><i>He didn't say a word. And there's no doubt that he was exercising his Fifth Amendment privilege, but he didn't [formally] assert his Fifth Amendment privilege. So the five Republican [appointees] on the Supreme Court said, Because you didn't tell the police that you were using your Fifth Amendment privilege, your exercise of the privilege, or your decision to remain silent can be used against you as evidence of guilt.</i><p>Wow, just wow. Even when you choose to say nothing, that can be used against you as guilt. It really seems like the American way is guilty until proven innocent, and there will be no let up and everyone is in jail!
How far do you take this? If I see someone in a car throw some trash at a bicyclist, and then swerve and knock the cyclist off the road...should I not give a description of the car and driver to the police?<p>Or suppose a child disappears on the way home from school. Police ask people along the child's normal route if they saw her that day (they are trying to narrow down where she may have been abducted). I was out mowing the lawn that afternoon and did see her walk by, and know the time to within 5 minutes. Should I not tell the police?<p>In prior discussions of this video on other forums, people have told me that based on it they would in fact not say anything in the above examples. If people won't tell the police these kind of things, it is going to be a lot easier to persuade people to support pervasive public surveillance.
One flaw with this advice is that it's difficult, impolite, awkward and unrealistic to stay perfectly silent.<p>How about "my lawyer would be happy to answer all your questions"? Does that work?
What's even more impressive about this old presentation is the second half: <a href="https://youtu.be/d-7o9xYp7eE?t=26m52s" rel="nofollow">https://youtu.be/d-7o9xYp7eE?t=26m52s</a><p>This is where a cop comes up after the 'slick lawyer' (who is giving fantastic advice the whole time) and completely agrees with him.
TLDR: The lawyer in the viral YouTube video on not talking to the police has written a book on it. Also, due to a Supreme Court ruling, saying that you invoke the 5th amendment can be seen as admitting guilt.
Some cops are more patient and compliant with the law than others. It does not matter how well you know the law, if you have someone that has a strong preference towards violence (e.g: asking for identification, then shooting you dead when you reach for your wallet = suspecting you are armed).
Predictably, the SCOTUS case discussed in the article, Salinas v. Texas, split down conservative/progressive lines, with Kennedy casting the deciding vote to abrogate our 5th amendment privileges. Three members of the Supreme Court are over the age of 70—Kennedy is 80. Vote accordingly next month.
Some of what this guy is saying is moot because of the reprehensible tradition of plea bargaining in the United States. As far as I know (IANAL), most criminal accusations don't go to trial because the prosecutors throw <i>everything</i> they have at the defendant.<p>If you're accused of a crime, it's often crazy to try to defend yourself: if you try to do so and lose, it'll ruin your life. Better just to plead out and take a deal.<p>If the prosecutors can force you to gamble for your life and livelihood, it doesn't matter what evidence they have against you. The only way around the problem is to remain compliant and never get accused of anything.