According to your suggested phrasing above, if your lawyer does not investigate and then prosecute any apparent law-breaking, then you have just lied to a police officer. That can be an expensive phrase to follow up on.
If you are arrested, and convicted wrongly (which we know does happen), then your assertion of innocence is, to the courts, another lie.
According to the Supreme Court, you must say that you are going to remain silent in order to exercise that constitutional right. Your suggested phrasing shows that the citizen saying that is ignorant of the law, and is more likely that the "rent-a-cops" will use intimidation and other forms of persuasion to extract information in hopes of making an arrest.
You don't care, since you don't recognize the laws as being just. But it is bad manners to suggest your course of action to anyone who is not aware of what their legal rights are under this unjust regime. A martyr without reason is just another arrest statistic.
>According to your suggested phrasing above, if your lawyer does not investigate and then prosecute any apparent law-breaking, then you have just lied to a police officer. That can be an expensive phrase to follow up on.
Where's the lie? In my case - it would be true. I'd investigate every single one of these rent-a-cops, and any laws they broke - they'd be prosecuted for it.
Look - I agree, don't talk to cops. But these are rent-a-cops we're talking about (private cops on the private property of the movie theatre). I see no reason why civil society should just bend over and take it, just because 'the law will get you because it is harder than you'. Such conditions bely the fact that you are living in a tyrannical state, yo ..
You then said "I'd investigate ...", when you earlier asserted that you would have your lawyer do it.
A lawyer's time costs money. Especially if, as was the case here, it doesn't seem like there was anything illegal. According to the account the Google Glass wearer was informed that he was not being detained. According the the account, the Google Glass wearer not only consented to a search but insisted upon a search. (There's also good odds that they training in ways to apply psychological pressure without breaking the law.)
Nothing here is illegal, and you would have no case, so it's not like your lawyer would even have the possibility of taking it on contingency.
But you are right. Assuming they were all "rent-a-cops" then there's no law against lying to them, and you could make whatever threats you want about lawyers, true or false. According to the report, it wasn't clear if they were or were not police officers.
Which is why knowing one's rights is important.
There's tyranny of oppression. There's also tyranny of ignorance.
According to your suggested phrasing above, if your lawyer does not investigate and then prosecute any apparent law-breaking, then you have just lied to a police officer. That can be an expensive phrase to follow up on.
If you are arrested, and convicted wrongly (which we know does happen), then your assertion of innocence is, to the courts, another lie.
According to the Supreme Court, you must say that you are going to remain silent in order to exercise that constitutional right. Your suggested phrasing shows that the citizen saying that is ignorant of the law, and is more likely that the "rent-a-cops" will use intimidation and other forms of persuasion to extract information in hopes of making an arrest.
You don't care, since you don't recognize the laws as being just. But it is bad manners to suggest your course of action to anyone who is not aware of what their legal rights are under this unjust regime. A martyr without reason is just another arrest statistic.