They reach the intersection, where you get a good look at the men as they turn the corner. The drive halfway down the block, and turn into a driveway, pull into the garage at that house, and close the garage door, and then come out with the baby, and get into a car that was waiting in the driveway, and leave nonchalantly. You recognize the make and model of the car and are even able to read the license plate and memorize it.
You are the only witness to this part of their getaway.
The police quickly come, and ask you if you saw them men and were they went.
Are you REALLY going to say nothing? Or tell them you won't say anything without your lawyer present?
Most of the time you'll talk to the police and tell them everything you saw and that's that. It's not likely the police will target you, but that's cold comfort if you somehow end up on the wrong end of a police investigation, which is the point of the video.
You sound smart, what are possible alternatives here? Call in an anonymous tip maybe, or describe exactly what you saw, then refuse further communication without counsel present.
Look, I'll admit I'm biased (I'm a criminal defense attorney.) That said, you never know which good, wholesome, moral conversation that you have with the police will turn you from a heroic savior into a criminal suspect.
(For what it's worth, I'd speak to the police in your scenario. That said, I wouldn't fault anyone for not doing so.)
"Which direction did they go?!?" "Which house is on fire?!" "Does he have a gun?!" are very different questions (with different moral obligations) than "What are you doing in this neighborhood so late at night?" "Do you live around here?" "Is this your car?"
Non-urgent questions and statements should be given in the presence of an attorney, recorded, and preferably on the condition of immunity :)
By not talking you prevent this problem entirely because no one will accidentally forget or take out of context that fact that you never said anything at all.
To the cop, stating that you touched someone means that you've opened the door -- it's a thread connecting your story to the plaintiff's. Since you are probably not routinely interrogated, your body language may reinforce that thought process as well.
To me, the words of a cop and a plaintiff are "reasonably doubtful," but I guess not. Anyway, my point is that in this example, the cop lied about what the defendant said.
It's easier to just "slip" something in a conversation if you're talking to him in the first place.
It's easier because, when you fabricate an entire conversation rather than one sentence, you have to make up more things.
That's the purely technical argument. There are also psychological considerations on the part of the officer, people are more likely to rationalize making up one little thing than making up an entire conversation.
Say nothing and you can truthfully say repeatedly that you said nothing. You'll be able to consistently tell the truth on the stand without having to explain any of your statements, statements that the prosecution will attempt to twist into incriminating statements.
Of course, if you do the same to the prosecutor before trial, the chances of you making it to trial go down. Prosecutors like to win their cases.
Anyway yes it's easier to change a conversation than to fabricate one; because "changing" can mean many things - intentionally lying is the least common occurrence, simple "neural" errors happen a lot more often.
Maybe they'll lie (probably not that common), or maybe what you said will somehow implicate you in a crime, or maybe...? That's why it's important. It's not after the fact knowing the police lied but beforehand when you don't know how things will play out that remaining silent is important.
You still communicate. You speak through your lawyer.
(from reading discussions like this one on computer-oriented websites I have come to believe that nerds are especially easy to frame by a police man who recognizes a nerds innate desire to outsmart others, and to show it off. Look at where it got Hans Reiser).
I though framing someone means making it look like they did something when they didn't. As far as I know, Hans Reiser showed the police where he buried the body; how can you say he was framed?
What I meant was - Hans Reiser had a whole story pre-fabricated that, I assume, was internally consistent, but he relied a bit too much on that abstract property of the story in his defense (not that I know details of the case, just what I read about and remember from the news reportings on the case and the trial - I'm sure there is more nuance to that story than what I'm presenting here).
"Do you now how fast you were going?"
"What do you have me as officer?"
"15 over, but since you were wearing your seatbelt I'll
let you off with a warning"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik
You're better off taking the beating.