They’re (we’re) not saying “do not ever provide information to the police”. We’re saying don’t talk to them, especially in the context of an interrogation where the only goal is to try and hang you with your own words. If you have info and absolutely want to volunteer it, by all means, pass it to your lawyer. They’ll tell the cops in such a way that it won’t come back to haunt you (or advise you to keep that info under your hat should they see a way forwarding it could harm you), everyone’s happy.
That’s fine (others inevitably will take it to the furthest extreme, this is far from the first thread on the subject). If you are a witness and you want to go through your lawyer have fun with that. I’m sure your lawyer will be happy to take your money. 99.9% of police interactions with the public are not harmful to those talking to them. Like I said, feel free to never speak to the police. Just don’t be the one who complains that the police never catch the bad guy.
Right. I wrote down the make, model, color, and license plate number of the car that I saw two guys throw a screaming, resisting woman into. I’m just waiting for my lawyer to get back from lunch and call me back so I can tell him, and he can tell the police.
I did posit an interrogation room setup, guys. Witnessin’ is a different proposition (that carries different risks 
).
Dose are some pritty eyes you got dere. Pity dey didn’t see anyting…ain’t it.
You did, in post #21. However, Saint Cad and you, and others, have been pushing the line “Don’t ever say anything to the cops,” without making any sort of qualification since posts #4 and #5. To say now “Oh, I only meant if you are a suspect being interrogated,” is pretty disingenuous. (And actually, even in post #21 you said “especially in the context of an interrogation”, thus implying the rule should still be followed in other contexts.)
I agree with Loach. If this attitude becomes widespread, crime will flourish. Sure, if you have reason to believe you are a serious suspect, and certainly if you are actually guilty or have actually been arrested, it is good advice to shut up and ask for a lawyer. Otherwise, well, it may be a little bit to your personal, immediate advantage to clam up: It may slightly reduce the possibility that you will be framed (although, I would suggest, it could also arouse suspicions that they might not otherwise have, and also make them annoyed with you, and thus make you a more tempting target for a framing). However, clamming up, if you are just being questioned as a possible witness, is certainly not what is best for society. It is good advice for criminals and the falsely arrested, but it is not good for the rest of us.
Because they were answering an OP about alibis. Witnesses don’t generally require those (“I saw 'em do it, but I can **prove **I wasn’t there, copper !” :p).
Indeed. For example, the trick question “Do you know how fast you were going, sir/madam ?” should only ever beget silence, even if it’s not part of a “formal” interrogation.
Meh. That or, “do you know why I pulled you over” is more of a conversation starter than anything. Intent is an element of only a few motor vehicle statutes. It doesn’t matter if you knew how fast you were going.
I talk to the cops until the conversation turns to anything about ME involving a crime. Did I see a suspicious looking guy? I’ll answer that. Where was I last night or how fast was I driving? Now, the focus is on me and the adversarial process has begun. I won’t answer anything else.
Nope, both are clinchers. The second they’ve got you admitting you were speeding (or admitting you had no idea what speed you were doing, which is worse), they’ve got you confessing to the crime, on the record. You can’t get the ticket thrown out or fight it in court any more. The check’s as good as in the mail.
Think about it for half a beat : of course they know exactly how fast you were going, that’s why they stopped you in the first place. And they obviously know you’re not talking your way out of that ticket. So why ask the question at all ?
The logic seems weak. The argument seems to be that you shouldn’t cooperate with the police, even if you’re innocent, because the police might seek to build a false case against you despite your innocence.
But if you accept the premise that the police might build a false case against an innocent person, then it seems to me that’s an argument in favor of cooperating with the police. If the police will incriminate innocent people for no reason, you don’t want to get on their shit list. Refusing to answer questions would be just the kind of thing that would trigger the police deciding to pin the crime on you.
So better advice would be dependent on your views of the police. If you think the police are basically honest then you should cooperate fully with the police if you’re innocent and refuse to cooperate if you’re guilty. If you think the police are basically corrupt, you have an easier path - you should ingratiate yourself to the police regardless of whether you’re innocent or guilty.
No, it’s a general interview tactic. You don’t give information to the interviewee.
Let’s say you were pulled over for speeding. And the police officer walks up and tells you “I just pulled you over for doing fifty in a thirty mile an hour zone.” You now know what he knows.
Now suppose the same cop sees you doing fifty in a thirty mile an hour zone and pulls you over. But this time he asks, “Do you know why I pulled you over?” And you respond, “I know I just pulled out of a bar but I only had a couple of drinks. I’m fine to drive home.” So now the cop, who hadn’t actually seen you leaving the bar, has cause to have you take a breathalyzer test.
Have you watched the video ? The lawyer giving the lecture has an old cop in the room, guest-speaking for him and basically nodding his head all along.
At no point does the lawyer insinuate cops would frame the innocent deliberately. None of the dozen ways he enumerates by which an innocent suspect might be hanging themselves, hinge or rely on the cops being crooked.
Well, frequently one hears about the person reporting finding a body being the ones in the hot seat for a murder.
How does that cop know that you didn’t do it and are picking either a random car or an enemy to pin your murder upon?
In 15 years of writing tickets and going to court this has literally never came up. Not once. The judge never cared what our conversation was. What I observed. If my equipment was working properly. Line of sight etc. “I might have been going a little fast.” Never once came up. Who really cares? Intent is not an element of speeding.
Then what does one do if you’re knowingly committing a very minor crime (trespassing) & discover a major crime (the car they’re looking for in an Amber alert or a dumped body)?
Or something that happened to me…
the cop opened with “I don’t know how fast you were going, but I think it was at least 60”
(I was actually doing 100, in a 35)
Yeah - like I’m going to say anything in a situation like that
There is a certain amount of discretion allowed. Just allowed someone to walk out the door with minor traffic warrants because she was a helpful witness to a very serious crime.
I just want to be clear, I’m not telling anyone to tell the cop how fast you are going. I’m saying it doesn’t matter much either way.
But feel free to tell him about the dead hooker in the trunk.
Allowed, but not guaranteed, right? I’ve worked with some good cops & run across a few a-holes.
I do a lot of outdoor photography &, uhhh, may have, ummm, once, yeah, yeah, just once been somewhere w/o permission to get my shot, because the wildlife just loves to pose near roadside. 
The downside of cell phones is they did away with (anonymous) pay phones.
Did you ever see Repo Man?