Selfish Stein Supporters

Look, I get it, you like her positions on the issues.

But that’s not the point.

We have the possibility of a terrible, selfish person becoming President who, by all standards, will ignore the Constitution, destroy the economy (like what happened to Britain with Brexit), and start wars with other countries while probably being under indictment for crimes he’s committed. He will fill his cabinet and the Supreme Court with unqualified people and support actions against minorities with the support of a bunch of know-nothing yahoos.

58fj0pqj

“Trump is a millionaire who has never been elected to office and is therefore unqualified!  I, on the other hand, am a millionaire who was elected to a city council a while ago. It’s completely different!”

We have to stop him.

Unfortunately, the only possible way to do that is to vote for someone we didn’t want. (I was a Bernie supporter, you know.) But comparatively, there’s no question — Clinton is tremendously more qualified than Trump is, even though she has her own problems.

But I’m going to get one of these two candidates, and the choice between them is clear.

There is no way in this or any universe that Stein is winning. She barely meets 1% in many polls, less than the margin of error. You’re dreaming if you think voting for her will make any difference other than to help Trump win.

You want to help the Green Party? Get people elected at the local level and build your way up. (You know — “grassroots politics.”)  Even if she won the Presidency (in Bizarro America), you have to consider this: Obama couldn’t get hardly anything done with one of the parties actively working against him. Stein will have two parties working against her.

You have the power to stop Trump, but you’re refusing to do it.

It’s like stepping aside as the Nazis march by and then claiming that you had nothing to do with their actions because you didn’t help them — even though you had the opportunity to try to stop them.

You think you’re keeping yourself pure and noble by voting your conscience while ignoring the part of your conscience that should be telling you that you need to take whatever action is best to stop the Bad Guy. There is nothing noble about being neutral in the face of evil.

It’s selfish, really.

Should you talk to the police?

No.

That was easy!

Oh, fine. Let me go into a little more detail.

If you are the victim of a crime or need assistance in any way, absolutely talk to the police. But that’s not what this question is really asking. If there is any way that you might possibly be considered as a criminal, should you talk to the police? The answer is always no.shut-up

The main reason is that people just don’t know when they should or should not talk. So it’s better to just not talk in all situations.

Will it help you to talk to the police sometimes in these situations? Only if you have an air-tight alibi. (“I was in Europe all week, here’s my passport.”) The problem is that many people think what they say will help, and it doesn’t.

“If I explain to the cop why I hit the guy, he’ll certainly understand and not charge me” will not help you.

“Yes, I was there but I wasn’t involved with any of those guys” just gave the police half of what they need.

“I only had two beers, so surely the cop will understand that I’m not really drunk if I tell him that” isn’t in your best interest to say. (And don’t call him Shirley.)

Remember, it’s not your job to prove yourself innocent. It’s their job to prove you guilty. They need to prove that you were there, that you did something, and that the something you did was against the law. If you say, “Yes, I was there that night, but that didn’t happen” you’ve already made 50% of the case for them.

Remember: the police are trained to get confessions. That makes their job so much easier when that happens (and makes my job so much harder). Note that I said they are trained to get confessions. That’s not the same thing as saying they are trained to get the truth.

Look, I’m a trial lawyer. I’m trained to get confessions in a different way. I look at the statements made by officers and witnesses and look for errors, mistakes, misunderstandings, and lies. And I will use what you said against you at trial whenever I can. You’ll have to explain why you said what you did when you did. You think the District Attorney isn’t going to do the same thing to you, the defendant? Why give the DA the ammunition needed for that?

No, remain silent, as is your Constitutional right. Provide your name and address and identification if asked; don’t argue with the officer; don’t talk about your rights; remain polite and calm. Let the lawyer do the arguing for you later.

If nothing else, by not talking, I can work out a better deal for you if you have to plead to a crime. If you’ve already given the police everything they need, I have nothing to negotiate with on my side; nothing I can offer in exchange for a better deal.

The best legal advice I can give anyone is really quite simple:

Shut up!

Deadly skittles

The Trump campaign posted this ridiculous meme yesterday:

skittles

Ignoring the proofreading problems the Stupid Party has (Skittles is capitalized, comma after “you”, no capital “w” on “would”), and the layout problems (why doesn’t the right side margin line up?), let’s address instead the absurdity of this claim.

First of all, based actual odds of getting killed by terrorist refugee, you’d need 10.8 billion skittles to find three killers.

Then let’s consider what this is saying. Three of these skittles could be dangerous. So therefore, let’s let the hundreds of others die so we can be safe.  Yeah, that’s exactly the kind of heroism we of the United States are known for. It’s exactly what Superman, who stands for Truth, Justice, and the American Way would say, right?  “Can’t save that trainload of people because there may be three of them who want to hurt me and the other people.”

This is something they never seem to mention. The Syrian refugees are refugees from terrorism. They need our help. Yes, some evil terrorist may sneak in at the same time, but if the terrorists really want to sneak in, they can do it anyway. The Trump campaign clearly believes in the “Bad Samaritan” policy.

If this were the 1930s, I suppose you could replace “Syrian refugee problem” with “Jews” and this would be a great ad for Germany.

The Trump campaign believes turning away refugees running from terrorists will “make America great again” because if there’s one thing we don’t need, it’s huddled masses yearning to breathe free.

Come on folks, Skittles won’t kill you.

Unless you meet George Zimmerman.