It doesn't matter what country you are in - there is no such thing as a "friendly conversation" with any level of law enforcement - there are so many laws about everything and anything and you can be contributing to your own arrest and prosecution without even realizing it, doesn't matter if you are actually not guilty, why set yourself up?
Laws aren't necessarily logical or fair and you might never grasp the danger of that until you are on the wrong side of one. Unless you are purposely trying to get arrested to make a protest, stop chatting with cops! Their policy is typically "arrest anyway, get them in the system, let the courts sort it out later".
Cops know they can get more out of you by being non-confrontational and mirandizing you well after you've told them everything they need to know to make up a very damning arrest report - you'll never get a warning.
What's really surprising in this case is only that this particular person didn't grasp the concept. He probably got to walk away only because they knew the ipad data could make much better evidence to arrest others than forced testimony. But they obviously used his arrest to leverage him giving it up without a fight.
Tell them what you have too by law (and make sure you know enough of your local law to be reasonably sure where you are required to answer and where you are not), and never ever ever "just chat".
It's not that "the cops are out to get _you_", it's mostly that the metrics and motivations they're operating under while doing their job will _very_ rarely end up even aligning with your civil rights, never mind aligning with your best interests...
They're not joking when they say "anything you say can _and will_ be used against you." That very much includes anything you say before they miranda you...
I strongly second this. Watch the videos linked in the article, which includes a former police officer. Unfortunately, your best bet is always to just shut up. It is too easy to incriminate yourself in something unrelated that you didn't even know was illegal.
Worse: it's easy to incriminate yourself in something that is not even illegal. You could say that you were not at the store that was robbed, but actually at your grandmother's place two hours away. However, if someone (incorrectly) believes that they've seen you, the police now has (incorrect) evidence that you are lying.
Excellent video. Also, print out the ACLU bust card and carry it with you. It's folds up into a wallet-sized cheat sheet to remind you of your rights when you're stopped by police:
Cops know they can get more out of you by being non-confrontational and mirandizing you well after you've told them everything they need to know to make up a very damning arrest report - you'll never get a warning.
It's also easier for the cops to flat out lie on the police report once you start talking. If you refuse to talk and ask for your lawyer you have removed all opportunity for the cops to gather evidence directly from you and/or simply lie about it later. It's much easier to defend knowing you said nothing rather than you talked for an hour and can't quite remember just how you said something.
That may be true, but it's not a solution. Personally, I want to live in a world where law enforcement is the ally, not the enemy. And if this is not possible, that's the bigger problem.
The job of law enforcement is to prevent crime, to detain criminal suspects and to gather evidence.
If the police are talking to you then by definition they are trying to incriminate someone, that's their job. Police officers are obliged to use any legal means available to obtain evidence - anything less would be negligence. As they are obliged by law to tell you, anything you say or do can be held against you in a court of law. You have a legal right not to incriminate yourself, but you don't have the right to un-incriminate yourself in hindsight, even if you incriminated yourself only inadvertently. If you have evidence that proves you did not commit a criminal offence, then it is in your best interest to use your right to legal representation to ensure that you give that evidence as clearly as possible and do not say anything that could undermine that evidence.
Not talking to cops is a basic principle of privacy, like shredding your credit card bills or using a password on your e-mail account. Once information is out there, you can't get it back, so it's your duty to preserve it at all costs.
If talking to the cops made sense, the cops would be doing a lousy job.
>If talking to the cops made sense, the cops would be doing a lousy job.
This is a poor attitude and probably explains why dealing with police in the US is such a big deal. It doesn't have to be like this, and isn't in a lot of other countries.
It's like that in every country on earth, more so in most countries other than the US. Much of South America still operates under Napoleonic law in which there is a presumption of guilt. I'm British and would never dream of speaking to a police officer anywhere in Europe without legal representation. American police are slightly more corrupt than the first-world average and sentencing is unusually punitive (especially for drug offences), but by global standards the US legal system isn't exceptionally bad.
How could we possibly architect a legal system in which it doesn't make sense to speak to a lawyer before giving evidence? Unless we massively simplify the law and train every single citizen in the law to a fairly high standard, the benefit of representation will persist. The system recognises this and enshrines the right to legal representation.
>It's like that in every country on earth, more so in most countries other than the US.
This claim is even more extraordinary than the first. I'm living in Switzerland and I can tell you dealing with the cops is not a problem here because they use their heads (instead of just trying to close a case). Of course if they think you're a scum bag then you won't get the benefit of the doubt, but I can understand that.
>but by global standards the US legal system isn't exceptionally bad.
To be honest, I would trust the US system more than I would the UK system because at least if something stupid happens I would expect to be able to sue someone for lots of cash. The UK could just D-notice me away.
> Not talking to cops is a basic principle of privacy, like shredding your credit card bills
I'm shredding my credit card bills so that the "bad guys" don't get their hands on them. What we disagree on is whether law enforcement _has_ to be one of the bad guys. I certainly do not disagree on whether they are right now - I've downloaded my share of music and smoked the occasional pot.
But can't their incentives be changed?
I think they can. Dropping prosecution on a handful of "crimes" would most likely instantly slash over 90% of the problem. Instituting a number of well-thought policies would most likely chip away at the rest 10%. I don't really see any reason why it'd be a futile endeavor...
"The job of law enforcement is to prevent crime, to detain criminal suspects and to gather evidence."
Unfortunately, the job of law enforcement is in fact to enforce the law. The same law which is written by people you don't know and are not asked your opinion on. The same law which is influenced by people richer and more connected than you. A government consists of a group of people who threaten other people with violence (through the police) when they do not agree with their actions. The only way to have real justice is to not have a police force, or a government, for that matter.
It's simply a lack of contradiction. If murder is considered bad then murdering to prevent murder is an injustice. If kidnapping is considered negative then taking people away and putting them in cages is an injustice. In other words, it's taking away all of the "if's" and "buts" in what we decide is right. It's a pure (as in pure functional programming) approach to morality. When you get rid of side-effects then things become far more elegant. We'll never stop all of those bad things from happening but the least we can do is to not do them ourselves.
Yes, get rid of punishment. In the context of the bigger picture, people commit crimes either out of a need for resources or because of mental illness. The former is easily solved if we pull our collective heads out of our collective asses and pay for the transportation costs associated with getting food to people who need it. The latter tends to become worse when it is punished, it is best treated with that word beginning with 'L' which everyone seems to be so afraid of. To put it another way, crime is a symptom and the current legal system treats the effects and not the cause.
And the job of every corporate employee -- and especially corporate officers -- is to maximize profit, however that is achieved.
Two scenarios that have serious, counter-productive effects upon society.
Police used to non infrequently be called "peace officers" ("officers of the peace").
We used to use the term, with at least some genuine meaning, "good corporate citizen".
Assign skewed metrics, and you'll get skewed results. Judging someone solely on their arrest record, or on the financial profit they acquire, misses much of what people contribute in life -- or don't.
Law enforcement is tasked with enforcing the laws. Until there are no laws on the books that you disagree with or that could be used to suppress you, then you can never claim them as an ally. More like a fair-weather friend.
>I want to live in a world where law enforcement is the ally, not the enemy.
well, we know that the law enforcement is ally to some, it is just not to you or to me. Everybody wants to have the Power on their side, just not everybody can by definition.
Think of every other job in the world where people cut corners and slack and get corrupt. Everyone from the guy who has to flip burgers to brain surgeons. Now imagine them with the ability to completely screw up your life at their whim, from arrest to prosecution to judging.
Law enforcement is a massive, for-profit industry. Everyone is out to improve their arrest/prosecution record. If you can't afford to defend yourself, you are an easy target. Even if you win, you still lose for having to go through the process.
Personally, I want to live in a world where law enforcement is the ally, not the enemy.
I would like that too, the problem is that because a cop wields so much power one bad apple really does ruin the bunch. As a citizen you never know if you're going to get the cop who does his job well and isn't out to get people or the cop who is drunk with power and can't wait to flex on someone.
One strange aside to this is from the journalists perspective. My mom was a reporter for many years in a small town and talked frequently to the cops. She was good friends with some of them and not so good friends with others—due to politics in a small town. Through this prospective, I understand why the reporter was talking with the cops, because he was thinking as a report instead of a suspect.
I understand you pointing it out. Unfortunately, the article and arrest was made in Australia. Different laws and cultures apply differently. Refusal to comply may indicate guilt.
I guess it depends on what a "friendly conversation" entails. Speaking to a cop outside the club or in front of the bar has been pretty friendly. Speaking to a cop that was interested in finding the whereabouts of a friend wasn't friendly at all.
Once they get their bead on you it can be very uncomfortable situation. And this has been in a few different countries.
Laws aren't necessarily logical or fair and you might never grasp the danger of that until you are on the wrong side of one. Unless you are purposely trying to get arrested to make a protest, stop chatting with cops! Their policy is typically "arrest anyway, get them in the system, let the courts sort it out later".
Cops know they can get more out of you by being non-confrontational and mirandizing you well after you've told them everything they need to know to make up a very damning arrest report - you'll never get a warning.
What's really surprising in this case is only that this particular person didn't grasp the concept. He probably got to walk away only because they knew the ipad data could make much better evidence to arrest others than forced testimony. But they obviously used his arrest to leverage him giving it up without a fight.