Watch

"
What to Watch Out For, When You Remain Silent and Ask to See a Lawyer
When you’re in custody, once you say I’m going to remain silent. I would like to see a lawyer, the police are not allowed to question you—but you actually have to remain silent. You can’t talk to the police about anything, not the weather or sports or movies. You can’t ask simple questions, like “When do I get my phone call?” 1 Don’t make small talk. Don’t make jokes. Silent really means silent.

The only exception to remaining silent is giving your name and address. You will have to provide that information if you want to be “released on promise to appear” (the promise to appear is a document, usually a ticket, telling you when to come to court—Sample Promises to Appear). Do not give any other information, such as your social security number, the names of family members, employment data, etc. This is important, because one of the most effective police interrogation techniques is to relax the subject by posing safe, normal questions—the kind that come up on countless forms and applications. The cop will seem bored and business-like, just “getting through all the paperwork.” An experienced officer will then move very gradually into questions about the people and incident under investigation, without any pause or change of tone. So don’t let them get you on a roll, obediently answering “safe questions.” Instead, mentally rehearse exactly what information you’re going to give: you’re going to say only your name and address, nothing else. If you don’t set that limit ahead of time, you’ll find yourself answering all sorts of questions, some of which are bound to hurt.

If you’ve been arrested and you break your silence to give your name and address, immediately follow-up by repeating the Magic Words: I’m going to remain silent. I would like to see a lawyer. This restores your constitutional protection, making it illegal for the police to question you further.
There are two common misconceptions when it comes to remaining silent:
Misconception 1: Many people assume that if they say I’m going to remain silent, I would like to see a lawyer or “I take the fifth,” then nothing they say afterward can be used against them. That’s a ghastly mistake. Saying the Magic Words merely keeps the police from questioning you after arrest, and only as long as you stay silent. If you break the silence by saying anything at all—whether it’s a statement or a question—your words can be used against you and you’ll have destroyed the effect of the Magic Words. You’ll have to say them again to be protected from questioning.
Misconception 2: Sometimes people get confused and think that informal conversation is okay, as long they don’t “make a statement” or “give a confession.” That’s dangerously wrong. Anything you say—anything at all—can be used against you, even questions, casual remarks, and jokes. It doesn’t matter whether your words are written down or spoken, or whether you’re in custody or free to go. And your statements can easily be twisted, taken out of context or misquoted. It’s impossible to predict all the things that could go wrong once you start talking. So the only safe course is to remain silent. Here are some examples, based on real cases, of people who talked their way into prison:

Example: Sue and Sally were arrested together in a drug case. At the police station, they were kept in separate holding cells, out of earshot of each other. The detective investigating the case questioned them individually about the crime. Neither of them answered these questions. However, Sue chatted with the detective, just making small talk—she told him where she went for dinner the night before, where she was planning to go for vacation, etc. Later on, the detective went to Sally and fooled her into thinking that Sue snitched on her. Sally wouldn’t have believed the detective, except that he mixed in the trivial information Sue had given him earlier, and those tidbits of truth made his story very convincing. Once Sally was persuaded that Sue had told on her, Sally angrily insisted it was all Sue’s doing. The detective then took Sally’s statements to Sue, who was outraged, and promptly ratted on Sally. So in the end, both suspects were suckered into snitching on each other.2
When law enforcement officers are questioning you, it’s completely legal for them to lie about the evidence and even create false documents in order to fool you into talking! Since you cannot be sure that the officers you’re dealing with are telling the truth, the only safe thing to do is to stay silent. As the saying goes, “a fish won’t get caught if it keeps its mouth shut.” 3. You should be allowed to make a phone call within a few hours of arrest, usually soon after you arrive at the police station or jail. Normally, you're put in a holding cell that has a telephone in it, though these phones are often rigged so that you can only make collect calls. The authorities are allowed to listen in on your calls from jail, so you must not talk about the incident for which you were arrested or any other illegal activities in which you might have been involved. It's best not even to talk about other people, because they might be investigated or questioned. The importnat thing to communicate is that your friends or relatives should get you a lawyer and/or a bail bondsman. If you haven't been given access to a telephone, say: "I would like to call a lawyer." This has the same legal effect as saying, "I would like to see a lawyer," so it doesn't wipe out the protection you get from saying the Magic Words.2. For another example of this technique, see Rat Jacket.3. Attorneys have been giving this particular piece of advice for hundreds of years. Back in 1614, an English lawyer named John Hoskyns (who was, at the time, locked up in the Tower of London for being disruptive) wrote to his young son: Sweet Benjamin, since thou art young, And hast not yet the use of tongue, Make it thy slave, while thou art free; Imprison it, lest it do thee.The Columbia World of Quotations, s.v., "John Hoskyns," http://bartleby.com/. "

This is what Katya said in 2004 and 2007.

While

"While acknowledging that business owners have a right to protect themselves from counterproductive and criminally inclined employees, integrity test critics question whether these paper-and-pencil confessionals are fair to the vast majority of honest job applicants. One persistent criticism focuses attention on he actual test items; they are flawed, it is argued, because they are based on unproven assumptions. A passing score cannot be achieved unless the applicant demonstrates a punitive and authoritarian attitude; leniency is unacceptable, even though there is no hard evidence linking a charitable disposition to dishonesty. Admissions items- equally unsupported- also give rise to some devilish catch-22s and logical conundrums: If Applicant A honestly reports his past misbehaviors, he is penalized with a lower test score. Applicant B, on the other hand, can withhold equally damaging information about his past and obtain a higher score- thus being rewarded for lying. As far as the integrity test is concerned, the applicant who tries to turn his life around and plot a course on the straight-and narrow is deemed less trustworthy than the applicant who continues to lie. This kind of twisted logic should be reason enough to cast doubts on the predictive capabilities of attitudes/admissions items, but there's more: these items consistently fail to take into account the strong role that situational variables play in determining behavior. The trait-heavy nature of most integrity tests is indefensible against what many see as fundamentally a security or 'environment management problem.'
Whether or not integrity test items are based on an ill-conceived theory of honestly is still hotly debated by opposing camps of psychologists and professional researchers. Other groups (like civil libertarians) are more concerned with privacy issues raised by the tests...There is a strong possibility that many of the applicants did not want to hurt their chances for employment by maligning the test, so they stuck with a socially desirable response. (Interestingly, this kind of 'self-protecting' instinct may have helped them more than they realized: additional studies have shown that those who object more to integrity tests are more likely to receive lower scores)."

This is what Charles said.

Non

"Non U.S. citizens who've been arrested for a crime have the rights to remain silent and to have a lawyer present during question. These rights are based on the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the US Constitution, and they protect everyone, citizens and non-citizens, adults and children. You have these rights even if you are 'undocumented' or no longer have a valid visa.
Immigration and other law enforcement officers often try to intimidate non-U.S. citizens by saying 'You're a foreigner, you don't have any rights,' or 'The Constitution only applies to citizens, not aliens. These are lies ( or gross ignorance). So if you are arrested, it's critical that you invoke your rights- especially the right to remain silent-regardless of what the officers are telling you."

This is what Kataya said.

Squatting

"In Philadelphia, there are 35,000 abandoned buildings. One good solution is squatting. Living a squat is safer (and warmer) than living on the streets. It is cheaper by far than paying rent. Occupied buildings are safer than empty ones...

.Move in. Secure the building (locks inside and out, good strong doors). Fix holes....

Check out the legal status. To do this, take the address of your possible building to the tax record room on the bottom floor of the Municipal Building (Broad St. & J>F.K. Blvd in Philadelphia). Talk to people in charge there who will help you look up the address(es) in your records book. if your building is city,s state or federally owned, it is probably caught up in red tape and is safe to move into. If it is privately-owned, more than $1,000 tax delinquent, it is also probably safe."

This is what a person said.

Serious

Once a relationship becomes serious, you both need to speak up and express your thoughts and feelings. If either of you is overly private or withdrawn, the relationship will be in jeopardy. If the man is too quiet, do not assume all is well. Draw him out. Even if you are shy or reserved, you need to tell him about yourself.

Some quiet people take great pride in being self-sufficient, even to the point of hiding their personal needs or wants. These folks display affection by performing their duties in their relationship, but not by talking about the relationship or its problems. Excessive people take pride in verbalizing their wants and needs...

Some people have a very strong sense of personal privacy and consider inquisitive people to be nosy. Yet people who are caring and concerned will inquire about a loved one's private life and expect some answers."

This is what Margaret said.

Bundy

"What did Ted Bundy have for his last meal? this is, by far, the most frequently asked question. Surprisingly, Ted Bundy had no speical last meal request. He was served the traditional last meal of steak, eggs, and potatoes...Ted did not dine with the same gusto...Perhaps he believed a little last minute weight loss would help him slip from the shackles of the Florida electric chair for a third dramatic escape from judicial confinement. (He already mastered two escapes from a Colorado jail)."

This is what Ty and Michelle said.

Guards

Prison guards soon find out if they want to earn some extra money, they can smuggle as a sideline. Often, it starts out in a minor way, with a convict asking a guard if he'd smuggle out a letter that he doesn't want read by prison officials. If a the guard accepts, and takes payment from the addressee, the hook is planted. The next request might be to bring in an envelope or small packet, without disclosing the contents to the guard.

If the packet contains illicit drugs, the guard is more beholden than ever. this gives the inmate and his outside confederate a hold over the guard, and leverage to oblige him to do more 'favors.'...

In some especially corrupt prisons, administration officials are part of the scheme. The prison administrators can try to stamp out smuggling if they wish, by enforcing strictly all of the regulations, or they can turn a blind eye. Some will go so far as to take part of the action by themselves, on the basis that, as smuggling is inevitable, they might as well profit from it. In one prison, the deputy warden was the leader of the smugglign ring, and the illicit drugs 'passed across his desk.'....

The guards who are 'clean' resent this, but are powerless to do anything. Smugglers operate secretly, and in any event any guard who exposes another runs the risk of reprisals from his fellow employees, much the same situation that affects a corrupt police department. This affects the morale of honest guards."