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.
