> "But... if we happen to run into her on the street, we’re gonna be asking her some questions without you present."
This does not imply "a pleasant conversation of a few minutes on the street". This implies, given the past and present behavior of law enforcement at all levels of government, "ending up in an interrogation room for several hours during repeated questioning attempts, before being dumped on the street somewhere random after refusing to answer questions without a lawyer present".
> This implies, given the past and present behavior of law enforcement at all levels of government, "ending up in an interrogation room for several hours during repeated questioning attempts, before being dumped on the street somewhere random after refusing to answer questions without a lawyer present".
Why do you feel like you can confidently say that? First of all, they never say they intend on detaining her. Secondly, there is zero precedent for what you're claiming is implied here. Thirdly, "happen to run into her on the street" does imply an ad-hoc conversation and not a formal interrogation.
You're drawing conclusions without evidence, why do you think that's an okay thing to do?
This does not imply "a pleasant conversation of a few minutes on the street". This implies, given the past and present behavior of law enforcement at all levels of government, "ending up in an interrogation room for several hours during repeated questioning attempts, before being dumped on the street somewhere random after refusing to answer questions without a lawyer present".