Great utube video here. Long but interesting and informative.
yadayadyada... you have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can be used against you in a court of law. 
you don't have the right to remain completely silent- police can demand identifying particulars and it's an offence not to provide them. you can also be arrested for refusing to assist police with their investigations if they reasonably believe you are withholding important info.
as to the murder case you're talking about- you can still be arrested, tried and convicted even if you stay silent. simply refusing to answer questions won't get you acquitted of anything. and when convicted a lack of cooperation works significantly against you at sentencing
^^^ very true Stamp.
Yes Moby the video is helpful and informative, but things like this can also misinform. It fails to take into account that in WA for example, you have to disclose who was driving your car at a certain time, give name and address, particulars as Stamp says, all manner of things.
There are so many situations where saying nothing will make it a damn site worse. Like if there is complaint made against you and you saying nothing means the cops only have the other party's side of the story, so you get charged. All you had to do was talk, say what happened and give a valid defence to the charge and you'd be right. Instead, you get charged, get a lawyer at great cost, go to court 2 or 3 times, and eventually when your side of the story comes out in court you get off. Yes you have a right to silence but this blanket advice to never say anything is misleading
Unfortunately things like this are seen and partly digested by young folk who then develop the 'fk the cops' attitude........... and they have no idea why they are arrested when they fail to do something the Police can lawfully demand they do.
I just did a bit of research and in NSW at least the police can ask for your name and address but you are not compelled to give them any identification. It is an offence to give false information so its not in one's interest to give a false name and address.
Besides this you are not compelled to answer any question put to you by the police. However if the police are accusing you of a crime it is not in your interest to explain your actions, especially if you are innocent.
The murder case I'm referring to the accused has not talked to the police for over 20 years and he has never been convicted of the murders.
i can't be bothered paraphrasing so here's the relevant ppra section authorising qld police to insist on your details:
41 Prescribed circumstances for requiring name and address
The prescribed circumstances for requiring a person to state the person's name and address are as follows—
(a) a police officer finds the person committing an offence;
(b) a police officer reasonably suspects the person has committed an offence, including an extradition offence;
(e) a police officer is about to give, is giving, or has given someone a noise abatement direction, an initial nuisance direction or a final nuisance direction;
(f) a police officer is attempting to enforce a warrant
(g) a police officer reasonably believes obtaining the person's name and address is necessary for the administration or enforcement of an Act prescribed under a regulation for this section;
(h) a police officer reasonably suspects the person has been or is about to be involved in an act of domestic violence or associated domestic violence;
(i) a police officer reasonably suspects the person may be able to help in the investigation of—
(i) an act of domestic violence or associated domestic violence; or
(ii) a relevant vehicle incident;
(j) a police officer reasonably suspects the person may be able to help in the investigation of an alleged indictable offence because the person was near the place where the alleged offence happened before, when, or soon after it happened;
(k) the person is the person in control of a vehicle that is stationary on a road or has been stopped under section 60;
Everyone is an expert cos they read about it on the net, I guess Youtube trumps a law degree these days? I (accidentally) stumbled across some porn on the net the other day 
, it hardly makes me Peter North does it?
, it hardly makes me Peter North does it?
, it hardly makes me Peter North does it?
If your not being charged & there's a fair chance you can talk y
the police . But if you have been charged never talk because the police are not judges & anything you say will be misconstrued& used against you so let your legalrepresentitve speakfor you in court
police evidence in the form of confessional statements must be recorded before it can be admitted. the cops carry mobile devices and are required to activate them before any kind of conversation takes place. failing to do so will often end up in an exclusion in court. there are strict procedures that must be followed.
for example: if, on the tape, there is the slightest indication of intimidation, cajoling, promises or threats made by the police the recorded evidence is usually excluded- in the case of threats is must be excluded. same goes if the accused's rights are not properly given and a check made that they have been understood. any confession must be completely voluntary and by the book.
maybe it's different in the u.s. as others have rightly said don't put too much faith in an american discussion. if you need to check the rules our legislation is available to anybody to read at www.austlii.edu.au/
, it hardly makes me Peter North does it?
One of the many intents of the law is to protect the innocent etc, there nothing in there that says it has to protect the stupid, especially from themselves. This video also has some relevence and sums it up nicely in 4 minutes 
You know what's even better advice than "don't talk to the cops"?
Don't commit crimes.
, it hardly makes me Peter North does it?
right I believe you chris
When investigating a crime, the police may question anyone.
It is a fundamental principle of our criminal law that a person may refuse to answer all questions put to him or her. There are, however, a number of exceptions to this rule requiring that a person answer certain questions. This can apply whether they are a suspect or not.
It is advisable to co-operate with the police and be polite, answering those questions which must be answered, but to refrain from answering any other questions.
If there is anything a suspect wants to tell the police, such as an alibi, they should see a lawyer so that the lawyer can help provide the information to the police. It is advisable to give that information to police as soon as possible so that it does not look like it has been invented later.
Before answering any questions a person should seek immediate legal advice. However one must answer certain questions in the following situations:
where police reasonably suspect a person has committed or is about to commit an offence (giving name and address)
drivers of motor vehicles
proof of age of people on licensed and regulated premises
to customs officers regarding drugs
to avoid assisting an offender
in relation to firearms.
Questioning at a police station without arrest
Police often ask someone to accompany them to a police station. This is only an invitation and the person does not have to go with the police unless arrested. The police can only force someone to go to a police station if they are under arrest.
A person who refuses to go with the police may be arrested and charged, and taken into custody only if the police reasonably suspect that person of committing or having committed an offence, or of being about to commit an offence. Otherwise the police cannot detain the person. Detention without making a lawful arrest is false imprisonment for which the police can be sued. It may also mean any evidence obtained is excluded from evidence in a trial.
Tell the Jacks to arrest you or you will go em for false imprisonment.
The populace has no idea as to the importance of the right to remain silent. The brainwashing embodied in the spin, 'if you dont do anything wrong/illegal/are a law abiding citizen etc- then you have nothing to worry about', is leading to an erosion of freedom and liberty at the hands of a police and surveillance state. People that advocate for stop and search reforms make me sick. These people should be deported to North Korea.
On a semantic note, the term "justice" is almost always conflated with "fairness". Presumably as a result of the spin and brain washing you speak of, possibly augmented by wishful thinking. We all want to believe the law is fair but it is a tortured cultural construct and as such is fraught with error, inconsistency and contradiction. However it tends to be a self correcting system. The Innocence Project illuminates many wrongful convictions and is itself and example of correction.
Anyway, I agree. Putting your self at the mercy of the legal system is foolish. It must be regarded as a contest. That raises that old chestnut about the difference between English law and continental law. The one is adversarial the other inquisitorial, one a contest between claimants, the other a search for truth. I don't know which is better but ideologically truth seeking has more appeal.
^^^
+1
Beat police have one of the toughest jobs going around (especially given the pay), and there is little point staying silent to prove a point.
