other contexts don't provide any evidence to support the initial assertion.
Their point wasn't that asking for legal counsel caused folks to be killed, it was that they think cops are hotheads who will kill you if you don't do as they say. They're saying that someone being questioned by police doesn't have any power so best not to piss the cops off lest one be killed or jailed without trial.
They said "for less" in their statement and you acknowledge that it happens, so it doesn't attack their argument to ask for that, it just attacks how they worded it.
"citation needed" is just about the most useless thing to contribute to a discussion and based on the other comment I'm not the only one that feels this way. This isn't reddit.
"citation needed" is just about the most useless thing to contribute to a discussion and based on the other comment I'm not the only one that feels this way. This isn't reddit.
So at least "citation needed" is legitimate sometimes. (I totally agree that most of the time, it seems merely argumentative, not knowledge-seeking which is what is the good thing its being concealed behind).
I never suggested that requesting legal counsel is the specific reason for routine police misconduct. I only meant that cooperating with police might be a good idea, given what police often do when faced with an uncooperative person.
I didn't even bother to get to the "jailed without trial" half of his question yet, since that was very publicly signed into law only a couple of years ago and obvious enough to not need rigorous debate.
I guess this general pattern of police misconduct is only now becoming mainstream, thanks to the Internet. There are probably still a lot of people either ignorant of the pattern or in denial of it. Remember, it took a while for the masses to learn and accept that cops in LA had a pattern for severe mistreatment of African Americans.
Everyone says this, but how certain are you that it's the best plan in every circumstance?
Can requesting for a lawyer reduce the amount of time you're detained? The guy was held for about 3.5 hours. If he required access to a lawyer, how long would they have detained him?
And then how much would the lawyer charge? Are you sure it would have been worth it?
It's true that if he said nothing he might have been taken to jail for 8 hours instead of being detained for 3.5 hours. But it's also possible that he talked and talked until eventually, under stress, he said something stupid that led to a conviction with a 2 year prison sentence. It's basically just a gamble with your life.
There's nothing wrong with being polite, but insistent on having a lawyer with you when you speak to the police. Tell them that you will be happy to talk with your lawyer present.
If the police are questioning you then there's an excellent chance that what they are really trying to do is to build a case. The more you talk, the more things can be used to make you appear guilty in court - even if they don't seem significant to you. That is why you don't talk to the police - even if it means sitting in jail for a day.
The concern that you might extend the length of your detention in the short-term is inconsequential compared to the possibility that your cooperation can and will be used against you. You aren't trying to manipulate the police into letting you go home earlier; instead, you're trying to avoid doing anything that may increase the likelihood of your being found guilty of criminal charges.
There are plenty of interviews online where police officers, lawyers, and judges alike can't come up with even a single example of where someone was able to talk their way out of charges. The popular "Don't talk to the police" video is just one of them. Hell, Salinas v. Texas makes it abundantly clear that you can screw yourself right into jail even when you do remain silent but make the mistake of appearing uncomfortable during questioning.
In short, there are just too many opportunities for even an intelligent, innocent person to stumble straight into jail.
Yup. There's a great misconception by naive people that believe candor begets innocence. Unfortunately, an adversarial legal system instead looks at volunteered information as ammunition.
My opinion -- people who are smart often think that they know more than police. They may, possibly, but they definitely don't have the training necessary to predict how their statements (even if innocent) can be twisted to imply whatever the prosecutor wants.
As an non-US citizen/resident this is pretty fasinating insight to the US justice system! One thing comes to mind though. If I'm to travel to US and enter US soil, am I covered by the Bill of Rights? Ofc I haven't had any problems while visiting US but just curious how these things pan out for non-citizen/resident.
The Bill of Rights ostensibly covers anyone under US jurisdiction, even a non-US citizen.
(The Bill of Rights is a specific set of rights enumerated to _limit_ the government, it is _not_ an enumeration of rights granted to a person. The Declaration of Independence and US Constitution are powers extended from the people to the government at the people's pleasure.)
Having said that, I said "ostensibly." I mean that US Code and jurisprudence are convoluted. Immigrants or tourists are especially at risk: deportation, or worse, a one way ticket to Guatanamo. This is absolutely in violation of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, but the US Government is currently trying to lie and deny and bluff its way around those founding documents.
In my opinion, the attack on immigrants/tourists/foreigners (hi, NSA) is an attempt to gain prima facie precedents that will then be extended to regular citizens. Case in point: wiretaps, drones, and US citizens held indefinitely without a trial. I am a US Citizen but I defend your rights because it's only a matter of time before it will come back to me.
Regardless of what a cop threatens (or promises as the case may be), they are legally bound to arrest you if they believe a crime has been committed, and are not empowered to make deals with you. You will never talk yourself out of an arrest, but you can talk yourself into one. Therefore you should never talk to the police under any circumstances.
In this case, the guy actually cost himself time by talking to them. Had he refused, since a mere suspicion was not enough to book him, they would have had nothing to do other than connect the Glass and find out that there were no movies on it.
In general it's best to only communicate with police through an attorney - without regard to the circumstances. A greater than zero percentage of people start out as witnesses and wind up as suspects.
"Authorities" will say almost anything to get suspects to cooperate. Cooperation is usually actually some form of self-incrimination. Unfortunately the average person doesn't understand the system as well as an officer/agent does, so they're susceptible to these kinds of tactics.
Yeah, if an authority ever tells me to cooperate I'm just going to say that I want to, that is what I need my lawyer for. To understand how we can best cooperate.
And remember you're not allowed to lie to them. You'll be charged with obstructing justice or interfering with a police investigation. With such lopsided rules its foolish to "play the game". I really wish there were laws saying government officers and officials may not lie otherwise they too would be charged with obstructing the truth.
I think the point is that you generally have very little to lose by talking to a lawyer before talking to the police, even if you haven't done anything wrong.
The sad reality is that "looking guilty" by not talking is usually a lot better than genuinely trying to cooperate and saying something that can be used against you in court.
I have heard this thousands of times, but a common man, a ordinary software engineer, does not have a lawyer on his speed dial. He/She may not even know how to go about finding one without spending at the least 10-15 mins on Google. So how does this work out? If one says "I will only talk in the presence of a lawyer", then the officers say ok, you get your one phone call, go call your lawyer....then what?? Who do I call? Say best thing is to call my wife/friend and have them find and bring a lawyer.....but what if neither my wife/friend is immediately reachable and I waste my one phone call away....then what?? Are the officers obligated to provide me a 'public' lawyer ?? It's easy to say "don't talk ever without lawyer being present" , but if I don't know what to do after saying that, and I do know there is nothing to be hidden (100% sure) and have reasonable belief that they will let me go once they are convinced of that, then which do you think is an easier choice for me, especially in that panic/stressful mode??
Call your wife and tell her "Honey, pick anyone at random out of the phone book for criminal defense attorney" then call them and say "John Smith, who is currently being held at $LOCATION, requests the presence of counsel. He will pay your usual hourly."
You know exactly what your lawyer is going to do? He's going to walk into $LOCATION, announce "I am the attorney for John Smith. Take me to him immediately.", greet you, then say "My client refuses to answer any further questions. Is he under arrest? If not, he is leaving. Here's my card if you have any further questions about this matter."
And that will, most likely, be your entire engagement with this attorney. If you need one in the near future, you can hire one after a more informed search, and have your existing attorney brief him on the procedural history -- to whit, that you were briefly detained and that he did exactly what every other attorney in the phone book would have done under those circumstances.
P.S. In the United States, if you're under arrest, you are entitled to a public defender. Heck, you can even say "I won't speak to you except under advise of counsel. I don't have a lawyer at present, so until I find one, I'll accept the services of a public defender." If they refuse a public defender, you're not under arrest, and if you're not under arrest, you should probably leave.
This sounds like a potentially useful service, if it doesn't exist already. Preferably with a memorable phone number like 1-800-LAYWERS, but that's taken.
If you're in a room being questioned by police, they already want to arrest you. If they're still talking to you and have not charged you yet, there's a good chance they don't feel they have a slam dunk case, and they need to extract more information to get a conviction and not get reamed out by the prosecutor.
Just ask for a lawyer. Don't worry about having to sit there in awkward silence for hours if it comes to that. There's no law that says if you can't find a lawyer in X amount of time after asking, you don't get one. You don't have to schedule a time for a lawyer to come in to get you.
Once you ask for a lawyer (which should effectively terminate the questioning, or at least it should), one of three things may happen:
(1) you will be arrested and charged. You gave them no new evidence to use against you, so you're in the best possible position.
(2) you will be "detained" for some amount of time while they go about sketchy, quasi-legal moves to gather more evidence against you (applying for search warrants for saliva/blood sample, your vehicle, home, etc. and they want to keep an eye on you until these are approved and executed). Depending on how their fishing expedition goes, either #1 or #3 will follow.
(3) they will release you.
Regardless of what happens, DO NOT TALK TO THEM.
The one thing that no one ever mentions is that the police usually don't follow the rules, and the courts usually don't penalize them for it. The only way to protect yourself is to shut up. Don't even make small talk. It's a chess game and there's no move you can make where you don't lose. Do and say nothing.
Is that actually how it works in the US? A judge in Canada recently lamented this as a "misconception brought on by watching too many Hollywood movies", and pointed out that (at least in Canada) you can make as many phone calls as you need in order to get a lawyer.
This worry about "waste my one phone call" makes no sense.
You're not obligated to talk without a lawyer. The police won't give you what you need to find a lawyer? Fine, just don't talk. If they're stupid enough to say, "you wasted your one phone call, no lawyer for you" then just sit there.
The legal system is run by humans and doesn't generally have silly gotchas like these. There's no such thing as, "you couldn't find a lawyer in ten minutes with one phone call, so you don't get to have one, gotcha!"
If they want to question you, it is in their best interest to get you a lawyer. You have the right not to answer questions until a lawyer is present (and after, but that's not my point).
No, no it doesn't because you have no proof they won't cause you problems if you do cooperate. If they tell him he is free to go, but he stays and gives them information. It is much harder to claim the fifth latter on.
> Note that the authorities did tell him they were going to cause him more problems if he didn't cooperate.
Because it can't hurt to try, can it?. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKiYpsQhZsI for a bunch of highly fascinating examples of cops outright lying and people not falling for it. Not entirely the same situation, but this line from the article sure "smells" similar:
> I asked why didn’t they just take those five minutes at the beginning of the interrogation and they just left the room.
This is just a classic example of not knowing your rights. Of course they will make you think it will be worse if you don't cooperate. The opposite is always true - the only thing that will happen by talking is that you will make things worse.
If you did nothing wrong, then you absolutely no reason to talk or say anything except "am I under arrest and am I free to go?"
The only correct response to these threats: "I am innocent, and my lawyer will absolutely investigate you and your group, and we will prosecute you for any law-breaking he finds - including denying me my rights, stealing my property, immitating a law officer."
No. The correct response is. "I exercise my right to be silent. I do not consent to a search. Am I being detained or am I free to go?" And if you are arrested, "I demand to speak to an attorney."
What you listed here might make you feel better at the moment, but it doesn't express that you want to exercise your rights. If you don't express that you want to use those rights then the police can keep on doing what they want.
Do not claim you are innocent. You don't know all of the things they are investigating, and lying to an officer is illegal. The rest of what you said is easily interpreted as bluster.
The moment citizens decide that rent-a-cops have greater rights than they do, civilized society ends. Either you keep these people in check by reminding them of your rights to investigate them to the full extent of the law, or you live in a vassal state.
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.
If you are arrested, and convicted wrongly (which we know does happen), then your assertion of innocence is, to the courts, another lie.
According to the Supreme Court, you must say that you are going to remain silent in order to exercise that constitutional right. Your suggested phrasing shows that the citizen saying that is ignorant of the law, and is more likely that the "rent-a-cops" will use intimidation and other forms of persuasion to extract information in hopes of making an arrest.
You don't care, since you don't recognize the laws as being just. But it is bad manners to suggest your course of action to anyone who is not aware of what their legal rights are under this unjust regime. A martyr without reason is just another arrest statistic.
>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 ..
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.
Incorrect, for the reasons the video linked numerous times throughout this stated. By proclaiming your innocence, even if true, you could be found liable for an increased sentence for lying to an officer if dodgy evidence incorrectly 'proves' you guilty later down the track. This exact circumstance is covered.
Your 1 and only word is always 'lawyer'. Nothing else.
Whether wearing a camera to the movies is non-consequential. Only if one is actively taping that one is breaking the law.
Possessing the potential doesn't break the law. Otherwise, the theater male management should be charged with rape since they are well equipped with the potential to rape.
Do you mean that you know the law of the relevant jurisdictions and can confidently interpret it, or do you just mean that it shouldn't be illegal?
There are plenty of crimes that exist on the books as preventative measures against serious wrongs being done. Sometimes it's worth prohibiting harmless but easily enforced activities if they're corellated the right way with harmful ones.
Another thing 'we' here in the EU don't really get; if you watched even ONE cop show from the US, you know that you ONLY utter ONE thing when you get arrested/detained/whatever: 'lawyer'. And nothing else. So why, in the same cop shows and real life, do people start blabbing?
In cop shows, because it serves the plot better; in real life, because humans are not very rational creatures and the intuitive need to try to explain yourself is strong, especially if you're in the company of people who know a couple of psychological tricks on how to make people talk.
Here is some pragmatic advice about when to talk with police from someone who has been stopped by police when they could have legitimately arrested him.
If you have done something wrong where someone got hurt - don't talk to them. Otherwise, it depends:
In his defense, we're never going to have nice things (like being able to wear tiny cameras on our heads all the time) without shit like this happening at some point in history. One day we could have computers in our contacts, and at some point between Google Glass and Google Contacts, the FBI is going to accuse people of doing illegal things with them.
This man is lucky that he didn't end up accidentally giving the authorities some tiny piece of information to make his life worse. You should absolutely never talk to the authorities even if you think you have nothing to hide and especially when they're actively trying to pin something on you. It is perfectly legal for them to threaten you with harsher legal penalties, and it is perfectly legal for you to say I need to speak with a lawyer before I make any decisions or say anything. This account is a CLEAR illustration of how they ONLY want you to confess to something and once they don't think they can they no longer care about you in the tiniest bit. It's not about justice, it's about catching people.
Also, don't wear a goddamn camera on your head to the movies. The man must certainly own a pair of regular prescription glasses and was being extremely naive.