Interrogation Technique and Simple Rule

[hackias]

Okay, say you are being interrogated for a crime.  I conclude the best strategy is to never say anything, not even "no comment" because in my research, there is a fundamental flaw in the system between opinions and facts.


You frankly refuse to engage in conversation and never sign any document.  Technically unless you admit to anything or make some mistake which is recorded on audio, what is the worst that can happen?  You may be detained albeit not charged.


...


You get charged and you face court, refuse to speak in court.  Note that the punishment in not entering dialogue may be less than the punishment of the crime.  Also if you want to save face, perhaps the lesser crime is better than the actual crime regardless of whether you are innocent or guilty.  Rarely these days do people care about the truth?

[vezzy]

It depends on the interrogation technique being used. Most modern agencies use what's known as the Reid technique, which is non-violent but heavily depends on suggestion, guilt tripping and inducing fear on a subconscious level. It also assumes guilt from the very beginning, as extracting confessions are more important than the legitimacy of these confessions.

In these cases, refusing to speak without a lawyer is an optimal decision. When it comes to more brutal techniques, then that's different.

[Mordred]

It depends on the interrogation technique being used. Most modern agencies use what's known as the Reid technique, which is non-violent but heavily depends on suggestion, guilt tripping and inducing fear on a subconscious level. It also assumes guilt from the very beginning, as extracting confessions are more important than the legitimacy of these confessions.

In these cases, refusing to speak without a lawyer is an optimal decision. When it comes to more brutal techniques, then that's different.

Indeed, I would also opt to no speaking at all until a lawyer that I called arrives and I can firstly discuss everything with him in private. You'd be surprised how many times it has happened for an agency to send in a person who is not a lawyer or to send in a state-sponsored lawyer who was not obliged to confidentiality and who in turn immediately ratted the culprit out (when he did something bad of course, but I take that as a given due to the nature of the discussion).

Basically I would say that the golden rule is to associate yourself with a lawyer. You can never know what might happen and when you might need him.

[Axon]

First and foremost, define the system? What kind of system you are talking about, The system of the USA, the EU what. If you are a US citizen, most of us aren't.

Second, you've stated "because of my research", what kind of research we talking about here?

[hackias]

I've been thinking about crimes, newspapers, journalists and slander and come to the conclusion that it is all just a collection of opinions.  Without factual evidence, it is indeed easy to circumvent methods of law enforcement.  Just because the police say an individual is a criminal or they exist on a database, does it mean its true.


If nine people say someone committed a crime, does it means its true?  Many people say religion is true, some will not.


Also if you admit to any crime, does it mean its true? a slip of the tongue, a false confession do they mean anything.


People say you are guilty? so what... your objective is to stay out of prison, not "win" the opinions or support of the majority.  Correct me if I'm wrong.  Helping the police with their "investigation" is meaningless.


Btw I'm based in Europe, not the US.  I just see the whole justice system flawed with opinions and rarely evidence.  Too many people have had their life's ruined by the opinions of others.


Btw, for the record, I was badly slandered at some time in my life and there was nothing I could do about it, it felt like it was me against the world.  In the end and now, I simply stopped "caring" and closed my mouth.  Never did I agree to anything, admit to anything nor do I deny anything.  Nothing happened and I believe this strategy is optimal.

Indeed, I would also opt to no speaking at all until a lawyer that I called arrives and I can firstly discuss everything with him in private. You'd be surprised how many times it has happened for an agency to send in a person who is not a lawyer or to send in a state-sponsored lawyer who was not obliged to confidentiality and who in turn immediately ratted the culprit out (when he did something bad of course, but I take that as a given due to the nature of the discussion).

Basically I would say that the golden rule is to associate yourself with a lawyer. You can never know what might happen and when you might need him.

I would rather not even talk to a lawyer, what do you need his or her opinion for, just refuse to engage in ANY discussion.  When they cannot convince you to play by their rules, what can they gain?

Staff note: bitches don't get to edit. They get edited.

[Mordred]

I would rather not even talk to a lawyer, what do you need his or her opinion for, just refuse to engage in ANY discussion.  When they cannot convince you to play by their rules, what can they gain?

Because they might have some form of evidence against you. Having a person who knows the laws perfectly and can almost immediately get you out of interrogation is the number one priority.

For instance, I personally don't know all the circumstances under which a police officer would be legally entitled to tell me to step out of my vehicle if he pulls me over for whatever reason. I also don't know ALL the circumstances in which I could literally just walk out of an interrogation.

I have read of alot of situations where people who were being questioned could've, at any point, said that they want to leave and the police couldn't have legally stopped them from doing so. However they don't inform you that you can leave, they just ask you shit until either you crack, call a lawyer (legal representative) or (in case you're knowledgeable) tell them that they have no right to detain you.

[hackias]

Because they might have some form of evidence against you.

Perhaps a dangerous assumption to make.  Knowing the laws or not, I think it is better to frankly just remain silent, why even entertain the idea of playing by the rules.

[Thor]

Even if you're innocent it's best to stay silent. Cops are good at tricking you and twisting your words.

Just remember that anything you say can ONLY be used AGAINST YOU.