[naasking]

I'm not sure if you're claiming that what I wrote is "weird", but nothing I said was incorrect and the link I provided provides extensive information on case law here. Suffice it to say, most people have a very hard time refusing to answer while being grilled for hours, and the article cites numerous such examples.

> and you can still consult a lawyer for all interview questions.

This is simply not as straightforward as you're implying. Per the article, R v Sinclair established that in most cases, a detainee may be permitted to consult a lawyer only once.

[smcin]

R v Sinclair (2010 SCC 35) is a leading case from the Supreme Court of Canada on a detainee's right to counsel under section 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Specifically, the case addresses two issues regarding the police's implementation duty under the right to counsel: 1) does a detainee have the right to have a lawyer present during police questioning, and 2) does a detainee have the right to make multiple phone calls to their lawyer. A majority of the Court answered the first question in the negative, and answered the second question in the negative, subject to a change of circumstances.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Sinclair

[mthoms]

You seem to be in agreement. Perhaps you responded to the wrong person? That's the same case law the parent cited (albeit indirectly - see their link up thread).

[itsnotafight]

You can reply to someone and agree with them, even provide additional bolstering evidence — like a direct quote. It turns out not everything on the internet is a fight you have to win.

[mthoms]

It wasn’t “additional boistering evidence”. It was the exact same case law that very same person had already cited.

Hence… I politely asked if they meant to reply to someone else.

I don’t know why you’re talking about fighting.

[smcin]

I responded to naasking with supplementary details supporting their answer. Like itsnotafight says, we don't always have to disagree with a poster.

[mthoms]

Got it. Maybe your post should be more substantial then? Then people don’t have to guess what you’re trying to say.

You literally just echoed back something to someone that they already said. That’s more than a little confusing to a reader.

[smcin]

I didn't "just echo back the same case law". They only provided an (incomplete) citation, and no link.

I provided the full link to Wikipedia, the summary of what R v Sinclair actually established (from which readers can immediately see that Canadian right to a lawyer during questioning differs sharply from the US right), and then the Wikipedia link which discusses the history and background of the case, the ruling, and further links to the text of the decision on CanLII, etc.

That's genuinely useful missing information, which many HN readers will not bother to search for, but if you provide the links some of them may actually click through, then we collectively get a less-misinformed discussion. If instead of suggesting I intended to respond to the wrong person, you had directly asked me why I thought it useful to post this, I'd have told you that it was so other posters would inform their discussion better; it's very tiring constantly seeing discussions where posters assume any legal question is asked about US law and only US law, or worse still, simply assume that US legal principles or rule of law apply all over the world (such as anything on Canadian law, or all the discussions on privacy law).

And one extra thing: you might be assuming that merely saying "R v Sinclair" is unambiguous without including the "(2010 SCC 35)" part of the citation, but when I personally google "R v Sinclair", most hits are relevant, but #7 hit is "People v. Sinclair, 131 A.D.3d 492" and #10 hit is "Sinclair v. Sinclair :: 1969 :: Kansas Supreme Court Decisions". As we've commented ongoing in HN, google search relevance is degrading these days, so don't assume incomplete citations lead users to the right article.

Posting a link (or archive reference) is a substantial contribution to a discussion, esp. when many of the posters haven't read the topic they're discussing.

[mthoms]

Sure, but without context is difficult for the reader to understand if you are posting (a) because it contradicts, or (b) supports the argument being made. Both of those would be interesting to me, and it wasn't clear, so I asked.

I mean, you just wrote 4+ paragraphs on the topic(!) so writing "Here's the relevant bit for anyone interested..." is not a big ask.

I've been here for well over a decade and online for three decades - I was confused by the comment (and following the topic closely) so I asked. Take my feedback or don't. I don't care. But understand that it's slightly ambiguous and confusing for the reader. There are lots of trolls here and lots of genuinely well intentioned people (you included) but it's not always obvious which is which.

There's no reason to be so upset.

[wredue]

It’s weird because you chose wording that isn’t entirely correct, and also chose to ignore that whether a lawyer is present or not, you cannot be compelled to testify against yourself, which is what a lawyer is going to tell you during your phone call.

[naasking]

> It’s weird because you chose wording that isn’t entirely correct

My wording was entirely correct.

> and also chose to ignore that whether a lawyer is present or not, you cannot be compelled to testify against yourself

Irrelevant to the point I was making, which was specifically about how our right to counsel differs from the US.