I'm going to expand upon this sub-thread to comment upon what I observed as one of the tyrannies of the U.S. legal system. Many are poorly able to or unable to afford the legal counsel they would need to competently navigate it.

In the criminal sphere, the motto (slogan, who knows what real strength it has, these days) "Innocent until proven guilty" was presented and meant by at least some as a counter-balance to such demands. Presumption of innocence was... well, at least "presumed" to mean that the system would work on your behalf towards an accurate resolution rather than just a convenient one.

Contrary to this, however, note that a validated and often employed legal strategy is to simply spend the opposing party into defeat. (Or, threaten to do so.) This happens in the civil arena. It also happens in the criminal arena, where the State can choose to bring relatively unlimited resources to bear against an individual opponent. (We are, as the general public, increasingly learning just how little oversight and restraint is exercised in how this is employed.)

They may not have to "prove" anything. Employing a litany of court dates, expert witnesses, appeals, etc., they can simply "run out the clock" of their opponent's financial resources (to mix my metaphors). Further, in the criminal sphere, we continue to learn more and to read and hear about just how far off the rails surveillance, unwarranted search, entrapment, interrogation, etc. can go.

Then, we also have the increasing use of forfeiture to peremptorily seize resources with no opportunity for defense. The increasingly broad and inappropriate use of no-knock search warrants that physically threaten well-being. Swat-ification that is turning policing into militarized occupation and further separating the police from the community...

Whose fault is this? Probably all of ours. Regardless, it is turning the legal system, for the general public, from something to respect to something to fear. It is not "our system", anymore, but "theirs". For various values of "theirs".

Not a good recipe for a society "based upon law".

P.S. I should add that I recognize what others say, that the U.S. is still comparatively quite good compared to many other places in the world.

But I worry about the delta. As well as persistent... "outliers" than do not seem to improve nor resolve. And than may be far more extensive than we, the "general public", were once led to believe.

Just use a little sense. If you buddy suddenly beats someone up, there is a chance they pin you as an accomplice.

If you see some old lady get robbed, that's not coming back on you.

Also, if the police don't put you under custody, you don't get Miranda rights and you don't get the right to a lawyer necessarily. You'd have to pay one yourself.

> Just use a little sense... If you see some old lady get robbed, that's not coming back on you.

Unfortunately, "just use a little sense" may be dangerous advice. Here's a story from earlier this year about a guy who called 911 when he came across an injured person lying in the street. As thanks for his trouble, he was assaulted by police, arrested, and spent twelve hours in jail -- mostly in solitary confinement: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7233730

So the lesson is if you see somebody bleeding in the street the right thing to do is to walk away?

How would you help get medical care? In an emergency situation most people would call 911 and request an ambulance. The 911 operator would request details on the nature of the medical emergency so that the paramedics arrive on scene with more knowledge and an ability to respond faster, and so that you can be advised on how best to proceed while waiting for the paramedics to arrive. The operator may also send the police regardless of if they were requested or not.

They can send the police, sure. Doesn't mean I have to answer their questions.

This is a somewhat absurd argument because what I'd do ultimately depends on the circumstance. If I truly know nothing besides my own name and that I found this person bleeding, I would be wondering where my other memories went and if I were brain damaged.

In the general case, they aren't going to be sending detectives immediately to ask questions because someone called 911. Nor would I stay on the scene longer than I was medically needed to be there. But the "general case" is a useless fiction.

Parent comment said a guy called 911 and was assaulted for his trouble. I asked what to do instead. What's the non sequitur?

After you call 911, yes.

You always have your Miranda rights. You're required to be informed of them only if you are to be questioned (edit: while in a custodial interrogation, which means you reasonably think you aren't fully there voluntarily) and your answers used against you in court. Or perhaps more accurately: if you answer a question from the police and weren't informed of your Miranda rights, a competent lawyer may be able to suppress some amount of the evidence gathered by the police as inadmissible.

As far as I know this applies for all questioning, regardless of whether you're free to go, being detained, or under arrest. IANAL but I've had plenty of encounters with police.

The key right you're asserting is not a "right to a lawyer" it's the right to remain silent. Asking for a lawyer helps you to do this, because otherwise they have much more latitude to try to convince or trick you into talking. If you said you are remaining silent until you talk to a lawyer, in theory, they have to leave you alone until the lawyer is there.

Miranda rights go well beyond just being able to be silent. You aren't even allowed to be questioned in the interim after you ask for an attorney. You do always have the right to remain silent.

If you aren't in custody, they don't have to provide an attorney and they can keep asking questions.

And custody can be fairly broad, for example a traffic stop doesn't count.