For what it’s worth, the second half of that video is a police officer explaining how he was exactly right, and how it’s true even for an innocent person.
The problem with this line of reasoning is that of course a cop is going to tell you that the best thing to do is to do what he says.
A cop who stops you in a “bad neighborhood” is just fishing. He doesn’t have any reason to detain you unless you give him one.
Achtung!
Any dumpkopf should be able to easily see that this is not an issue for the grammar Nazis,
but for the punctuation Nazis.
So both of you better get your affairs in order because you will shortly be hearing a knock
on your door, after which you will never be heard from again.
Not always a good idea. They can charge you with obstruction of justice. It also makes you seem like you’ve got something to hide.
Actually no, they can detain you to ID you and in some states charge you for failing to ID but refusing to talk to them is not obstruction, they may claim it is when trying to get you to talk but remember they are not under any obligation to tell you the truth.
Obstruction would be telling a lie, destroying evidence etc… Refusing to talk is NEVER obstruction.
Also refusing to talk is not probable cause.
Yes it is. If they need information from you and you childishly clam cup, it’s obstruction. The fact that you won’t talk to them gives police even more reason for concern.
Miranda v. Arizona, The 5th amendment and dozens of other legal decisions do not agree with this.
Please cite a single post Miranda case where a person was charged and convicted of obstruction for refusing to talk to an officer.
And it doesn’t matter one bit if it gives them concern, they have legal tests they need to meet to detain, search and/or arrest you.
You have been misinformed.
If a policde officer explains that they need your help regarding an ongoing murder investigation, shouldn’t you render whatever assistance you can in good faith? How is it patriotic (for an American) to be childish and pigheaded with authority figures?
Americans who claim to be more patriotic than anyone else are the most anarchistic. What’s up with this? 
Maybe the law is different where I live. I’m Canadian.
But on general principle I cooperate with police because I have no reason not to.
Straw-man,
I would assist but with counsel present, what is american about handing over your 4th and 5th amendment rights just because the government powers find it convenient.
“Don’t Tread On Me” indeed! 
"In stark comparison to the decision made in Miranda v. Arizona, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Raffel v. U.S. that once the suspect begins cooperating with law enforcement and answers questions or consents to a search, he or she gives up the right to remain silent and must continue to cooperate throughout his or her arrest, trial, and judgment. "
What does that have to do with what is required by law?
Who has made claims for patriotism?
You’ve had a few run-ins with the law, haven’t you?
:rolleyes:
I am guessing you have run out of real arguments as you are resorting to personal attacks now.
I have never been arrested in my entire life, nor have I been charged with anything above a moving violation. I also do not partake of illegal substances.
I am working purely from advice that has been given to me by officers that I am related to and friends with, and with my jury experience.
I am obviously not a lawyer but there are several that have posted guides to this online, I would suggest any citizen learn about their rights.
I apologize for the personal attack, but I still think it’s obligatory to cooperate with police when they ask you for help. When police officers are out solving murder cases and searching for missing children, eyewitness testimony can mean the difference between success and failure.
And they can obtain that testimony just fine with a lawyer present. If the police care that much and think you’re that essential, they will go ahead and set up a meeting. They’re not going to back down and say, “whoa, a lawyer?! OK, never mind then.”
There are practical issues with that understandable position.
a) You have to unambiguously invoke your right to silence or you lose it.
b) If you wave your right you can not re-invoke it later.
c) You are not aware of all laws and may implicate yourself in.
d) Police are under no obligation to tell you the truth.
e) They are under no obligation to follow through with any promise they give you.
f) They will still be able to solve crimes if you have counsel.
This case dates to the PRE applicability to the states of the 5th AM, just as a casual mention, however it is still arguable for the states since the 5th is applicable now. Perhaps if the question dealt with a non federal officer, it may have been different?
It also deals with a defendant co-operating in the field, then dealing with testimony in the courtroom and 2 trials.
“Post arrest” silence can be used against a person in some jurisdictions, to impeach the defendant, as a comparitive note. Although you can refuse to speak when questioned, if a person does not so call protest his arrest, his silence can be used to incriminate him. I can’t remember the case name now without looking in my notes.