
Don't Talk to the Police (2012) - Red_Tarsius
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE
======
joshmn
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.

~~~
Simon_says
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.

~~~
dmitrygr
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.

~~~
joshmn
I couldn't have answered the question any better myself.

When I was still a teenager, they threatened to ring the door bell and wake up
my parents.

Like, what?

------
tzs
How far do you take this?

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.

~~~
whamlastxmas
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.

~~~
tombrossman
> 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'.

------
sp821543
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.

~~~
gst
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?

~~~
Uehreka
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.

~~~
c22
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.

~~~
madeofpalk
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.

How do I know the phone number to a good lawyer?

------
slazaro
I keep rewatching this video every now and then, very recommended if you're
from the U.S.

I wonder how much does all this information apply to other countries (for
instance, in the EU).

~~~
whamlastxmas
I think a lot of countries have the ability to hold your silence against you.
Thankfully this isn't the case in the US.

~~~
the-dude
Citation needed.

~~~
cortic
“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.”

[https://www.gov.uk/arrested-your-rights](https://www.gov.uk/arrested-your-
rights)

I imagine there is a sizable amount of injustice in the UK due to not having a
4th amendment like rights.

~~~
jopsen
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.

Compared to the US?

~~~
cortic
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.

------
krystovv
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.

------
pps43
This is probably too extreme. Andrew Branca recommends [1] to "say little"
rather than to "say nothing".

[1]
[https://www.reddit.com/r/CCW/comments/5sicm5/the_law_of_self...](https://www.reddit.com/r/CCW/comments/5sicm5/the_law_of_self_defense_by_andrew_branca/)

~~~
sundarurfriend
The link doesn't explain anything about his argument except that it's in his
book. What does "say little" entail and why does he recommend that?

Also, from the context it seems to be about what to do after a self-defense
shooting - is his advice specific to that context, or a general argument?

~~~
dazc
'What does "say little" entail...'

I'm guessing, saying nothing infers guilt whereas saying 'I can't remember...'
(or similar) leaves room for manoeuvre at a later date?

~~~
pps43
"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.

------
throwaway0255
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.

~~~
ivraatiems
> 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.

[1] [http://www.nbcnews.com/id/37448356/ns/us_news-
crime_and_cour...](http://www.nbcnews.com/id/37448356/ns/us_news-
crime_and_courts/t/right-remain-silent-suspect-better-speak/) [2]
[http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-rights/invoking-the-
rig...](http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-rights/invoking-the-right-to-
remain-silent.html) [3] [https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/you-still-
have-right-...](https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/you-still-have-right-
remain-silent)

~~~
throwaway0255
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.

~~~
ivraatiems
> 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.

~~~
throwaway0255
> Do you have any evidence of this at all?

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.

~~~
ivraatiems
> 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.

------
cryoshon
tbqh i'm more worried about being gunned down by the police than being
arrested or being searched at this point.

exhibit A:
[https://twitter.com/ShaunKing/status/939014159726870530](https://twitter.com/ShaunKing/status/939014159726870530)

(warning to system-believers: the link contains video of police executing a
prone, face down, unarmed, nonviolent, nonresisting, white male; the officer
was acquitted)

~~~
golergka
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)?

~~~
kazagistar
Verify the firearm and attempt a non-lethal solution.

~~~
golergka
And would that be a good decision in a typical situation that combines said
data points?

~~~
jwatte
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.

------
tscs37
I think it's a sad statement for the american justice system that this is
advice people want to follow.

I feel lucky I don't have to live in the USA.

~~~
MichaelApproved
What country do you live in that what you say to police can't be used against
you?

~~~
jopsen
In most countries the police does an independent investigation, and what you
say to them can also be used in your defense.

The police can be called to testify on your behalf; just as well as they can
testify against you.

Not always a reason to talk, but it makes it less dangerous to help the
police. After all we do want to help the police catch criminals don't we?

~~~
MichaelApproved
Do you have an example country that I can dig further with?

------
jwatte
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.

How did we fuck this up so badly as a society?

~~~
yuhong
I wonder what if police was required to present details of the case before
asking questions which may be used in a trial.

------
edwhitesell
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.

------
marnett
Very important citizen smarts here. Never. Period. It isn't unpatriotic, or
anti-blue. It is really in your best interest to do so.

------
dustingetz
this may be true but there is a perverse incentive for lawyers to offer
opinions that are both easily defensible and generate billable lawyer time

~~~
the-dude
If this is the talk I think it is, there is 30 mins of laywer and then 30 mins
of police officer, saying the exact same thing.

------
kolbe
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.

~~~
alangpierce
> and possibly illegal

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.

~~~
kolbe
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.

------
raincom
Police can get you for process crimes. That's why you should have a lawyer,
when you are 'remotely' connected to what is being investigated.

------
blacktulip
Good to know. So does the same principle apply in the UK?

------
RomanPushkin
about IRS at 7:30 what does it mean "won't talk to them without immunity"?
Should I state this when they ask me some questions?

~~~
joeax
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.

------
skrebbel
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.

~~~
sundarurfriend
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.

~~~
skrebbel
Good point, thanks.

------
briandear
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?

This position makes zero logical sense.

~~~
whamlastxmas
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.

~~~
Tyrannosaur
"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?

