Here's one.
Edit: Hell, it's not even a joke anymore that cops routinely kill the physically and mentally ill. http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/07/justice/north-carolina-teen-ki...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Kelly_Thomas
http://raniakhalek.com/2013/10/08/georgia-police-kill-diabet...
http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/sick-elderly-black-ma...
http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2019235236_duffy23m.h...
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/cops-killed-ha...
http://gothamist.com/2008/09/25/after_cop_tasers_him_naked_m...
and even things like http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/mentally-ill-man-froz...
If this isn't something that routinely happens, then it is not a significant danger to the life or liberty of the average citizen to request counsel while being interrogated.
Basically I was just asking for you to say what you just did.
If someone makes an argument that asking for legal counsel has a reasonable chance of leading to being killed or imprisoned for life, I would expect them to backup that assertion with some evidence upon request.
Stories about people being killed by police in other contexts don't provide any evidence to support the initial assertion.
They said "for less" in their statement and you acknowledge that it happens, so it doesn't attack their argument to ask for that, it just attacks how they worded it.
"citation needed" is just about the most useless thing to contribute to a discussion and based on the other comment I'm not the only one that feels this way. This isn't reddit.
I though the same thing, until I actually needed the citation myself on a topic I cared about: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7043314
So at least "citation needed" is legitimate sometimes. (I totally agree that most of the time, it seems merely argumentative, not knowledge-seeking which is what is the good thing its being concealed behind).
Oh, new term : "Cite Troll" Which Im defining as someone who doesnt like something written, so knee jerks in to demaing citations.
But yeah. http://www.alternet.org/16-year-old-jailed-rikers-3-years-wi...
And one case most of us are familiar with: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrett_Brown
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/01/25/10233835-man-spen...
Everyone says this, but how certain are you that it's the best plan in every circumstance?
Can requesting for a lawyer reduce the amount of time you're detained? The guy was held for about 3.5 hours. If he required access to a lawyer, how long would they have detained him?
And then how much would the lawyer charge? Are you sure it would have been worth it?
There's nothing wrong with being polite, but insistent on having a lawyer with you when you speak to the police. Tell them that you will be happy to talk with your lawyer present.
If the police are questioning you then there's an excellent chance that what they are really trying to do is to build a case. The more you talk, the more things can be used to make you appear guilty in court - even if they don't seem significant to you. That is why you don't talk to the police - even if it means sitting in jail for a day.
There are plenty of interviews online where police officers, lawyers, and judges alike can't come up with even a single example of where someone was able to talk their way out of charges. The popular "Don't talk to the police" video is just one of them. Hell, Salinas v. Texas makes it abundantly clear that you can screw yourself right into jail even when you do remain silent but make the mistake of appearing uncomfortable during questioning.
In short, there are just too many opportunities for even an intelligent, innocent person to stumble straight into jail.