A bit more clarification. Miranda isn't ever required, however anything you say to them before having been read you rights cannot be used against you in court, nor can evidence acquired as a result of what you said (with exceptions for both cases).
I'm sure there's a few lawyers out there who think that even giving your name is too much of a risk.
1) The authority to imprison you on a whim and suffer no repercussions for exercising that authority in ways that judges and other police officers agree is excessive.
2) The authority to lie about what you said or didn't say and suffer no repercussions.
There's a large cost associated with the "never talk to police" strategy, and it only starts to probabilistically pay off after you've gotten to the point of requiring complex court proceedings (which you might never have gotten to if you were more cooperative in the first place).
The point is that there is no way that talking will help you. They are trying to make a case against you.
Once you require the services of a trial lawyer, the benefits of talking are off the table and the price of silence looks like pocket change. That's why you hear the advice "never talk to the police." Not because it's a good idea in general (try it next time you get a traffic ticket and tell me how it goes), but because it's a very bad idea in certain very specific cases, which happen to be precisely the cases seen by those giving the advice. Your prior probabilities are different, and your behavior should reflect that.
Thinking that you can control the situation is a mistake. If the result of this police contact results in a criminal charge, you may have saved yourself from the worst possible outcome (at the time) by being silent. You can't make a cop not beat you to death by talking.
Silence is simply a dominant strategy.
If they're in a good mood today. Maybe.
> The more you speak to a cop, the more likely you are to say something that you'll regret.
Yes. My point was that staying completely silent makes it more likely you'll piss off the cop. You'll regret that, too.
> Thinking that you can control the situation is a mistake.
Right back at you.
> You can't make a cop not beat you to death by talking.
If you can make a cop beat you to death by (in their eyes) being obstinate, the difference is immaterial.
> Silence is simply a dominant strategy.
I still don't buy it, unless the cop is already antagonized or you suspect that a judge/jury will be involved before this is all over.
The only countries where I've never seen any open abuse by police so far have been Britain and Germany, and I haven't spent a lot of time in Germany.
EDIT: Actually, there has recently been a famous case in Britain where a police officer shoved a citizen to the floor and the citizen died of internal injuries [0]. I didn't actually witness the abuse, but it proves that even the UK isn't immune.
But my impression is that it's rather less common than in the USA and the courts, prosecution and conservative public don't side with the police as much.
Still, these occurrences are isolated cases, receive large media attention and are definitely not considered "the norm".
That sounds like wishful thinking. Where exactly did you check?
> the "never talk to police" strategy ... only starts to probabilistically pay off after you've gotten to the point of requiring complex court proceedings (which you might never have gotten to if you were more cooperative in the first place).
> Once you require the services of a trial lawyer, the benefits of talking are off the table and the price of silence looks like pocket change. That's why you hear the advice "never talk to the police." Not because it's a good idea in general (try it next time you get a traffic ticket and tell me how it goes), but because it's a very bad idea in certain very specific cases, which happen to be precisely the cases seen by those giving the advice. Your prior probabilities are different, and your behavior should reflect that.
The problem is this: "investigation" in any discipline means "finding a story that matches what I can show." This means whatever you say that matches the story will be held on to and whatever you say that doesn't match it will be easily forgotten. This is the root of confirmation bias. It's a very dangerous thing in this context.
Yes there are times to talk to the police. Give an alibi along with sources who can confirm it if that is relevant. But say as little as possible. Stick to the minimal details. The less you say, the less they are likely to grab a hold of something you said and hang you with it.
But remember: The job of the police is to arrest someone and tell a good plausible story as to why they are guilty. They are there to gather evidence. The DA is there to convince a jury. Nobody can know what really happened who wasn't there. So don't give them ideas.
It worked quite well, thank you. I did not say a word, gave the cop my license and registration as required by law, signed my ticket, and hired a lawyer to get it thrown out later.
I used to drive for a living and would speed all day. Every day. Not excessively or recklessly, I had over a million miles without any preventable accidents. But still I would always exceed the speed limit on a clear stretch of road by 10-30mph or so. The extra income from this more than offset the occasional legal bill. By a large margin (somewhat ironically my job's 'safety' bonuses usually covered the lawyer fees). I sped, kept my record clean, and never accepted a ticket without legal representation.
I'm not advocating that others do this or that it was smart, I'm just saying that for some people it makes mathematical sense to speed + hire lawyers versus doing the speed limit and/or accepting tickets without challenging them.
Are you describing a bribe?
I wish you the best of luck in the future, specifically with regard to the moods of the police officers who will try to speak with you.
If there's no video, the arrest is invalid.
Also heavy personal fines and loss of pension for any misconduct.
Dudes, seriously? You just read a blog post about how thuggish police officers just abuse you however the fuck they want to, with no regard to your rights or due process or anything, and you're citing some obscure, minute details of the laws that were supposed to somehow prevent those very same abuses from happening?
It's like you've just seen fish swimming, but proceed to cite some obscure document that says fish cannot swim.