It may be good advice, but this logic is clearly confirmation bias. A person who talked to the cops and succeeded in convincing them of their innocence would not have a need for a defense attorney.
Watching the first 48 (a show following murder investigations) I'd break it down to:
(1) people that are guilty and think things like "he had it coming" or "my buddy was just supposed to rob him" help their case. They admit to capital crimes when trying to lessen their guilt.
(2) people the police think are guilty and ineffectively lie. They probably don't hurt or help themselves.
(3) people the police aren't sure of. They can talk themselves in or out of suspicion based on their guilt and/or ability to effectively lie.
The group that get coerced into confessing to a crime is a very small percentage of people interviewed.
(1) The police have enough evidence to charge you with a crime
(2) The police do not have enough evidence to charge you with a crime
They do not have to tell you (and can actively lie!) which scenario you are in, and these scenarios are only loosely correlated with whether or not you actually recently committed a crime.
In scenario (1), they're going to charge you with a crime no matter what you say - they already have enough evidence. And anything you say to the police in this scenario can only be used as evidence against you to further strengthen the police's case, it cannot be used in your own defense in court. So it's better to remain silent.
In scenario (2), if you remain silent, they cannot charge you with a crime - they don't have enough evidence and you're not giving them any (asserting your right to remain silent is not evidence). If you answer their questions, you might accidentally give them enough evidence to charge you with a crime, like contradicting your own story because your memory is fallible. The police are allowed to lie to you, ask you trick questions, wear you down, and in general do anything they can to get a confession or other evidence against you. The things you say here can only be used against you to strengthen the police's case. So it's better to remain silent.
If you are being interrogated by the police, they are not your friends and nothing you say can help you. The only person on your side is your lawyer. Stay silent until your lawyer is in the room, and then do exactly what your lawyer says.
It's been linked elsewhere, but https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE is a real-life law professor and a police officer both saying exactly the same thing. American TV often includes narratives about the behavior of police officers that do not align with reality or the best interests of people accused of crimes.
There's no advice in my post.
It seems you are OK with this group not being zero.
Consider an exact equivalent of what you just said: "A person who didn't wear a seatbelt and succeeded in making it to their destination safely would not have a need for a doctor" so therefore doctors saying they've had hundreds/thousands of cases where they wished their patient had worn a seatbelt is confirmation bias. But on the one hand is a certain amount of extra inconvenience and some money that has to be spent (in mandating it by law we're forcing people to spend it, but that was a debate), whereas on the other is horrific injuries and possibly death. Even if the latter risk is small, because the outcome is so significant it's worth weighting higher. And drivers are often at the highest risk when they're sleepy, or distracted or otherwise mentally disturbed which in turn is the exact worst time to be making judgements. So it's best to just have it be habit to do without thought, each and every time (and a requirement on top to help form that habit).
Similarly the you, and me, and everyone else in this thread sitting comfortably on a Sunday afternoon discussing on HN are mostly not going to be in the same mindset we would be after having been taken in for questioning. You cannot count on yourself. You will be facing unknown unknowns. And the risks of screwing up are huge. Your opponents are experienced, and have vast resources they will draw on unhesitatingly. That's why the advice is always simple: just do not try to outthink this, unless perhaps you know for sure you're willing to have your reputation destroyed and go to prison for it (and few actually have any real inkling what that is like or means) and it seems to be a genuine emergency (because otherwise it will not hurt to give it a day).
Whether they have a separate argument has no bearing on the logical consistency of the one the GP gave.
>A person who didn't wear a seatbelt and succeeded in making it to their destination safely would not have a need for a doctor" so therefore doctors saying they've had hundreds/thousands of cases where they wished their patient had worn a seatbelt is confirmation bias.
This absolutely is the same logical fallacy. In this case the conclusion is still correct.
On the other hand consider a trauma surgeon and motorcycle accidents. They may very rarely treat a patient that was not wearing a helmet. Does that mean wearing a helmet is dangerous? Of course not. It's because an accident severe enough to require a trauma surgeon is likely to be fatal to someone not wearing a helmet.
Again, the point is not that asking for an attorney is the wrong course of action. The point is that the argument in the GP isn't logically sound.