In some cases not speaking to the Police can damage your defence later, though.
Oh Chris you're from the UK. I think most people on this thread are assuming you're talking about the u.s. where you should absolutely not talk to the cops until a lawyer is present.
It must work differently in the UK where either the cops and prosecutors are less aggressively trying to convict you no matter your innocence or guilt. Or not speaking to the cops is held against you far more.
You're completely right about the UK though. If you didn't do it and police are asking if you did it it's normally much easier to just tell them that you didn't do it, and this has very little risk.
The risk comes from people who have committed the offence, but who think that it's a minor issue and think that just explaining it to police will mean they can go.
If the police stop you and you have a self-defence baseball bat in the boot of your car then you need to say "it's for playing baseball with the kids". As soon as you say "it's for self-defence, just to scare people off, I'd never hit anyone with it" that converts it into an offence and police are a bit touchy about weapons at the moment.
Well this isn't a great example because that is an offence and the Police would be right to do you for it! You're advocating lying to cover up offences for your own selfish benefit!
If the police say "what's this bat for" and you know you only use it to play baseball then you should say that.
If they ask and you say "I'm not saying anything" then they have enough to arrest you and take you to the station.
This supports your point: in England it's often a good idea to talk to the police.
Well yes that was the situation described that I was replying to.
> you have a self-defence baseball bat
What if it were your child's baseball bat? You can say that's what it's for but then what if the cop asks you if you'd use it for self defense? Would saying yes potentially be incriminating?
How far do you take this? Here are a couple of hypothetical situations, and in both of them I would answer police questions. I've had people tell me that they would not, and have cited the popular video someone else cited earlier as the reason.
1. You are walking down the sidewalk and pass a parked car. You are a car enthusiast, and recognize the make, model, and year of the car because it is one that is sought after by enthusiasts, and this one particularly stands out because it looks like it some options that were only available in a limited edition.
A moment later, you hear a commotion, and see a man run out of a building holding a baby, followed by a woman who is shouting "help! my baby! he took my baby!", and then faints. You see the man get into the aforementioned car and get onto a nearby freeway, heading South.
Police quickly arrive. None of the other witnesses saw where the man went or could describe anything about him, because they were distracted when the woman fainted. The police ask you if you saw anything that could help find the man or identify him.
Do you really wait until you cat get a lawyer to advise you before you describe the car and tell them he appeared to get on the Southbound freeway?
2. There is an explosion in your small office. Police are the first emergency responders to arrive. They ask if everyone is accounted for. You saw a coworker go into the bathroom shortly before the explosion, and did not see them come out, and looking around at your coworkers gathered across the street watching the office burn and being given first aid, you see everyone except that one coworker.
Do you tell police that you still appear to have one missing coworker, or wait to run the question by a lawyer first?
But it's even hard to figure out whether or not you have a rock solid alibi because you don't necessarily know the timing of the crime.
Also plenty of people have gone to jail for 20 years in the u.s. who have rock solid alibis(like they were in another city).
https://www.texastribune.org/2016/08/13/michael-morton-murde... https://www.texasmonthly.com/politics/the-innocent-man-part-...
Every country is somewhat different in its rules for how a suspect can be questioned, what inferences can be drawn, etc. But the advice for everywhere is still the same: shut up.
You have a right to free and independent legal advice if you are interviewed under caution as a suspect (whether or not you have been arrested).
What are you basing your statement on?
I am not giving advice only friendly suggestions based on other people's real world experience. You are free to ignore me.
It may be good advice, but this logic is clearly confirmation bias. A person who talked to the cops and succeeded in convincing them of their innocence would not have a need for a defense attorney.
Watching the first 48 (a show following murder investigations) I'd break it down to:
(1) people that are guilty and think things like "he had it coming" or "my buddy was just supposed to rob him" help their case. They admit to capital crimes when trying to lessen their guilt.
(2) people the police think are guilty and ineffectively lie. They probably don't hurt or help themselves.
(3) people the police aren't sure of. They can talk themselves in or out of suspicion based on their guilt and/or ability to effectively lie.
The group that get coerced into confessing to a crime is a very small percentage of people interviewed.
(1) The police have enough evidence to charge you with a crime
(2) The police do not have enough evidence to charge you with a crime
They do not have to tell you (and can actively lie!) which scenario you are in, and these scenarios are only loosely correlated with whether or not you actually recently committed a crime.
In scenario (1), they're going to charge you with a crime no matter what you say - they already have enough evidence. And anything you say to the police in this scenario can only be used as evidence against you to further strengthen the police's case, it cannot be used in your own defense in court. So it's better to remain silent.
In scenario (2), if you remain silent, they cannot charge you with a crime - they don't have enough evidence and you're not giving them any (asserting your right to remain silent is not evidence). If you answer their questions, you might accidentally give them enough evidence to charge you with a crime, like contradicting your own story because your memory is fallible. The police are allowed to lie to you, ask you trick questions, wear you down, and in general do anything they can to get a confession or other evidence against you. The things you say here can only be used against you to strengthen the police's case. So it's better to remain silent.
If you are being interrogated by the police, they are not your friends and nothing you say can help you. The only person on your side is your lawyer. Stay silent until your lawyer is in the room, and then do exactly what your lawyer says.
It's been linked elsewhere, but https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE is a real-life law professor and a police officer both saying exactly the same thing. American TV often includes narratives about the behavior of police officers that do not align with reality or the best interests of people accused of crimes.
There's no advice in my post.
It seems you are OK with this group not being zero.
Consider an exact equivalent of what you just said: "A person who didn't wear a seatbelt and succeeded in making it to their destination safely would not have a need for a doctor" so therefore doctors saying they've had hundreds/thousands of cases where they wished their patient had worn a seatbelt is confirmation bias. But on the one hand is a certain amount of extra inconvenience and some money that has to be spent (in mandating it by law we're forcing people to spend it, but that was a debate), whereas on the other is horrific injuries and possibly death. Even if the latter risk is small, because the outcome is so significant it's worth weighting higher. And drivers are often at the highest risk when they're sleepy, or distracted or otherwise mentally disturbed which in turn is the exact worst time to be making judgements. So it's best to just have it be habit to do without thought, each and every time (and a requirement on top to help form that habit).
Similarly the you, and me, and everyone else in this thread sitting comfortably on a Sunday afternoon discussing on HN are mostly not going to be in the same mindset we would be after having been taken in for questioning. You cannot count on yourself. You will be facing unknown unknowns. And the risks of screwing up are huge. Your opponents are experienced, and have vast resources they will draw on unhesitatingly. That's why the advice is always simple: just do not try to outthink this, unless perhaps you know for sure you're willing to have your reputation destroyed and go to prison for it (and few actually have any real inkling what that is like or means) and it seems to be a genuine emergency (because otherwise it will not hurt to give it a day).
Whether they have a separate argument has no bearing on the logical consistency of the one the GP gave.
>A person who didn't wear a seatbelt and succeeded in making it to their destination safely would not have a need for a doctor" so therefore doctors saying they've had hundreds/thousands of cases where they wished their patient had worn a seatbelt is confirmation bias.
This absolutely is the same logical fallacy. In this case the conclusion is still correct.
On the other hand consider a trauma surgeon and motorcycle accidents. They may very rarely treat a patient that was not wearing a helmet. Does that mean wearing a helmet is dangerous? Of course not. It's because an accident severe enough to require a trauma surgeon is likely to be fatal to someone not wearing a helmet.
Again, the point is not that asking for an attorney is the wrong course of action. The point is that the argument in the GP isn't logically sound.
Cops and prosecutors are definitely just as aggressive in the UK. The difference is that UK case law, unlike the US, allows the refusal to speak with the police to be construed as evidence in itself, whereas the US does not.
You have to remember that it is legal (USA) for the police to lie to you but not the other way around.
> it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court
That's exactly what defense attorneys and police themselves advise. https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/mvkgnp/law-professor-poli...
> it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court
As in the jury are allowed to take into account the fact that you did not reveal information at the first opportunity as a negative.
>You might make mistakes when explaining where you were at the time of a crime that the police interpret as lies; the officer talking to you could misremember what you say much later
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/mvkgnp/law-professor-poli...
This is if you can afford a lawyer who can work with you quickly. If you’re poor and you think your alibi is strong enough to let you go immediately then it might be better.
In the US we have the fifth amended, and it seems that [1] as long as it explicitly invokes the protection one would be safe from similar repercussions.
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/when-how-invoke-your...