> someone tries to pressure you from talking to a lawyer
add that to the list of when one should pull the ripcord on DIY and find/demand an attorney
> It seems far more likely to result in a better (or at least neutral) outcome with a lawyer.
So in my case the outcome was a restitution payment of a few hundred dollars. I don't know what the bottom of the market for attorneys looks like, but I would be highly surprised if you could find one to get involved for less than a two hour commitment (let's say $500). So right off the bat, that would have tripled the cost of the outcome. Never mind when the detective now sees mom, despite being ostensibly "poor", has enough money to afford that attorney (and make the detective's job harder!). So he stops telling me that I should be content with a few hundred dollars, and I instead claim a much higher amount of actual damages including the time I had to spend.
(Note that my comments on this matter are all modulo assuming the kid is guilty. There was pretty strong evidence left behind the scene, and yes, I am mostly just taking the detective's word for it. Obviously if the kid was innocent and being framed by some other kid, then the downside to not hiring an attorney becomes a bit harder to stomach, despite the same financial incentives remaining)
Having spoken with criminal defense attorneys about this exact subject, speaking with the police if you are guilty is explicitly a bad idea. Guilt does not imply conviction. The two events are more decoupled than anyone in the justice system wants to admit
Criminal defense attorneys speak from a perspective of ignoring that they cost a lot of money. That cost is itself damage, sometimes outweighing the rest of the matter. That was the point I made, and you completely skipped.
The typical client of a criminal defense attorney is not a minor suspected of petty crime, and their case is unlikely to be informed by the experiences of such a minor.
add that to the list of when one should pull the ripcord on DIY and find/demand an attorney
> It seems far more likely to result in a better (or at least neutral) outcome with a lawyer.
So in my case the outcome was a restitution payment of a few hundred dollars. I don't know what the bottom of the market for attorneys looks like, but I would be highly surprised if you could find one to get involved for less than a two hour commitment (let's say $500). So right off the bat, that would have tripled the cost of the outcome. Never mind when the detective now sees mom, despite being ostensibly "poor", has enough money to afford that attorney (and make the detective's job harder!). So he stops telling me that I should be content with a few hundred dollars, and I instead claim a much higher amount of actual damages including the time I had to spend.
(Note that my comments on this matter are all modulo assuming the kid is guilty. There was pretty strong evidence left behind the scene, and yes, I am mostly just taking the detective's word for it. Obviously if the kid was innocent and being framed by some other kid, then the downside to not hiring an attorney becomes a bit harder to stomach, despite the same financial incentives remaining)