"You Have the Right to Remain Innocent" (James Duane)

If anyone reads the parent here and doesn't agree then watch "You Have the Right to Remain Innocent" by James Duane. [VIDEO]

Yup, this is a very important video for everyone to watch, but especially anyone moving to America who doesn't understand the differences to policing in this country vs others. If you have watched this video, you might want to review this highly anticipated follow up several years later: [VIDEO]

Yes, that is a presentation worth watching [0] and a follow-up [1]. Even as someone who is pro law enforcement, I have to keep in mind that their job does not always align with protecting you. In other words, if they pull you over for speeding, the relationship isn't the same as the case where you might be asking a cop for directions or if you are engaging with them because you were a victim of a crime. In the first case they will use their training and knowledge against you to the extent necessary given the circumstances, the the other two cases they will be helpful and supportive. I do not vilify police officers --the individuals-- for this. It is their job. This is what they do. They would not be doing the very difficult work they do every day if they did not, for example, gather evidence and use what suspects say as evidence, etc. My problem is with asymmetry of the law as it pertains to lying. When a politician gets on TV and lies, and lies and lies --for years!--, suffering no consequences whatsoever, well, I just don't think that's right. Thinking of this as an evolutionary process, if the fitness function responds positively to lies, the net result will be evolving towards a condition where lies are a normal part of how one gets ahead or survives. And this is precisely what we have. Some might say: Well, politicians would not be able to say much on so many subjects if the absolute veracity of their statement was a requirement. That's fine. I'd rather they shut the fuc

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: [VIDEO] 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!").

I might be wrong on this but according to this updated video[0] by James Duane, things have changed considerably due to Obama and a recent Supreme Court decision and even using the 5th improperly can be used against you. [0] [VIDEO]

I'm reading this book "You have the right to remain innocent" [1] And it brings up amazing cases where the system is definitely not limiting it's powers and it's leading to false convictions. Here's a youtube of more or less the book: [VIDEO] [1]: [LINK] EDIT: errm actually that YT video is actually a little scant on details. The TLDR is say nothing except make an absolute demand for your 6th amendment rights (a lawyer). And don't be soft about it like "maybe I can get a lawyer?" ... say "I have a right to a lawyer and will not answer anything without first speaking to my lawyer" People might be thinking "I thought it was the 5th ?" Ironically , the same conservatives that have been trumpeting the 2nd have concurrently been undermining the 5th and now can be used against you as evidence of guilt.

He mentions it in this talk for example: [VIDEO] It also seems like he succeeded, because the original and all reuploads except for some ultra low-quality copies are gone from youtube.

A lot of discussion in this thread about traffic stops. James Duane (the law professor from the video in the blog) himself makes a qualifier about traffic stops: [VIDEO]