This is one of the funnier incidents of media serendipity I’ve seen in a while. Of course, I love to cover events when people spy on the government or the government spies on people, but here we have regular old people “spying” on regular old people. Robert Palmer, a graphic designer who’s been making some noise with his revamp of the Republican Health Nightcare Chart, also happened to spot some kids from his Hilton hotel room taking a picture of their cars. And then, in a way that could only happen in the 21st century’s media mania, he found the pictures they were taking. I just feel like it’s worth mentioning because it helps me to hone my sense of just what banapana is.

It can never be underestimated how much the US media, driven by profit motive and not ethics, can fail to see the point in a story that they are reporting simply due to the fact that the real point is not the point that gets ratings. I’m a little behind the curve on this story as I am across the pond and my access to US news (and Internet connections) is infrequent. Nonetheless, with regard to the arrest of Henry Louis Gates and the “beer” diplomacy engaged by the administration, it would seem that a significant matter has been lost in the chatter. As always, Christopher Hitchens has the real thread of the matter at hand and I have to second and third the point that he makes in his editorial on the matter that (regardless of his color) Gates’ constitutional rights were infringed upon. The media has utterly failed to see this in a post-racial fashion—surprise, surprise. And moreover, we as a people, have been so saturated with police shows and crime dramas, lauding all police everywhere as heroes, defending a fictional right of the police to do what’s necessary to fight crime that we have rolled over when it comes to what they have no right to do.

About nine months ago, I posted an important lecture from an excellent lawyer on how to deal with the police. It is simple. Do not talk to the police. If you are guilty do not talk to the police. If you are innocent it is even more critical that you DO NOT TALK to the police! They are not on your side, no matter how much they assure you they are. It is their job to clear up the facts of the case, through evidence, not hearsay, and not your obligation to help them. You’re merest utterance can and will be used in court against you—a mistake of the facts, a matter of confusion, the police getting wrong what you said. You have the right to remain silent and you should. Personally, if the house belonged to Henry Gates, I think he would have been better suited simply not talking to the police. It’s not to say that you don’t have the right to speak your mind on your on property, but you are better served by letting your rights speak for you. When a police officer asks you anything about your person, your belongings, your occupation of a certain house, ask them what is their probable cause for asking. Or, better yet, say nothing! They cannot insinuate a crime—well they might, but what would sound better in front of a judge?—The suspect was testy and or belligerent? Or, the suspect said nothing? You have rights. Trust yourself to them. Do not talk to the police.

What’s the problem with that!? Well, for anyone out there just no dipping their feet into the warm waters of advanced video watching technology, here’s a hint: don’t pronounce all the acronyms. You will drive your otherwise friendly sales help to madness.

In lieu of my recent posting on brain scans and the 5th amendment, I’d like to post this great video that will give you several good reasons (from an attorney) as to why you should never talk to the police and why your 5th amendment right may be your most important in this century. In short, there are so many federal codes, so many laws, you cannot know when you are incriminating yourself. It takes a lawyer. Professor James Duane, “Everything you tell the police can be used against you. It cannot be used for you.” Read more…

Ran into this story regarding using brain scans in court as evidence against criminals via io9. SFgate has a bit more on the story and the general consensus is that techniques such as fMRI and new lie detection will be admissible in court within the next five years. What I don’t understand is why in neither of these articles is the 5th amendment to the Constitution even mentioned. For a fun civil rights lesson, let’s review it.

Read more…