posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 09:58 PM
That's an interesting topic, because I can see the argument both ways.
Yes, police often overstep their bounds. And prudence dictates, that if you are accused of a crime, you shouldn't do the accusers job for them. And
it certainly is your right to remain silent. It can also make a defence attorney's job easier, as there is less they have to worry about or counter
when making their case.
However, why should we have to remain silent to avoid having law enforcement do their jobs incorrectly? If everyone remained silent, through choice
or though fear, what would be the impetus for injustices to be corrected? And what kind of society would that lead to?
I find there is a certain admirable quality to forthrightness. I heard a story once (dunno how romanticized it was) about how Ben Franklin, at the
start of the revolutionary war, went to various countries looking for support for the revolutionary cause. People said he was crazy, that prudence
would dictate caution, but the idea was that he was an honest man, and he thought his cause was just. If it was unjust, best to face that and find
out. So he went anyway, and was undeterred by failure, until he finally started to succeed, and his efforts helped the cause for independence
immensely. I found that very inspiring.
But, to seek to make one's self a martyr for justice can be foolishness. And we're not all Ben Franklins. So, as in all things, I think a balanced
approach is wise -- stand on principle, but don't tilt at windmills.
[edit on 6-6-2008 by Ian McLean]