obligatory “don’t talk to the police” link.
edit: Saw that the professor, James Duane [0], has his own Wikipedia page, almost entirely on the popularity of the Youtube lecture. Even more surprising, his Talk page seems to be free of debate over Duane's notability. Pretty impressive for a single videoed lecture!
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/School-to-prison_pipeline
"Don't Talk to the Police Part 2" - https://youtu.be/tIt-l2YmH8M
The friendliest police officer in the world is not your friend
The police aren't your friend. They're also not your enemy.
Talking to the police as part of an investigation doesn't make you a suspect. Seriously, how do people think criminal investigations are done? Talking to witnesses is a huge part of investigating. People very rarely finger themselves as potential suspects; it's almost always the other witnesses who identify them as suspects.
If you're worried that you've done something wrong, talk to a lawyer first. 99.9% of the time, they'll tell you it's fine. Of course, if you tell the police you need to talk to your lawyer first, they'll want to know why you think you need a lawyer; if I were your lawyer, that's the first thing I'd wonder too. And if you weren't considered a potential suspect before you definitely will be on their short list after.
If cops were obligated to be honest in more respects I would be more willing to open up, but of course they don't want any restrictions in that area. Cops in the US want to be able to lie whenever it's convenient and also have everyone trust them, but that's not a very fair bargain for the general public.
And if the police say something seemingly benign that causes you grief, you can look forward to a large-ish settlement to make up for your troubles.
People on HN rarely interact with the police and it seems they have an unrealistic, media-driven perception of how cops actually act. For point of reference, it's the same as how non-techies assume that every tech employee can hack their way into a bank account or rig together a go-kart from spare parts.
Cops are not as bad as people think they are. Cops behaving badly (in the U.S.) is news because it is the exception and not the norm.
https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/detailli...
30% These convictions aren't the result of people talking to the police and then getting screwed over. The overwhelming majority of them are the result of cross-racial witness identifications.
To put it bluntly: most wrongful convictions are due to racism on the part of prosecution witnesses.
Is it really unfortunate? There is simply an implicit assumption that humans avoid incriminating themselves when possible but are very quick to offer excuses. That seems to align pretty well with my experience. Therefore, we assume that if someone says something contrary to their own interest is is more likely to be true.
Yes; the system should not be biased towards guilt.
Witnessing things is a completely different matter.
During Mirandized interrogation:
Doe: "I grabbed her wrists after she picked up a knife to attack me."
In court:
Prosecutor: "What, if anything, did you learn from questioning Mr. Doe?"
Officer: "He said he grabbed her wrists."
Defense attorney on cross-examination: "In what context did Mr. Doe grab her wrists?"
Officer: "After she picked up a kni--"
Prosecutor: "Objection! Hearsay!"
Judge: "Sustained. Jury will disregard anything about the accuser picking up a knife. Wrist grabbing stuff is fine."
^Not remotely how it works, at all, but what you might falsely believe from being told "your words are admissible against you, not for you".
This is because the people who wrote the evidence rules believe nobody would admit to a crime unless they are guilty. So it's a hearsay exception.
The exception isn't meant to be a sinister trick to treat you unfairly, it's meant to lead to the right people going to jail and the right people not going to jail.
I have a friend who is a federal criminal investigator and his advice when/if the feds show up is to say nothing other than "Do you have a business card? Someone will be in touch." and get a lawyer ASAP.
[0] - https://www.iannfriedman.com/blog/2019/april/federal-charges...
[1] - https://www.pallegarlawfirm.com/obstructing-justice-in-flori...
In other words, if you try to introduce an out-of-court statement that supports your case, it's hearsay; if the statement is against your interest, it's allowable.
Of course there are other exceptions and nuances, but this is the jist of it.
But it's unlikely the Police officer actually "witnessed" anything that'll help you.
If you tell police officer you did something bad, it's essentially a confession and reported as such.
If you tell police officer you did something good, it's hearsay - you told it to officer who told it to judge & jury.
Then there's jurisdictional details as to their role and rules of evidence etc that will vary from country to country.
But it's a shocking revelation to most people that Police cannot effectively help you in court. That's not their role.
-----------------------
Edit: Found it - federal rule of evidence 801(d)(2)(a) - Opposing Party Statement
https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/federal_rules_o...
Police have a responsibility to testify truthfully under oath, within the constraints of the rules on hearsay. But that doesn’t mean they are forbidden from saying anything in your favor, no matter what.