So, you tell them the truth, and say "Sorry officer, I wasn't in town that day," only they later find out that there's an eyewitness who says that you were in town that day, and your credit card purchases show you buying a cup of coffee a few blocks from where the eyewitness saw you.

It doesn't matter that the eyewitness was mistaken, and just saw someone who looked like you who drove a similar looking vehicle, or that the purchase was made by your wife who was borrowing your credit card, because that coffee shop didn't have security cameras proving one way or the other.

At the end of the day, you're looked at as guilty, for a time at least, and possibly forever. You have to waste your every spare dollar hiring a defense attorney to prove your innocence. You have to fend off mobs of social justice warriors who have ruined your reputation on the internet and real life, who may have lowered your business' Yelp score to approximately zero. You have to find a new job, because your old one fired you once you were indicted, and the newspapers justified them by placing your picture on the front page as the guilty party, but only printing the retraction months later on page 18.

And this is of course a scenario predicated on the notion that your attorney is able to actually get you found innocent, and you aren't further hindered by spending decades in prison for a crime you didn't commit.

Hmm. I didn't say "tell the truth". I said "Don't lie". You may construe that however you want, I guess.

I don't see how all of what you described couldn't also happen if you just didn't say anything. The difference would be that you now have no contradictory statements or evidence.

If you've made no statements, you can't be charged with lying (whether the charge is actually true or not), unless you say they lie about you making statements.

It seems like the easiest way to not lie is to not talk. YMMV.

You were downvoted, but I'm upvoting you because yours is a common argument, and people should see the replies here.

Watch this video explaining how you can still be put in a difficult position, even when telling the truth:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/singham/2013/05/08/why-you-shoul...

Downvote to disagree is a very bad system, though it's not explicitly discouraged in HN. That just seems bonkers to me.

Its actually the norm here, an expected behavior according to the originators of HN, so of course not discouraged at all.

It takes some getting used to. But as long as you're not rude or profane, the numbers eventually take care of themselves.

Ooo, this inspires a good idea: a multi-dimensional voting based forum. You can up and downvote based on things like veracity, tact, agree/disagree with position, etc.

I think it's a good start, but of course, everything lies in the details of the implementation.

I've been considering how to do something like this for awhile. Almost ready to start up work on the prototype :)

I think that's slashdot.

Checking slashdot, they appear to have filters in their comments for things like 'insightful' and 'imformative'. Thinking more along the lines of being able to rate things like the veracity and tact of the response, with automatic filtering and prevalence based on a few metrics.

"You wouldn't be there if you weren't guilty."

I've heard this line from people who've served on juries before.

Grounds for an immediate approval of a mistrial motion.

Which is irrelevant to the point I think is being made. People sometimes believe this, and if the facts can be twisted to put you in front of a jury as a defendant, it's not good for you. Whether this statement would cause a mistrial doesn't help you if it's stated to some non-involved party twenty years later and you've already served your time, or even if you are still in prison and the person saying and the person hearing that statement have no incentive to notify someone who can and will do something about it.

Too true. I know a person who said that, but I don't know which state, which county, when, or what they served as juror. Are the accused still in prison, or have they served time and done?

And it's hear-say. I have no recording of what they said.

But still, miscarriage of justice is still done. And with numbers showing federal cases end up in the +95% conviction, sure seems the quote is the majority thought. Even if it is completely wrong.

Martha Stewart was convicted based on an investigator's memory and the notes he had written in his notebook. It wasn't what she said, but what she said in someone else's words.

Do you really want to bet your freedom on the basis of someone else's interpretation of what you said?

Agents are deemed reliable and often don't need proof. Their word is good enough to the courts.

The testimony of any witness is admissible in court; agents aren't special here. Whether the agent's testimony is sufficient evidence depends on the jury and the context.

Defense lawyers aren't free.

You cannot be denied one.

Also: how does the advice "Don't lie" to the FBI get downmodded?

Yea, the one you can't be denied is a public defender who sucks and only wants to plea you out. Don't lie is bad advice, good advice is don't speak at all; they are not your friends, and speaking at all allows them to lie about what you said and they don't have to prove anything to completely fuck your life up.

Don't assume they're the good guys looking to solve a crime, they aren't; they're thugs looking to close cases by whatever means possible and they don't care if you're actually innocent, they don't care about you at all nor do they care about the truth.

> You cannot be denied one.

1) You still have to pay for one.

2) If you are not a suspect, you don't get the right to an attorney in the way you imply which leaves you with no reliable, neutral witness to call upon.

> Also: how does the advice "Don't lie" to the FBI get downmodded?

Because its an open secret that the FBI isn't above twisting arms and bending rules to win their cases.

One way to do that is to force you to defend yourself in court against a lie accusation which costs you 5 figures or rely on an overworked public defense attorney which is unlikely to have more than a couple hours on your case.

Yeah. I don't think you have any practical experience in the way the system works. You don't want a public defender unless you have 100% incontrovertible proof you are innocent. At which point, the FBI wouldn't pull this shit anyway.

> You cannot be denied one.

Also, in many jurisdictions, you have to fill out a financial form for them to "determine" if you could afford an attorney on your on. If they decide that you can, regardless of your true finances, they can decline to provide a court-appointed attorney to you.

>One way to do that is to force you to defend yourself in court against a lie accusation

This is pretty easy to defend as the burden of proof is entirely on the FBI.

>At which point, the FBI wouldn't pull this shit anyway.

Exactly. However, everyone here seems to be quite worked up over these synthetic hypotheticals.

> Exactly. However, everyone here seems to be quite worked up over these synthetic hypotheticals.

So you have a habit of recording all your conversations with full knowledge of the legal notification laws?

That is what "incontrovertible" evidence would require.

Fyi, its not a synthetic hypothetical. I debated explaining but honestly, I don't really expect you to believe me and I don't care at this point.

> This is pretty easy to defend as the burden of proof is entirely on the FBI.

In theory, yes. However, 5 figures in legal bills are the end result unless you have a literal recording of the conversation whose authenticity can't be questioned.

I do try to mentally record my conversations. I've found that very few other people seem to. Try asking someone what they just said some time, or asking them what you just said. I doubt they will give you a verbatim recording. Don't lie; ask questions whose answers contradict established theory.

Lol. Good luck with that being an effective defense that costs you $0.

You'd need to record it on a machine of some kind. Which has legal consequences, notification requirements, etc.

The FBI would be recording and I would have access to those recordings. Miranda right #1 I believe.

Look, I've accepted nothing I can say will convince you.

But, if you think that is how it works, good luck.

You think the FBI can introduce evidence against you, that you cannot examine?

You really are trying to be dense and I'm done wasting my time.