I apologize for the lower resolution quality of this video. I also understand that this lawyer is specifically talking about American law but I do still believe that this line of thinking is valid in Europe and almost all countries except for those where the police can be easily bribed such as parts of Africa and the Philippines. This is a lecture that I saw a long time ago and it has stuck in my mind since then. It is rather unsettling to think that, no matter what, a police officer cannot testify on your behalf as a witness. They can only testify on the prosecution's side. Just like with religious rules it is often extremely unintuitive to follow a guideline that someone else has laid out for us even if there are a great number of logical reasons why following such a rule is a good idea. You would think that being open and honest is the very best way to handle a situation where you are convicted of a crime. There are, however, many encounters in life where being kind or lax to even a small degree can put you in great jeopardy. When certain problems can take months or years to remedy having a solid idea of what steps to follow is essential because making the correct first move allows you to cover the rest of your bases later on. I don't want to regurgitate what is outlined in the above lecture, but I do want to make a few comments. Television and movies these days promote the idea that being a slick talker and out-witting the police is something that happens on occasion. The very obvious issue with that is that any intelligent criminal or innocent individual would, instead of even saying a word at all, instead use their right to remain silent as means to prevent themselves from providing any evidence that might convict them. Beyond that concept I think this emphasizes how much people need somebody who is well versed in law and parallel to that is the idea that you have someone fighting on your side instead of going through some sort of tribulation alone. From what I understand when you are convicted of a crime you can face a judge and jury without the help of a lawyer, however, there are virtually no instances where this works out better for someone trying to defend themselves simply because giving answers that are presumed to be the correct response are often self-incriminating answers. Even if they sound good to the layman anyone who is well versed in law is going to nitpick your testimony to find flaws. When a lawyer asks questions they can be often leading things in a certain direction, but on the positive side, when a defense attorney asks such questions they are doing so in a manner that prevents someone from making statements that could misinterpreted or that give extraneous but negative sounding information. I know in England that the police carry around batons and most do not have guns. This is not enough to convince me that the English police, or any type of European police, are somehow less dangerous or are less likely to put you in jail or prison. Remember that even if the normal and exterior function of the police is to keep people safe and investigate crimes that they are the first line of offense in a system that, without proper protection, could have you spending the rest of your life confined to a cage.