For those of you who are like I used to be and are just honest in an unfiltered way that sometimes caused you trouble: don’t think of it as lying, think of it as keeping secrets. You can also view it as maintaining a personal boundary, which is not something people of my generation were brought up with. We all keep secrets to some extent: shameful memories we do not readily recount; job confidentiality; things we only share with our doctor or therapist. Just be like that more, it’s okay to be a bit of a mystery to others, and you can do this while still divulging a ton of stuff about yourself. Lying just feels stupid and wrong. Pretend you are a spy in this life, and you can consciously choose what face to present to anyone.

> You can also view it as maintaining a personal boundary, which is not something people of my generation were brought up with.

Which generation do you belong to, out of curiosity?

I am presently 46 years old.

Yes! Like I clarified in another comment, I didn't really meant "lying" but "not volunteering/selectively withholding information".

I've watched that video several times; as somebody "largely" honest, I need it to pragmatically re-adjust my perspective every few years - because I TOTALLY am the person who would inherently monologue for 3 hours when asked a simple question by a cop :)

The other piece of advice is trickier, and I personally do not follow it too closely (everything in life is circumstantial:). Two aspects to mention:

1. Often, a lie is more harmful than a slightly harmful truth. And opportunities to get caught in a lie start with the application process - some applications have multiple seemingly unrelated or different questions that aim to reinforce the validity of your claims; this will also sometimes be reinforced with interviews, reference checks, etc. And then if you get the job or grant or whatever, there's still the risk of getting caught at virtually any point in the future.

My wife and a few of her friends have been HR managers at quite varied corporations, and universally they lament that people get fired over an insignificant lie. What they lied about might've been a verbal "Hey don't do that" or a formal reprimand, but lie got them immediately fired.

2. Variation of that but, perfection and/or fakeness can stand out. Not to say there aren't people who can lie/fake perfectly, and sometimes many of us think that we can pull it off better than we can. But while I cannot claim that I have never fibbed or concealed in my life, last few decades I've been lucky enough that I didn't need to.

And luck is an important word; I've been lucky professionally since I came to Canada, which enabled me to have good success going counter to that advice: e.g. to every new manager, I proactively indicate explicitly that I "Attended university but have not graduated", I came extremely upfront when I started photography business even though it had nothing to do with my IT dayjob, etc. I find one's experience at large companies is partially shaped by formal policies written by people far away from you, but also hugely by the actual people surrounding you, and I've been lucky / chosen well over the years. Milleage most definitely WILL vary, and I've been in sufficiently different / more precarious or dangerous situations to be fairly aware of my current privilege.

Agreed about not outright lying. I think my mom's advice -- the way I interpret it, anyway -- is more "don't volunteer information". Sometimes you have to answer honestly if they ask you a direct question about a concrete fact they can doublecheck in alternative ways, but otherwise: don't volunteer information. Don't be a "completionist", if they ask you "have you ever considered [something naughty]" the truth is only for your therapist; for HR it's always "no, never!".

I believe you should have the same attitude when giving an interview e.g. to a member of the media. They will make it feel like a personal conversation which is intended to get you to share your story and views, but in the end they are really telling their story and their views, and will use what you say to support that whether you agree with what they are saying or not.

> I TOTALLY am the person who would inherently monologue for 3 hours when asked a simple question by a cop

Then for you especially, but really for everyone -- don't talk to the cop without a lawyer. Just don't. (at least if you are in the USA).

For all the reasons you mention. Lying to the cops can be committing a crime in itself. Trying to think it through and figure out exactly how much of the truth to tell in what way -- can either leave you accidentally committing the crime of lying to the cop, OR accidentally incriminating yourself (even if you don't think you've done anything wrong). The cops have way more training and practice and experience at this interaction than you, you will not outsmart them.

In the USA (and probably other places, but I know the USA), you have the right to not talk to the cops without a lawyer, and you should exercize it, even if you think you've done nothing wrong. (Plenty of people who think they've done nothing wrong end up screwed by the cops).

The video I linked to, which frequently makes the rounds, is essentially a defense attorney explaining that you should never speak to cops, even if you're innocent, and gives plenty of examples of innocent people that ended up convicted of something just because they thought they were safe (because they didn't do anything). For example, he explains even an innocent person making an innocent mistake while recollecting the facts to the cops can get screwed, whereas an innocent person who simply won't talk to them cannot get screwed as easily.

I'll repost it here for emphasis. I'm sure this applies mostly to the US, and also that the attorney is overstating his case a bit for comedic effect, but I'm also convinced that what he's saying is mostly right for (at least, for the US legal system).

Again, for emphasis: he recommends that even innocent people never talk to cops!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE

Yep.

I am good friends with police officers and firmly believe that _most_ of them are good people trying to do good work.

But the most succinct way to put it is: if you are an innocent person, you simply have nothing to gain by talking to the cops without a lawyer. And potentially everything to lose if they choose to pin something on you somehow.

"he recommends that even innocent people never talk to cops!"

I think it is wrong to overgeneralize.

What if the cops ask you about a missing kid, where you are innocent and actually might have information to get that kid back alive, because you happened to see the number plate from a black van speeding off at time X?

I recommend you watch the video.

If the cops ask you about a missing kid, you don't know that you are not a suspect. You cannot know, actually. If you are a suspect -- regardless of your innocence -- and you talk to the cops without a lawyer, you may implicate yourself in some way. Yes, innocence doesn't matter one iota. Having factual evidence about the kidnapping could conceivably implicate you faster. Recollecting what you thought happened and making an honest mistake can potentially implicate you. The video goes into examples of this.

Really, watch the video.

I watched that video, but I refuse to see cops always as the enemy.

So maybe let me refine my question, what if it is your neighbors child, you know closely or even your own child. You still would not talk to the cops, out of the fear that they wrongly suspect you and have a dead child on your consciousness?

I mean, I am not from the US, but if your police is really that bad, I think you gotta change something.

And I watched that video (some years ago) and if I remember it right, in his example the person that stupidly talked to the cops, was actually guilty.

I'm not from the US either, and this is about their legal system I think. Whether they need to change this is up to them.

This attorney seems to think the Fifth is enough, but people don't know they can use it. He doesn't think cops are bad, where did you get this idea?

> So maybe let me refine my question, what if it is your neighbors child, you know closely or even your own child. You still would not talk to the cops, out of the fear that they wrongly suspect you and have a dead child on your consciousness?

Yes, that's the advice. You shouldn't talk to the cops without a lawyer even in this case, lest you end up implicated in a crime. If you want to talk, lawyer up!

The attorney speaks from experience and he is an expert. The cop next to him agrees; in fact most cops recommend their children never to talk to cops! If you ever live in the US, ignore this advice at your own peril.

To my other comment, let me add that this follow up video by Duane specifically addresses your scenario: the concerned parents of a missing girl unwisely spoke to the cops, without knowing they were suspects in the case (because the cops regularly suspect this, "9 out of 10 times, the caller is the one who committed the crime" as one cop put it).

In this case, the cops suspected the father. After they found the body of the daughter, which had drowned, they didn't tell the father (because he was a suspect but they didn't want to read him his rights) and claimed to be still looking for her in order to continue incriminating her father. His mistake: volunteering to talk to the cops without a lawyer.

Watch it here, I've picked the right timestamp for you: https://youtu.be/-FENubmZGj8?t=1202

By volunteering to talk to the cops, you may also end up providing information that -- according to the cops -- "only the killer could have known". Oops! Even worse, if the interview wasn't taped (and in some cases, even if it was!) the cops can claim, either mistakenly or on purpose, that you provided self-incriminating evidence even if you didn't. Duane provides examples of how, even if your answers are taped but the cops' questions aren't, seemingly innocent answers can get you in trouble. Example: "I swear I've never touched a gun in my life" (cops: "we didn't mention the murder weapon, how did he know it was a gun? We didn't ask this. Suspicious!").

And what about this scenario, I described above:

"because you happened to see the number plate from a black van speeding off at time X? "

Assuming the kid is still alive and was in that van (which you do not know) - but by providing that info to the cops, they could track down the adress of the kidnappers and save that child.

I see no downside with providing that information. Only lots of downsides of not providing it.

But like I said, if the assumption is (like Duane apparently has), that cops are always bad, corrupt and the enemy, well, then this is the problem to deal with.

And about that poor father:

"but was actually being interrogated as the prime suspect. His mistake: volunteering to talk to the cops without a lawyer."

He didn't ended up in jail, right? He was just wrongfully accused and interrogated in a very wrong way adding to his misery. That chance wouldn't stop me from cooperating with the police, if there is a chance to save someone.

This is an interesting debate but one thing to correct, Duane (and many though probably not all other proponents of "don't speak to cops") are NOT saying that cops are bad, or corrupt. This is not a necessary condition for this advice.

One thing that most people don't understand is that cops are 1. regular people 2. with a job; and most people misunderstand what that job is.

In criminal cases like this, a lot of their job is "gather evidence that can be used to prosecute". They will approach it with certain amount of professionalism, jadedness, focus, empathy, skill, awareness etc based on how much of it they started with and how much of it has worn off in this harsh harsh profession. On the other hand, from young age, we are taught their job is "to protect you", which we tend to subconsciously personalize and interpret as "protect me" and therefore "are implicitly on my side".

Two of my close friends are cops, for one I photographed their wedding, and... stories are fascinating and completely not what the naive child in me would expected. My friends are good people trying to do a good job. We are just brought up with a misapprehension as to what that job is.

Exactly. I think Duane's point is that police corruption and ill-intent are not at all necessary for a miscarriage of justice to occur. The cops doing their job, using their tricks of the trade, or committing human mistakes, are enough for injustice to happen.

> I see no downside with providing that information. Only lots of downsides of not providing it.

In your scenario, there are definitely downsides to providing this information by talking to cops: you can get implicated and even convicted of the crime, and the actual criminal be left alone. At any time during your conversation with the cops, they may decide you know too much (or know details only the kidnapper would know), or find some turn of phrase suspicious, and turn you into the primary suspect. Remember Duane's claim that many cops believe "9 out of 10 times, the caller is the one who committed the crime". This applies here, too.

The downside is pretty big: not only could you be in legal trouble -- even convicted -- but the actual criminal could get away. This is not hypothetical, since Duane mentions cases where this happened! (E.g. the man wrongfully convicted of killing his wife; or the man wrongfully convicted of killing a local shopkeeper after volunteering to help the police find the killer, out of a sense of civic duty).

If at all possible in your country, I would advise you to report this information to a missing children hotline unaffiliated with the police, instead of speaking to the cops without a lawyer.

> But like I said, if the assumption is (like Duane apparently has), that cops are always bad, corrupt and the enemy, well, then this is the problem to deal with.

This is not at all what Duane claims. Respectfully, I must ask you to refresh your memory of the video. I also recommend the follow up video which I linked to, where he explains his motivation (i.e. decreasing the appalling number of wrongful convictions in the US).

> He didn't ended up in jail, right? He was just wrongfully accused and interrogated in a very wrong way adding to his misery. That chance wouldn't stop me from cooperating with the police, if there is a chance to save someone.

We don't know whether he ended in jail or not, Duane doesn't say. We only know he got in real trouble, and this after the cops knew his daughter was dead, so at that point there was no possible way to "save" anyone. He does mention at least two cases where an innocent ended up in jail, one of them for 20+ years, while the assassin of his wife got away. His mistake? He spoke to the police, volunteering information, and without a lawyer present.

It's of course your choice to risk it and speak to the police without a lawyer. In the US, it's a risky, unwise choice -- one cops wouldn't take themselves, for example -- but it's your choice. A choice your attorney would strongly urge you not to take, but that you're entitled to take anyway.

"In your scenario, there are definitely downsides to providing this information by talking to cops: you can get implicated and even convicted of the crime"

Or you can be responsible for the death of a child. With kidnapping and possible sex crimes, it can be a matter of minutes between life and death. And if I have seen something and can pass that information directly to the officer investigating the case, then I will do it, instead of taking hours preparing my legal defenses risking it all.

"It's of course your choice to risk it and speak to the police without a lawyer."

And I did talk to the police without a lawyer in a couple of situations. As a wittness and also as accused (actually a bit like Duane describes, meaning they did not tell me that, asking me only wittness questions, but I knew).

"This is not at all what Duane claims."

No it is not, but this is what his advice implies for me, if it means I should not help finding a missing child without contacting a lawyer first.

I know that people have been wrongfully thrown in jail and worse. But overgeneralisation is never helpful. So yes, if there is time (and money!), a lawyer is helpful, but lawyers can make misstakes too and if it is a matter of life and death and minutes, I take those chances to potentially save someone and I would be surprised, if you wouldn't, if you come into such a situation in reality.

> Or you can be responsible for the death of a child

This is unrelated to whether you speak to the police. In fact, you can be indirectly responsible of a death because you speak to the police, making them narrow down their investigations on you ("9 out of 10 times, the caller is the one who did it"), wasting time and letting the criminal go unimpeded for enough time to kill someone. Duane provides examples of this, which for some reason you insist on disregarding.

If you want to help, I'd say call a non-police missing children hotline instead, if those exist in your country.

> And if I have seen something and can pass that information directly to the officer investigating the case, then I will do it, instead of taking hours preparing my legal defenses risking it all.

You're risking spending 20 years in jail or even death row, then (not hyperbole: watch Duane's video). You don't need to spend hours preparing anything, just call a lawyer.

> And I did talk to the police without a lawyer in a couple of situations.

By your own admission, you don't live in the US. While I'd really hesitate to involve the police even in my country (where they are truly corrupt and dangerous), Duane's advice is specific to the US. It doesn't necessarily translate to other countries.

> But overgeneralisation is never helpful.

In this case, it seems that it's the truth rather than "overgeneralization" (Duane mocks these warnings "not to generalize" in his video, to great effect! "But what if I'm about to fall from a cliff and the only person who can help is a cop, should I talk to them?"). This lawyer speaks from experience and is an expert on the Fifth Amendment; you are not. Cops agree with him and follow his advice. He has plenty of evidence to back his advice.

Ignore him at your own peril. You're free to do so, but it's unwise.

That's a very unfortunate side effect of a legal system and style of policing that, instead of being carried out reasonably by building trust and respecting rights of citizens, violates rapport and human rights at every step of the way with no repercussions for people in power.

Then you have to ask yourself whether helping with something like that is worth sticking your neck out. But make no mistake that you're doing exactly that.

And if you've ever applied for life insurance, you may also know that consultations with your doctor should also be treated similarly, lest they use a casual mention of smoking a cigar 17 years ago as grounds to increase your rate or deny coverage altogether.

> There's no need to be truthful here, this isn't a consultation with your doctor.

Even then, depending on your demographic, being honest about things like pain might get you labelled as a drug seeker.