We Just Got a Rare Look at US National Security Surveillance

Re:We Just Got a Rare Look at US National Security Surveillance by hutzlibu on Thursday December 12, 2019 @01:05PM (#21774453)

Does the video also bring examples, where it was bad to talk to the police, when you were in fact innocent?

I only watched till the first example, where he brings the example of a stupid lawer who talked to the police .. when his problem was lying to the police and giving contradicting accounts of what happened. Yeah, this is stupid.

But I do really not like the idea of mandatory lawers as it cements the class justice system, with good outcome for people who can afford good lawers and people qho cannot.

When I have done nothing wrong I don't want to need a lawer by design. But it makes sense, that lawers think different about that.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:We Just Got a Rare Look at US National Security Surveillance by aidenn0 on Thursday December 12, 2019 @03:08PM (#21775816)

I haven't watched it in a while, so I may get some specifics wrong, but it goes through various hypotheticals, until finally getting to the point where you are innocent, and you only tell the truth, but talking to the police gets you convicted. IIRC the example was you saying "I was out of town visiting my mom when the crime happened" but they have a (mistaken) witness putting you near the scene. The fact that you (supposedly) lied about where you were combined with other circumstantial evidence may be enough to convict you.

Note also that even an innocent person will almost always give contradicting accounts of a situation if interrogated for long enough.

[edit]

There were several such examples, including the one I remembered from 14-23 minutes.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:We Just Got a Rare Look at US National Security Surveillance by bsder on Thursday December 12, 2019 @03:26PM (#21776042)

> Does the video also bring examples, where it was bad to talk to the police, when you were in fact innocent?

Yes. It's much closer to the end of his talk where there is an erroneous contradicting witness and you can wind up convicted of lying to the police.

He also points to things like "Possession of a lobster can be a felony". You simply can't know all the laws, so getting a lawyer forces the police to narrow the scope immediately. At that point you can address the actual charges rather than letting the police fish through hours of your babbling hunting for something to hang you with.

> When I have done nothing wrong I don't want to need a lawer by design.

That's fine. But "Shut the hell up" remains good advice. The only benefit to "cooperating" with the police is at SENTENCING. And, if I'm actually innocent, that's a bit of a problem, no?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:We Just Got a Rare Look at US National Security Surveillance by alasdair_ on Thursday December 12, 2019 @04:06PM (#21776462)

>That's fine. But "Shut the hell up" remains good advice. The only benefit to "cooperating" with the police is at SENTENCING. And, if I'm actually innocent, that's a bit of a problem, no?

I agree with the basic advice. That being said, if a cop knocks on my door and says the neighbor's kid is missing, I'm still willing to take the minute personal risk of being implicated in order to help the police in their search.

Yes, technically I could have been the last one to see the kid alive and this could make me a suspect, but I also couldn't live with myself if I knew something but withheld it and something bad happened.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:We Just Got a Rare Look at US National Security Surveillance by hutzlibu on Friday December 13, 2019 @04:08AM (#21780181)

Yes, this is what I mean. Of course in that case I would speak as well. And probably most would, without lawer as time matters.

One idea of the police was to be servants of the people and not a power tool of the elite.

The "never speak to the police" paradigm would mean to me that police is all evil intended. And that would be the case, I dont think the solution is just more lawers.

[ Parent | on HN ]