"Do not talk to the police."

So if a cop pulls you over asks if you have been drinking, and you haven't, you just remain silent? Even if you reek of alcohol because your girlfriend just threw up vodka on your shirt?

"One can never "talk" his or her way out of suspicion"

So if a cop sees you break a car window to get the keys you locked in your car, do you just say, "I want my lawyer" and remain silent? Bullshit.

More nonsense generic legal "advice."

Except that remaining silent might get you arrested. In a Terry stop detention, you have to at least give the police your name. If you really are innocent, it may be best to explain the situation. For example, if you locked your keys in your car and had to break a window to get them, would you really not tell the cop this and instead remain silent?

Except, FALSE. You are not entitled to an attorney when an officer is asking preliminary, pre-arrest questions, like in a traffic stop. So a cop pulls you over and asks you if you have been drinking and you just stay silent? That would be dumb in many situations. I've seen jailhouse lawyers go to jail because they were trying to outsmart cops, too clever by a half.

I know a guy who got arrested for trespassing because he was working out at his old high school gym after hours. Instead of telling the police, "I have implicit permission from Coach XXXX, just call him," instead he just thought he would be clever and say, "I'll just remain silent." Guess what happened then.

I've gotten out of tickets by admitting to a speed I know the cops clocked me at, but who wanted me to admit to a higher speed (I didn't). Had I claimed I was going 65 in a 65, or remained silent, when I damn well knew he had me at 74, I would have been ticketed. Instead, let off with a warning.

And in most states it is not a felony to lie to a cop. It is to lie to a federal agent.

Point being, generic legal advice worded in absolutes is worth roughly what you paid for it.

So, licensed attorney, are you suggesting that never, ever speaking to a cop, or even generic legal advice in the form of absolutes, constitutes good legal advice?

I'm a lawyer, and I think the professor's generic, one-size-fits-all advice is clearly wrong. In fact, legal advice not specifically tailored to the individual and the facts of his case is arguably per se malpractice. Of course, this itself is an absolute. But in fairness, it is a maxim, not legal advice.

Disagree? OK, well I am a lawyer, and you are presumably not. So now you're going to give a lawyer advice how to deal with a cop? #

IAALBNYLSDNROTALA (I Am A Lawyer But Not Your Lawyer So Do Not Rely On This As Legal Advice)

Oh please, as if law professors are infallible? Appeal to authority much? You realize law professors disagree with each other on just about everything? Ironic that all the locker room lawyers here are telling Haselton not to give legal advice.

Here's a pro tip from a lawyer: Any lawyer who gives you generic advice in the form of absolutes is full of shit. There are many situations in which a guilty person *not* talking to police will hurt you more than carefully talking to them. I've talked my way out of several tickets by being courteous, respectful, cooperative, and yes, even admitting to a little speeding (but not to my actual speed). Had I lied - or remained silent - when I knew for a fact the cop had clocked me at a certain speed, I would have certainly been cited. Cops are so shocked by real courtesy and respect, it can go a long way. And good lawyers typically don't pull the "I am a lawyer!" card with cops until asked.

Most non-lawyers who try to act lawyerly with cops often make matters worse...

IAALBNYLSDNROTALA (I Am A Lawyer But Not Your Lawyer So Do Not Rely On This As Legal Advice)

You're really advocating open source software as a way to avoid the NSA? LOL.

The amount of poverty (or near-poverty) here compared to my home country (Australia) astounds me. Huge portions of the population barely getting by...the run-down infrastructure etc. Not to say there's not nice areas too ... but it's really inconsistent. You don't see that at home (due no doubt in part to a more progressive tax structure and universal medical/housing safety-nets)

In a word, bullshit. The US has one of the most progressive tax systems in the world, even more so than most of Western Europe, more so than Australia. Hell, half the country doesn't even pay taxes.

Unfortunately, the main function of government in the US has become the opposite of the original Lockean purpose of the social contract - i.e., separating citizens from their wealth and giving it to others, while taking a huge cut. We have 45 million fucking people on food stamps! TWICE the population of Australia!

And what have we gotten for it? One of our Founding Fathers, Ben Franklin, said the worst thing you could do for the poor is to make them comfortable, lest they not want to escape it. Our "poor" in the US have cable TV and cellphones and are suffering from diabetes due to their obesity. Just enough to keep them voting for the Party of Handouts, exactly as planned...

If Obama averages a golf trip and vacation every 4 months then that would make the number of trips taken around 16

Obama averages a lot more trips than that. You aren't counting his golf outings, his record number of fundraisers (or taxpayer-paid political events), some of which he flies in for an hour and leaves.

He certainly is not the king of vacation days. That honor falls to President George W. Bush

Not analogous, since Bush never presided over a sequester, let alone was one his idea, let alone did Bush threaten to veto a bill offering him budgeting discretion on a sequester, and then close the White House to tours and stop the Blue Angels, and then cry, "we have no money!"

And those golf trips and vacations every 4 months Obama takes? How much do those cost taxpayers? Like a million dollars each flight?

Any sentient being knows Obama threatened to veto congressional bills to give him some budgeting discretion in the sequester, so he can blame Republicans for the arbitrary cuts. So far, based on polls, the public doesn't seem to be falling for it, despite the media not reporting this key little fact.

The fact that currently, encryption would have to happen at Google smells to me like a gigantic flaw in the whole "web apps for everything" mantra. I can not only encrypt when I run my own mail client with standard protocols, but I even get to choose whether I want to go S/MIME or PGP. Neither is an option in the webmail space unless I want to delegate crypto to the service provider.

(Depending on your conspiracy bent, you could also say this constitutes a non-flaw from Google's perspective.)

When you consider that they recently patented finding people likely to be evildoers based on their social connections, well... http://tech.slashdot.org/story/12/11/09/1452243/google-patents-guilt-by-association

"There is not a legal solution that is going to work. People just don't get it. Throwing people in jail doesn't solve the problem."

Tell me about all the types crimes that have been eliminated from throwing people in jail. So I guess we should legalize rape and murder.

Deterrence is but one purpose of the criminal sanction.

Android fanboys all over the Net pilloried iPhone 5 for not having NFC.