Don't Talk to the Police
0 0 413584
Regent Law Professor James Duane gives viewers startling reasons why they should always exercise their 5th Amendment rights when questioned by government officials. Download his article on the topic at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1998119.
By CiPHPerCoder 2017-09-20
> Thus not keeping a journal because its contents might be used in a court of law is just a sad state of affairs.
If you record in your journal anything that can be perceived to place you near a crime, whether or not you're guilty or the association is a stretch of the imagination, then your words can be used against you without your right to invoke the 5th amendment. If the journal was seized in the execution of a search warrant, you lose the 4th amendment protections too.
The winning move is to not play.
By jerrytsai 2017-09-20
"Don't Talk to the Police" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE This talk was an eye-opener for me and an indictment of the U.S. "justice" system. You can't presume you'll be treated fairly, considered not a suspect, etc.
And, as mentioned by keyanp, Randy Pausch's "Last Lecture". Vita brevis. Carpe diem.
By tjalfi 2017-09-20
This. The video Don't Talk to the Police has several concrete examples of how not taking the fifth amendment can be to your disadvantage.
By Chaebixi 2017-09-30
> If you do want to talk to me, I can tell the juvenile court judge or adult court judge and Probation Officer what you tell me.
It's missing the explicit warning that "what you say can and will be used against you in the court of law." I think they should add a clause to the end stating "and they can use this information against you to get you in trouble."
This video is always relevant when the subject of talking to police comes up: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE
By Chaebixi 2017-09-30
Have you ever watched this video? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE
All kinds of people think they can talk their way out of an arrest. Unsavvy people might interpret that statement as saying their excuses and explanations will passed up to people who will listen sympathetically or at least could be convinced. They don't realize their statements can only cause them harm. I think that kind of misconception would be especially true for juveniles.
By zaroth 2017-09-30
There is not a single thing a completely and perfectly innocent person can say to a cop in their own defense which would not almost certainly harm them for saying it. Other than your name, that you are excercising your right to remain silent (important to state this explicitly), and you would like to speak to a lawyer.
Please watch this if you haven't, it's very entertaining and absolutely true: "Don't Talk to the Police" https://youtu.be/d-7o9xYp7eE
By ghufran_syed 2018-01-28
Great, this is why we have a constitution and bill of rights - he has no legal obligation to speak to them, and of course, if by accident he said something that was incorrect (“I had tuna for lunch” when he actually had salmon) he would be guilty of breaking a federal law, “lying to a federal officer”.
Useful background info: “Don’t talk to the police” video from a law school class https://youtu.be/d-7o9xYp7eE
By cyphar 2018-03-19
> Theft is theft. Drug possession is drug possession. Had these "unfairly" targeted individuals followed the law, they would not be subject to its penalties.
Not all laws are that simple. Are you aware that not even the US Federal Government is aware of how many laws apply at any given time in a given place? While I'm not going to justify people breaking laws, there are many federal laws that you can see might cause problems for people that could not reasonable have known that a law was being broken. For instance 16 U.S.C 3372 (the Lacey Act):
> It is unlawful for any person [...] to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase any fish or wildlife or plant taken, possessed, transported, or sold in violation of any law, treaty, or regulation of the United States or in violation of any Indian tribal law
So if you have ever bought or been gifted a fish or plant that at any point broke Indian tribal law (even if you didn't know about it, even if it wasn't the law where you received it, even if the plant or fish is legally farmed and sold in another area) you have broken a federal law and you're now a criminal.
Does it make sense to not allow someone to have their constitutional rights if they were given a fish that was caught in an area where that is prohibited by Indian tribal law, and they weren't aware of that? Not all criminals have been convicted under such strange laws, but having such a black-and-white view of criminals stops being as obvious when you look at cases like this.
By kenbaylor 2018-04-12
This is a really good time for him to shut up and lawyer up.
The duty of the prosecution is to prove their case in court. The fact that they have seized his computer(s) and carried out forensics already, means they are looking hard for a conviction. If they freak him out with this sort of circumstantial evidence, he will say something, and it's never a good thing.
Legal precedent depends on jurisdiction and you haven't shared that. Connecting to Tor is a 'fact'. What value that fact has is up to the prosecution to prove. Relevancy is key. Best to wait and see what they alleged happened and then challenge just those set of facts.
If he says nothing, they have a lot to prove. In many places in the US, they will come in with multiple felonies then accept all sorts of plea bargains as it drags on and on and on, like a bad used sales car man.