This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.
Be warned:
If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.
Don’t talk to the cops. Say you want a lawyer and will remain silent. They are not your friend. They have zero interest in “your side” of the story and only wish to gather info to arrest you. Once you’re arrested you are someone else’s problem and they don’t care.
In case you didn’t see it. DONT’T TALK TO COPS.
It should be added that, "Once a suspect requests a lawyer, police are generally required to stop questioning until an attorney is present. The Supreme Court case Edwards v. Arizona further strengthened this rule, holding that any attempt by law enforcement to continue questioning without an attorney present violates the suspect’s rights."
Once you ask for a lawyer questioning is 'suppose' to stop. If you're still alone and they keep prying. That's only more cause for concern.
Unless of course you're in Louisiana, in which case the police can keep interrogating you as long as they want. The Louisiana supreme court deserves the death penalty for their blatant violation of Warren Demesme's constitutional rights
Your lawyer would be more than happy to learn that they tried.
I've watched this vid a few times but did they put like a speed up of .5 on there or am I getting old? I seriously felt like I was trying to track an auctioneer. My shit aside, always a good watch! Thanks for posting!
I watch this video every time it pops up or randomly when I think of it. Great video
The answer is that most people have never been in a police interrogation and they think they can talk their way out of it if they just explain themselves enough.
It's panic thinking. And once you pop you don't stop.
If you're in a police interrogation room you have to assume and internally accept that you're getting charged with something, and not try to talk your way out of it.
There's also the supreme court ruling a bit ago that weakened the right. Changed it from something you can simply do to something you need to invoke.
Simply remaining silent does not invoke your right to remain silent, you must state that you wish to not speak. This applies before you're read your rights and arrested. So without ever being told your rights or that you can leave at any time, silently refusing to answer questions can be used as evidence against you. Look nervous when the police ask if shell casings found at a murder scene would match a gun you own? That can be used as evidence of guilt, along with your choice not to answer the question.
Coupled with police being able to lie to you more than a lot of people believe, it's possible to remain silent, say "I should probably have a lawyer for this" (note how that's not actually a request for legal counsel, just an observation), and for the police to imply that this has stopped the interrogation ("alright, I'll go do the paperwork. I'll send someone in to sit with you, can't leave people unsupervised").
A lot of people have difficulty not chatting with someone who's been presented to them as a neutral party, particularly if they think there's no harm to it.
People try and talk their way out of it and dig a deeper hole. For example, what I imagined happening with that Briton arrested for carrying a garden trowel:
"But that tool is sharp, right?"
"A bit"
"If someone attacked you, would you stab them with it?"
"Probably"
"You've just admitted to carrying an offensive weapon. Accept this caution or we'll escalate this further"
My first thought would be to just act stupid in that specific situation and straight up lie out of my ass:
"But that tool is sharp, right?"
"Nope"
"If someone attacked you, would you stab them with it?"
"Why are you trying to put words in my mouth?"
Of course, this also has a high likelihood of backfiring. So just stfu with cops.
“If someone attacked you, would you stab them with it?”
I feel like my automatic response to that would be "that's a really weird question to ask"
This is why solicitors typically recommend you say "no comment"
I would start panicking as soon as they ask me to write down my name.
Everyone is the hero of their own story. This implies that every person thinks they're doing the right thing.
So if they've been accused of a crime, there must be some misunderstanding. If I explain what happened they'll let me out because I didn't do anything wrong.
It's not the only reason people talk, but it's a big one.
Remember, the line is: " you have the right to remain silent, anything you say, can and will be used against you".
i mean sometimes i know i'm a big dumb idiot, it's pretty obvious when we were at the parade and i sat on my chair and it exploded into fifteen pieces right in front of the police officer and he said "you can't park there, mate" as i was waddling to my feet, there were no heroes
Well, technically speaking you can talk your way out of it, it's just that talking your way out of it means speaking one sentence and one sentence only "I'm exercising my right to a lawyer and to remain silent" over and over again
The full thought:
they think they can talk their way out of it if they just explain themselves enough.
Depends, if you live in an authoritarian country (as in actual dictatorships, the USA doesn't count, not yet at least), you do not have the right to remain silent, so in that case, you kinda have to talk your way out of it or else you are automatically assumed guilty.
Oddly, you have to actually assert that right in many jurisdictions. In the US, say something like "I plead the fifth" or "I choose to remain silent" and assert your right to an attorney, and shut up until the attorney comes and only speak at the discretion of the attorney. Just staying silent opens you up to attempted manipulation, whereas they must provide an attorney if requested and the attorney may have options to strike some of the manipulation while you wait for the attorney.
The decision in this case was wrong I think, but it is better to be more accurate in criticism so that people can't undermine you.
The ruling did not hinge on the "lawyer dog". You can completely disregard that. The ruling hinged on if he asserted his right in asking for a lawyer.
His exact words:
“I know that I didn’t do it, so why don’t you just give me a lawyer dog ‘cause this is not what’s up.”
Sliced very finely, he did not directly demand a lawyer, but he asked a question. Instead of saying "give me a lawyer" he asked "why don't you just give me a lawyer?"
I think the ruling was wrong by hinging so finely on his exact wording when he obviously indicated he wanted a lawyer, but if you're going to make headway please stop repeating the Buzzfeed headline version of the ruling.
The question should be if the cops were not clear on his intent in the statement. They were, they just got lucky in being able to find a judge who also was "confused" on the meaning. They all knew what was meant. Btw, it wasn't a question. I don't see a question mark.
I agree that he should have gotten a lawyer. That wasn't the point of my comment. The point of my comment is that by fixating on the irrelevant "lawyer dog" aspect people are reacting to that part of the case that doesn't matter.
Technically, I think that's just a question and a statement blended into one sentence as we often do in speech. But it's obviously rhetorical and the police and judge are being stupid.
Both terrible and admittedly hilarious.
In the UK people usually say "no comment"
Land of the free smh
"Land of the free (labour)"
They're trying to bring feudalism and slavery back.
Slavery never left the US. Slavery is fully constitutional in the USA.
You can simply remain silent, which doesn't answer the questions but isn't considered asserting the right. The important bit is to clearly and unambiguously invoke your right to a lawyer while not answering questions.
It's actually different. Remaining silent doesn't invoke the right to not incriminate yourself. Simply remaining silent means they can use your silence to incriminate you.
In the court case where they decided that a man didn't answer a question about a murder weapon. They used his silence and looking nervous as evidence for his guilt because he didn't say he intended to remain silent, and he remained silent before he was informed he had a right to do so.
Yes, remaining silent works, but explicitly invoking your rights is better. At any rate, don't tell the cops anything unless your lawyer tells you to.
I always talk to the cops.
"So, interrogate here often?"
"That uniform really makes your eyes pop!"
"Wanna go to the cells, big guy?"
"I will confess if you can make me scream."
People that think that police is a public service will try to convince cops to help them. It's not, ACAB is not an insult, its a warning
They've been telling people not to talk to them since Miranda.
The line is: "you have the right to remain silent, anything you say, can and will be used against you"
Idk how people have missed that. Just stfu. Jeez.
because criminals tend to be not that smart, and police (in civilized countries at least) are very well trained in interview techniques.
This is the key thing many criminals fail to understand. The fact Miranda rights exist and the officer just had the balls to read them to you and still wants to engage, should be a red flag as to just how much of a disadvantage you are at in the impending battle of wits.
Why Styven, Why???
For real though, look up the sped up footage of this interrogation, this dude (Stephen McDaniel) is skinwalker-level eerie.
IDK. On the one hand, the dude is likely a psychopath. On the other, if you actually are trying to exercise your right to remain silent, then you pretty much have to look like a complete psychopath during an interrogation. If the cops accuse you of a horrible crime, the natural response is to get emotional and start vehemently defending yourself. Their whole interrogation strategy is to get you worked up, to break down your defenses, and get you to admit or provide evidence to a crime you may or may not have committed. Police interrogators are masters of emotional manipulation.
The only way I can see to get through that is to adopt a grey rock strategy. Just realize that they're trying to get to you. Disconnect the emotional parts of your brain. Let the words of the cops pass over you unperturbed and simply remain calm, disinterested, and dispassionate. Adopt a soul of ice and refuse to engage with them at all emotionally. This guy made the mistake of talking to them at all. He should have remained dispassionate but also just refused to answer in any form.
I just can't think of a way to truly remain silent without making yourself look like a psychopath. The natural response by an innocent person to being accused of dismembering someone would be rage, fear, and desperate indignation. But doing so could incriminate them. But if an innocent person is remaining silent, they would by necessity just have to sit there completely uncaring when accused of the most horrible crimes. There's just no way to exercise your rights without seeming completely insane. And cops use that fact to extract evidence from people.
I mean,he killed the girl and talked to the TV crew on site...
Where he was already setting off the uncanny radar if memory serves. Seeing his reaction to hearing they found the body was pretty wild as well.
Our right to shut the fuck up is almost as important as the 1st right. We should use it more often.
Gotta take more Ritalin to keep me mute then