Eight reasons even the innocent shouldn't talk to the police
Catch more news and commentary about personal freedom at
Civil Liberties Examiner.
In one of the more engaging, convincing and easily understood presentations I've ever seen, Prof. James Duane of the Regent University School of Law explains why even angels devoid of the slightest moral blemish should never speak to police officers, tax collectors or other law-enforcement agents investigating crimes. Duane assumes no malice on the part of the police -- just human failings and motivations. In a 27-minute lecture, he details the legal pitfalls people can wander into even by telling the absolute truth.
Of course, "innocence" is relative. At the very beginning of the video, Prof. Duane addresses the -- literally -- unknowable extent to which federal laws and regulations have grown, so that even the government itself has no idea how many punishable offenses there are. It's very easy for people with clean consciences to admit to violating laws and regulations they never knew existed.
What about the other side of the debate?
Responding in the same classroom to Prof. Duane, Office George Bruch of the Virginia Beach Police Department says ... the professor is absolutely right.
Civil Liberties Examiner.
In one of the more engaging, convincing and easily understood presentations I've ever seen, Prof. James Duane of the Regent University School of Law explains why even angels devoid of the slightest moral blemish should never speak to police officers, tax collectors or other law-enforcement agents investigating crimes. Duane assumes no malice on the part of the police -- just human failings and motivations. In a 27-minute lecture, he details the legal pitfalls people can wander into even by telling the absolute truth.
Of course, "innocence" is relative. At the very beginning of the video, Prof. Duane addresses the -- literally -- unknowable extent to which federal laws and regulations have grown, so that even the government itself has no idea how many punishable offenses there are. It's very easy for people with clean consciences to admit to violating laws and regulations they never knew existed.
What about the other side of the debate?
Responding in the same classroom to Prof. Duane, Office George Bruch of the Virginia Beach Police Department says ... the professor is absolutely right.
Labels: civil liberties, kop kapers
posted by J.D. Tuccille at
12:21 PM
81 Comments:
The parents of JonBenet Ramsey would have been in a better situation overall if they had talked more freely to the authorities from the get go.
That's one example this lawyer could think of off the top of his head.
These videos were great, but I'm curious about two scenarios that weren't mentioned:
1) what happens when you want to report a crime to the police?
2) what happens if you are a bystander/witness to a crime and the police ask you for information?
Sheer literal-mindedness would suggest that "don't ever talk to the police when they're investigating a crime" means to not answer questions in either of these scenarios. I have difficulty believing that this was the speakers' intent, though.
Jim, the Ramseys were advised quite effectively NOT to speak to the police.
Please define "better situation"
Nothing good would have come from them speaking to the police, their attorney knew that.
Your comment is irrelevant, adds nothing to the discussion & should be summarily deleted.
One thing that I find interesting, and perhaps this is ust me but the cop should have taken his own advice. Isn't referring to a certain type of people as 'hood rats' slightly bigoted and derogatory. Perhaps this cop have some cultural sensitivity training.
Very important information. This should be taught in public education in the states.
This is exactly the type of thing they'll NEVER teach in the US. Ever. I agree with your comment, though. The subject of 'Civics' is taught under the flag without time for questions, early in the morning, in about grade 9. Once. Does that explain anything to anyone else?
Man this is really scary stuff...
Is there anyway to acquire a transcript of this for those of us on dial-up?
I don't know of any transcript, but the folks who might be able to provide one are at the Regent University Media Department here.
Andrew,
While Prof. Duane was pretty absolutist in his statement, I think that was for effect. He likely meant that you shouldn't talk to the police when you may be the subject of their interest.
Something which wasn't covered in the talks, but which I learned from reading Perry Mason novels:
Most people think the cop's job is to investigate the crime and find the criminal. While this may be true legally, this is not really the case. The cop's job is to produce a prosecutable case.
One might think that the two are equivalent, that is, investigating the crime results in uncovering evidence against a person, and that evidence eventually adds up to a prosecutable case.
But this ignores something very important: psychology. An investigator starts off with an open mind. As the information accumulates, he is continually evaluating it to reach conclusions about who the guilty party might be. There comes a time when he decides in his own mind who the likely suspect(s) are. From this point on, even the most fair minded and honest investigators can't help but be influenced by their own bias. This means that they tend to focus on and remember things that support their hypothesis, and dismiss as irrelevant evidence that might exonerate the suspect. This is very easy to do, because when you are investigating and the whole picture is not clear to you, it is very difficult to know what is relevant and what is not. Indeed, your criteria for relevancy is often based on the hypotheses you have formed so far.
Remember, the prosecution gets to pick its own case. While there are laws that they may not conceal evidence favorable to the defendant, such things often come down to judgment calls. And they have nothing to conceal if they never bothered to look carefully for evidence that might have exonerated the defendant anyway, since their focus was on building a prosecutable case against one person.
I mention all this to show that our legal system isn't quite as fair as it seems. In fact, it heavily favors the prosecution. On the flip side, they also carry the burden of proof, but as the police guy explained, what the law says and what the jury think are two different things. In their minds, you already have a strike or two against you, because you're sitting in that defendant's chair while they are free.
This is why it is specially important not to help them make an even stronger case against you. No matter how much you are tempted, just be polite and keep your mouth shut.
Remember, the prosecution gets to pick its own case. While there are laws that they may not conceal evidence favorable to the defendant, such things often come down to judgment calls. And they have nothing to conceal if they never bothered to look carefully for evidence that might have exonerated the defendant anyway, since their focus was on building a prosecutable case against one person.
Sure. Take a look at The Evidence for examples of a well known case where the police resolutely ignored actual evidence which might have helped the defense (and led them to the truth), while chasing possible evidence at a cost to the state of $$millions but never actually finding anything.
The Ramseys had the right to fight their local police. It was their choice.
OJ Simpson probably wouldn't have made it much further w/o the help of somebody to tell him to shut up. Is OJ really better off being out of jail all these years? He would have gotten treatment in prison, most likely. He would be getting out of prison right about now.
So, I'm not just saying society would be better off if OJ had talked to the police, OJ himself would be better off.
I'm not a criminal defense attorney though. Isn't it funny how the former criminal defense attorney thinks everybody needs a criminal defense attorney in all situations?
Absolutist advice such as this has the benefit of being easy to understand and follow, but it's not the best for everybody's situation.
Absolutist advice such as this has the benefit of being easy to understand and follow, but it's not the best for everybody's situation.
Can you list some cases where people talked themselves out of trouble?
Meh, the advice that you should never talk to police - even if you're innocent - should be taken with a grain of salt. Yeah, I can understand why criminals (for their own self-interest) should not talk to police, but I've talked to police on numerous occasions to report crimes or *help* them find a criminal. Sure, you can accurately make the statement that "if you are concerned solely about yourself, then you should never talk to police", but I feel it's kind of a civic duty to track down criminals. In fact, I'm sure criminals *LOVE* the advice that people should never talk to police. If that happens, they've effectively created a wall of silence between the population (i.e. the victims who know enough to put them in jail) and the police (who seek to put them there). Saying that you should never talk to police is a little bit like saying that you should never, ever attempt to save a drowning person. Yes, from the standpoint of pure self-interest, you are putting yourself at risk by helping the drowning (and there are cases of would-be rescuers drowning), but it takes some degree of callousness and dismissal of social responsibility to actually do nothing.
By the way, recently I had heard about criminals in Black communities pushing the idea that it's very, very bad to be a snitch. In other words, talking to police. They've effectively convinced the population that it is very, very bad to be a snitch. Who suffers because of that horrible move by the population to accept that belief? The criminals? Of course not. The criminals benefit from a silent population. Rather, it's the people in those neighborhoods. They've pulled the rug out from under their own feet by maintaining silence. They're protecting the criminals, and they're worse off because of it.
I would add that it's not surprising that a defense attorney would suggest the "never talk to police without an attorney" idea. Ignoring the fact that he's effectively making himself essential (and that means getting paid), the other bias in his head comes from the fact that he works for *individuals*, not society as a whole. Reporting crimes helps society as a whole, but it's not something that he sees because he's representing individuals. If you're concerned *solely* about one and only one individual, then it's not surprising that he suggests that they should never talk to police. From a selfish, individualistic perspective, that's what each individual should do: ignore any social benefit or social responsibility of reporting crime, never give to charity, and never let anyone in front of you in traffic. Screw everyone.
bc, the practice of discouraging snitching is not new, nor is it endemic to black communities. anywhere there is organized or semi-organized crime you'll find people discouraged from talking to the police about criminal activity. you could find it in areas with gangs, mafia family situations, hate groups like neo-nazis, or even corrupt law enforcement rings.
interesting advice but useless in a great many countries where you don't have a default right to a lawyer (or might not have access to one) at the time. quite handy if i am ever picked up in the US though, i guess... (unless i was picked up as a 'terrorist', in which cases i could forget about rights to anything whatsoever for the rest of time).
just to put it in perspective, i was an individual of interest to the japanese police twice. once on a v minor matter and once on something more serious (innocent on all counts, your honour). you have no rights to a lawyer for 3 weeks under japanese law, though i was only 'asked' to stay for about 10 hours and 4 hours respectively. the first time they threw the book at me. full on 'write your 'confession' out now or we will keep you here', the second time i was out of there in no time and was interviewed by a charming old gent who apologised for the time it took. both times i had to sign statements (the first time i actually wrote the only semi-accurate 'confession', as they clearly weren't joking). hard to say if it helped in the first case, but if i had been more difficult in the second case they could have made my life much more painful, instead of letting me go after a few hours.
So, it can sometimes help to talk, especially when the police have plenty of discretion in how they handle your case. sorry to dissapoint.
I was falsely arrested back in '90.
Despite the best efforts of the officer holding me in "investigative detention" ... something in the phrase "... anything you say can and will be used against you ..." kept ringing in my ear.
So I asked for counsel instead.
Glad I did. Though I had physical evidence and witnesses all stacked in my favor, the DA persisted.
In the end, the case got tossed, I was expunged and was later able to get a rather high security clearance because I simply kept my mouth shut.
This is a great video. Ive been passing out copies on dvd for a couple months now. For those who want to download the high quality version of this, it is available for free from itunes here:
http://deimos.apple.com/WebObjects/Core.woa/Browse/regent.edu.1531303458.01531303460
(note: clicking that link should open up your itunes program)
Just a couple of things...
There is a lot of people who have talked their way out of trouble. At least for minor issues. Some policemen are actually human and reasonable and some like to play god. Some are just stupid and will forgive people who call them 'lieutenant' while looking really afraid. Still, I generally agree with the advice given here.
Second, as a Spaniard I have to say that a cop from the US accusing Spain of "physical interrogation" is nothing less than hilarious. I don't think this needs clarification.
Last, the professor's way of speaking is unbearable. It sounds like he can't wait to listen to his smart ideas. I would hate to attend that lessons.
Good post, though.
Just out of curiosity, does anyone here know at what point do Police have to disclose that you have become a suspect rather than a witness?
And if you turn from a witness to a suspect can your previous statements be used against you even though you were not read your Miranda rights etc?
"Just out of curiosity, does anyone here know at what point do Police have to disclose that you have become a suspect rather than a witness?"
Anything you freely volunteer to police can be used against you, period.
When are police required to let you know you're a suspect ... when they arrest you.
Seriously, the problem is too many people base their view of the legal system on television dramas.
> By the way, recently I had heard about criminals in
> Black communities pushing the idea that it's very,
> very bad to be a snitch.
This is, btw, as much about race as it is about crime. The people asking the Black public to snitch are usually White, and in today's liberal and conformist (redundant I know) Black culture Blacks are encouraged to reject anything "White".
in today's liberal and conformist (redundant I know) Black culture Blacks are encouraged to reject anything "White".
Yes, that's true that Blacks are encouraged to reject anything White, but I don't understand the connection to "liberal and conformist". In fact, I don't think "liberal and conformist" plays any role whatsoever in that pattern.
Ask Rachel Hoffman what happens when you talk to and cooperate with police. Ohh wait, you can't.
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5450550&page=1
America's war on drugs has caused police to become zombie anti drug crusaders. Many vice cops are simply after the next bust with little or no regard for human life.
Unfortunately, as I think about it, I can't fault the logic. I would probably feel a bit guilty, but I can't see where ANYTHING good may come from talking to the police, particularly if you have nothing of value to add. I guess I'd wait for my lawyer to see what the police or the prosecution holds before making any decisions.
While I really agree with him that you shouldn't talk to the police in nearly any situation, it is wise to know that there are multiple layers of discretion all the way to trial where, even if they think you are guilty and have the evidence to convict you, they can decide on a whim to set your free. At the very least, the arresting officer can choose not to arrest you, the desk sergeant, can choose to set you free/not pursue the case and finally, the prosecutor can choose not to prosecute your case (including what to charge you on, plea bargains to offer, etc.). Assuming these people are more likely to choose leniency for someone who was cooperative in the investigative process, then it is possible you might be better off cooperating. However, my take on it, is that you should be the nicest, most polite and most respectful guy in the world while refusing to say anything remotely related to whatever you are buying investigated for. If you can make them like you while claiming the 5th, that would be the best of both worlds.
Officer Bruch makes a point of saying he destroys audio and video evidence after transcribing it. I find that outrageous. How can we know that mistake or malice has not led to an error or omission in the transcript? How can we ascertain the conditions of the interview with just a transcript? Why should we trust the officer's memory of how a question was answered (the tone of the answer not its content) when we could have had a recording of it? Finally, what the heck is he hiding? Destruction naturally leads to the conclusion that there's something in the recorded interview he doesn't want us to know about, something that exculpates the defendant and is not in the transcript. Virginia judges must not let defense attorneys ask if the interview was recorded, because I think most jurors would take issue if they heard it was destroyed.
He's probably completely right, but damn , does he talk FAST or what??
Great videos. Very good advice and legal scenarios. I think everyone should watch these.
I have been pulled over by police 6 times. Twice for speeding, once for traffic violations and twice for not having a front license plate.
I simply am very polite and say "I don't know officer" I answer, "Yes Sir" and I always have the right paperwork.
Result: No tickets. Why? Because the OFFICER is the one that makes the mistake during the traffic stop. By telling me the wrong speed limit or by lying and saying a fine is more than it really is.
Cops are liars, thieves and criminals too - they just have a badge that makes it ok.
This post has been removed by the author.
Yes, the professor did speak fast, but I liked it. I wanted to know what he had to say next and it was just like my generation, instant gratification every time! Also, he came off as very intelligent and has obviously spent a lot of time talking/thinking/lecturing on this subject.
The dick cop on the other hand, had more of an elitist attitude and reminded me of all the experiences I have ever had with the police...BAD. Not bad as though I were in trouble, bad as in they were all assholes, for what? speeding?
Police pose problems for obvious reasons because there is nt power check. I am sure that there are some very nice police officers out there, like the one who pulled me over when I was 19, said that I was being pulled over for a traffic violation for being a hottie, had four other cops with him in the car. asked for my number. seriously.
Until I meet a cop who doesn't have a holier-than-thou attitude, one that doesn't assume the worst in me, one that doesn't slightly tilt his seat back in his ultra-sleek cruiser paid for by tax payers money with is cool terminator shades on looking for the next teenager skateboarding.....etc. etc. THEN, I will respect cops.
This seems to me like an immature rant that I haven't felt in quite sometime, but just the nature of the cop in the second video really pissed me off and he was boring (if he does become a prosecutor, he's going to loose out of boring the jury/judge to death...picture it-- verdict, the defendant is obviously guilty, but the prosecution sucked so bad, we've decided to let this person off the hook!!). I realize all of the benefits that police bring to society and communities. I could also write out a retort to every point I just mentioned, but I just want to be mad at the cops! Cause we're online and can say anything we want! Aint it great?
no talking to the police ever!
>>>Blogger Jim said...
The parents of JonBenet Ramsey would have been in a better situation overall if they had talked more freely to the authorities from the get go.
That's one example this lawyer could think of off the top of his head<<<
And if they had, Patsy Ramsey would have died in jail.
BC, it seems you're missing the point of this whole lecture.
I don't think the professor is saying that's it's wrong to report crimes or have a friendly chat with a cop about the weather.
The point they're making is that you should never answer questions or volunteer information when the police are questioning you in the context of an investigation.
While there is some gray area I suppose, I think the distinction is pretty clear between "reporting crimes" and between interviewed down at the station.
The police officer completely agreed with the professor. Do you really think the cop would have agreed if the proffesor meant nobody should report crimes or serve as witnesses?
I think the last "anonymous" commenter is correct.
The point of the lecture was to show the potential pitfalls of talking to the police when you're a possible suspect and/or subject of an investigation, particularly without the advice of competent counsel.
Reporting crimes or having a friendly chat with your local patrol officers is quite different than being interviewed as a potential suspect by responding and/or investigating officers or detectives.
BC: I would add that it's not surprising that a defense attorney would suggest the "never talk to police without an attorney" idea. Ignoring the fact that he's effectively making himself essential (and that means getting paid), the other bias in his head comes from the fact that he works for *individuals*, not society as a whole."
----
I'm a criminal defense attorney, and I have to say that's one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard. A good three-fourths of my office's business comes from clients who failed to keep their mouths shut and talked themselves into a case. We see it over and over again. If more people heeded our sage advice to shut the hell up, I GUARANTEE you we defense attorneys would have less business, not more!
Secondly, I take exception to your characterization of defense attorneys as working for individuals rather than society. What a crock! Many of us see ourselves as working to keep the government honest, uphold the constitution and the rights and liberties it confers upon all of us, and make our justice system more balanced and equitable. You may think that doesn't count as working for society. I would respectfully disagree.
David said...
Reporting crimes or having a friendly chat with your local patrol officers is quite different than being interviewed as a potential suspect by responding and/or investigating officers or detectives.
At any point where there is an explicit or an implicit 'you' in the question being asked, "I have a right to remain silent", "I assert my constitutional rights" and "I want a lawyer" are the only things I will say.
Actually, I have talked my way out of trouble with the police. I was caught red handed smoking pot as a teenager. If I had clammed up and demanded a lawyer, the policman may have given me a big search and a hard time. As it was, I told the policman some false story, and in response he said "Give me the dope and I'll let you go." I did and he did. I think if you start demanding a lawyer, you may deprive the police of using discretion in dealing with you.
A house next to me was once robbed, and the local police asked me if I had seen anything. I told them that I had seen a car that I didn't recognize and some people in the house who I thought were taking care of the pets, but that I didn't pay much attention and wasn't sure of details. A few weeks later they arrived at my house at 10 at night and said they wanted to talk to me. They said that my story diodn't add up, wanted me to go over it again, and also wanted me to go down to the station to take a lie detector test to "remove myself from suspicion". They also made various threats about what might happen if I didn't cooperate. I spent a sleepless night and thankfully went to a lawyer the next morning who suggested to them that it might be better if they didn't continue to talk with me. To help put this all in context, I should add that I'm a quiet, unassuming college professor; then in my early 60s; had been living in that neighborhood for nearly 20 years; and never had had any involvement with the police before. Based upon this experience, I'm not sure I'd ever talk to the police about anything, if I could help it.
I was surprised to see this blog, supporting a viewpoint I came to 100% on my own. My best friend is a detective investigating sex, gambling, and computer crimes. From our involved discussions through the years I came to the conclusion presented here: Never talk to police. I told my friend this with a full logical analysis as to why, and he laughed about it. He also asked me to never tell anyone else this conclusion, because he knew I was absolutely right. He said that he would hate for any police to have to deal with me because they would probably have nothing they could take to court, but that hardly anyone but me could follow through with no talking.
Thanks for providing this blog.
Police officers and prosecutors want convictions. They get strokes for getting them quickly. They have no obligation to tell anyone the truth in an investigation.
Prosecutors will look good and keep their jobs if they're known as "tough on crime." So neither police officers nor prosecutors are neutral parties: they have much to gain from getting a conviction on a serious charge quickly.
Justice is not only about seeing that bad guys get it. It's seeing that the case is handled justly - that the punishment really does fit the crime, that the standards of evidence handling really are met, that coercion of witnesses has not happened, that the defendant really does understand what's happening, that the charge is not an unnecessarily severe one, that the DA is not using the case to make himself/herself look good.
Defense attorneys are the unsung heroes of the justice process. Even when their clients are guilty, true justice demands that they not be victimized by overzealous prosecution or unfair police work.
Justice is not justice unless defendants are well defended.
Many years ago, I listened to a lecture given by a law professor from Minnesota and the subject was criminal law and custodial interrogation. Of course, I was in my early 20s then and still subject to being astonished that the world didn't work the way I was taught in school. ("The policeman is your friend." and other stuff like that) At any rate, he was using the inmates currently serving time in state institutions in Minnesota and he remarked that if, after having just committed their crime, each of them had had their tongues cut out, nearly 75% of them would not now be in prison.
This is great information to know, but only if you are being accused. If you are a witness or need to report a crime, then go talk to police.
Free Xbox 360 Elite said...
This is great information to know, but only if you are being accused. If you are a witness or need to report a crime, then go talk to police.
Unless you can prove you are innocent, that can lead to interrogation, arrest, trial and conviction -- and has done in the past. The cops go for the tall poppy.
From having followed the Duke lacrosse case, my advice is, "Don't talk to the police without an attorney", period.
If the lacrosse players had refused to submit DNA samples and had individually demanded Probable Cause hearings as to why they were considered a suspect, the case would have collapsed at the start (since there was no evidence of any kind against any of them).
Instead, they gave up the chance for a Probable Cause hearing and volunteered to give their DNA--even joking that doing so was getting them out of a day of practice. Since they were innocent and the charges were absurd, they had nothing to worry about, right?
I'm reminded of the recent AG for the Commonwealth of Virginia who commented that prosecutors do not seek the truth or fairness or equity. They only seek convictions. They are judged on their conviction rates, their careers and future pay raises depend on it and truth be damned.
Many persons in my family and extended family are in law enforcement. I have also dated two women who were, probably still are,cops. Thru the years of listening to their "tales" with eachother, I became downright disgusted with their on and off duty conduct. I have made it clear that if they weren't members of my family I would have NO reason to speak to them. And for many years now I have NOT celebrated special occasions or holidays with them. And they STILL don't "get it".
This overlooks the publicity angle. The Duke lacrosse team was pilloried in the press for "not cooperating with the police". Numerous media types claimed it made them seem guilty. What follows is only the most egregious example.
Team's silence is sickening
RUTH SHEEHAN, Staff Writer
Comment on this story
Members of the Duke men's lacrosse team: You know. We know you know.
Whatever happened in the bathroom at the stripper party gone terribly terribly bad, you know who was involved. Every one of you does.
And one of you needs to come forward and tell the police.
Do not be afraid of retribution on the team. Do not be persuaded that somehow this "happened" to one or more "good guys."
If what the strippers say is true -- that one of them was raped, sodomized, beaten and strangled -- the guys responsible are not "good."
This seems an elementary statement, I know.
[snip]
Duke University President Dick Brodhead publicly urged them to cooperate.
All were ignoring the fact that three team members had already been interrogated 8 hours each by the Durham cops. Duke's Dean of Students (an attorney admitted to the bar in the State of NC) had apparently recommended to the team members that they NOT call their parents and attempted to organize the entire team to talk to the cops without attorneys.
Fortunately one of the team members called his father anyway and the team did not talk to the cops. That's when now-disbarred and disgraced DA Mike organized his infamous DNA dragnet. The team did go down voluntarily for that.
Locomotive Breath said...
This overlooks the publicity angle. The Duke lacrosse team was pilloried in the press for "not cooperating with the police". Numerous media types claimed it made them seem guilty.
It's important to remember that the US media, with a very few rare examples, are mind numbingly incompetent and lazy. Their idea of investigation is to read press releases. The TV 'news' shows of which those involved are inordinately proud are ludicrous comic books. 'Reporters' will always repeat a familiar 'story' or theme rather than take a fresh look. Cliches abound throughout it all. John Stewart and Stephen Colbert actually do a much better job of analysis than the multi million $$$ networks. Those networks are seemingly unashamed that this is the case.
The public has to be warned and informed that evidence of innocence can be removed deleted altered and tampered with from record with an immediate conference in the back hallway with both public attorneys and court reporter. Warned and informed that you can be obstructed from correcting the record to expose that conceled and covered up evidence. Please send a donation so this won't happen to anyone else. MOLINA 927 south Bruce-#5 Anaheim, Ca. 92804
The concealed evidence of innocence is followed up with them presenting/offering false planted rigged set-up fixed and framed serious major evidence in a printed document to jury to use against you. Fact: the planted evidence doesn't exist but the jury didn't know that as they were decieved and defrauded by these court employees. Obstruction of justice / corrupt justice / injustice.
The world is heading towards a dystopian society where everyone is guilty until proven innocent. I'm seriously considering moving far, far away from 'civilization'. I'd rather live in poverty than live in fear.
"Hood rats" is insensitive? Well...it's better than "slime-sucking, bottom-feeding scumbag oxygen thieves"...which is what they really are. "Hood rats" seems very tame and very much in keeping with a gentler, kinder, more sensitive police officer of the New Millennium.
Anonymous said...
The world is heading towards a dystopian society where everyone is guilty until proven innocent.
Not the world. Justice works fairly well in the rest of the world -- it is only in the USA where rights have been shredded and the whole system has been ruthlessly tilted towards conviction at any price.
It is good that people are making people aware of the erosion of rights the American population is facing.
First of all, I deaply respect and value Police Officers. Their duty is to stand between me and criminals and possible even die for me when doing so. That being said, if I am ever questioned by an officer or I am suspected of doing a crime my mantra is going to be "I respectfully request my lawyer, thanks." I have even instructed my family members that no matter how innocent they are to please, please, call a lawyer before they say anything. Psychologically speaking there are so many cognitive errors that people make when remembering situations that they can easily screw themselves up and innocently say things they never intended or even meant to say. The police also know how to ask seemingly innocent questions that are actually highly important in certain ways that can totally be misconstrued in trial. In the end its better to ere on the side of caution then to sit in jail.
To expand on Spanish HoodRat's comment: it may well benefit the "truly innocent" to say nothing to police, those of us who may (or may not) be violating some minor law such as expired tags can benefit from respectful discourse. I would never recommend this to anyone else, but in the real world absolutes have rare application.
While it is regretfully probably the case that it is always safer for you the individual to not talk to the police without a trained legal representative, it's just not all that realistic or good for society.
Imagine this scenario: You witness a stabbing. You see the attacker, and you even call the police. Assuming you don't anonymously report it and take off, the police arrive and ask you what happened. Do you, a) clam up and say you won't risk incriminating yourself until you have a lawyer, or b) tell them what the attacker looked like, which way they ran, where they threw the knife, etc? Yes, theoretically the cops could decide you did it and use your statements against you (he knew where the knife was and was at the scene). Or they could put out an alert to their people and catch the guy 4 blocks away ditching his bloody clothes in a dumpster.
In one situation, you're risking that the system will fail you in hopes that it catches the criminal quickly. In the other situation, you're assuming the system isn't safe, and giving the criminal extra time to flee out of fear that the cops will get you.
Cops are human, like everyone else. They have a job, and that job is to enforce every law. They often exercise discretion in whether to pull over a speeder or whatever, but in general, it's their job to keep society running smoothly on the streets as smoothness is determined by congress. And like the rest of us, sometimes they do their job poorly, and sometimes they don't like dealing with people, particularly people who give them a hard time. In general, if you are polite, courteous, and truthful, most cops will do right by you. However, if you hinder their job out of fear for your own safety, while they might understand, they're not going to be happy. Would you be?
Specifically to squibbin - maybe you've had bad experiences with cops, but keep in mind, in the case of speeding, speeding is wreckless. City design and the behavior of other drivers and pedestrians is based around the assumption that you'll be following laws, like speed limits. Yeah, most of us speed some places, but it also is a contributing factor to a lot of deadly accidents. It's just one of those things a lot of us risk on a day to day basis. Don't act like you aren't risking lives when speeding or talking on a cell or even messing with a radio. You're just betting nothing's ever going to go wrong when you do it, because nothing has before. Cops, on the other hand, get to see the people who did mess up, and did wrap their car around a pole, or hit the toddler, etc. Just remember that what is making your day horrible is something they have to watch out for every day.
"Reporting crimes... is quite different than being interviewed as a potential suspect..."
I would advise discretion when innocently reporting things to the police. When opening the real estate office where I worked one morning, I found a crack pipe on the doormat. I probably should have just thrown it away, but I called the police because I was concerned that someone might have been trying to break in. The officer who showed up took the pipe, but not before asking me a number of questions including my age, height, weight, home address, whereabouts for the last 12 hours, etc. It occurred to me as he was writing this information down that I was being scrutinized as the possible drug user because I was in possession of the paraphernalia, and knew what it was from watching too many movies and prime time TV shows.
I'm not suggesting that one turn a blind eye when another's physical well being is in danger; but for anything else, carefully consider whether reporting something is going to benefit the greater good before drawing legal attention to yourself.
Well, if one says nothing and "lawyers up" the legal bar has a pay day, if one talks and says "I think I did" to often the Criminal System will be collecting your money.
Be polite, be firm, say nothing without at least a friend in the room make that two friends in the room with dual recording devices...
If you are a suspect, then police believe that a crime has been committed. The quantity of evidence they have against you = x.
If you have not been arrested and charged, it is a safe assumption that x < probable cause (pc).
If you talk to them, there is no way to convince them that their evidence is < x. It is what it is, as the kids say.
If, however, you answer their questions, you are likely to raise the value of x to the point where x = pc, and you're busted. Their questions are specifically designed to elicit an answer which will increase the value of x.
They will not tell you what factor of pc is lacking, and thus, you never know what seemingly innocuous answer will tip the balance to the degree that they can get a warrant for your arrest and prosecution.
Ergo, STFU!
Great post and good advice.
His brother, who's eyes still don't line up correctly, took a more productive path. He sells the amazing, "Sham Wow."
http://www.shamwow.com/
I listened to both videos simultaneously and it was a genuine enlightening experience.
Then I said to myself, no, he's got a smoothe bad cop scan goin for some bucks. But he needs it to make it come to life. So I would team him up with the infomercial master, Mathew Lesko making them both talk real loud and at the same time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwO97g4L85A
Hmmm...good advice, i guess as someone pointed out earlier the only time that it's ok to talk is when you are a witness to a crime. Other than that don't say a damn word. This guy giving the speech fails to admit that cops also get physical when doing "interviews," and that's funny that he blamed cops in Europe for doing that.
a "hood rat" is what grimey slutty crack smoking, generally loud and abnoxious FEMALES that are from the hood are called.
i think hes refering to "hood niggas" but its obvious why he didnt say that.
dope video though very valuable information
The professor very briefly mentioned talking under immunity. I don't know how you would secure real, full immunity without a lawyer's help, but doing so would allow an innocent person to do his civic duty without making himself vulnerable. And if you are innocent and not a suspect but know something, why would the prosecution not grant immunity?
Zeb said...
And if you are innocent and not a suspect but know something, why would the prosecution not grant immunity?
Simple. Because if you can prove the accused is innocent you will screw up the prosecutors' case. Not only will they NOT give you immunity, it is quite common for them to threaten you, even arrest and charge you so you are forced to plead the fifth. Then they can get their conviction. Remember, in the US system results are all that matters. Guilt or innocence are irrelevant - you won't get a cushy judge's job by being squeamish.
Not only will they NOT give you immunity, it is quite common for them to threaten you, even arrest and charge you so you are forced to plead the fifth. Then they can get their conviction
That's how they got convictions in the Enron trials. The prosecutors told every defense witness they'd charge them and freeze their assets pending trial (which could be years away) if they testified for the defense. None did.
that cop sounds like a prick. Hopefully he gets cancer.
This is why we have the largest prison population....overzealous cops and prosecutors want a promotion, they want justice in their work about as much as a hooker wants an orgasm in hers.
I was recently accused of violating section p242, battery, in los angeles from 5 months ago. the DA wants me to go in and make a statement (and have not filed a criminal complaint against me yet). they're saying that i attacked a woman at a club, when in reality, i have no idea who this woman is and have never touched or hurt a woman in that kind of way ever in my life. How i was presumed the suspect? through Myspace. the woman went through myspace pictures of the community which attended that specific event, and picked out my picture as the criminal.
even some personal friends who are criminal defense attorneys are telling me not to go in there alone, regardless of the fact that i'm innocent and don't know the women, or even the fact that i have more than 30 witnesses which surrounded me that evening.
the attorneys have told me not to assist them because if at the end of the day they cannot find a criminal, they will build a case around the innocent who may have given them the most information to satisfy prosecution.
it's a sick world we're living in.
poster before me...tell the DA and police to suck it...they have nothing on you and will try to pin the crime on the innocent...right now they have zero on you and if you talk it can only get worse...any lawyer would demolish their weak case against you.
Munin:
"can your previous statements be used against you even though you were not read your Miranda rights"
That depends. They don't have to read you your rights as long as you're free to leave. If you just walk up to a police officer and tell then you robbed someone, then yes they can use that against you.
They have to read you your rights if 1) you aren't free to leave AND 2) they intend to question you. That includes any custodial interrogation, even (technically) if you're a witness - otherwise they risk your defense lawyer having everything you said thrown out. Similarly, they could arrest you and try your entire case without questioning you, in which case you would not have to be Mirandized - it would just be harder.
randian:
"Destruction naturally leads to the conclusion that there's something in the recorded interview he doesn't want us to know about"
1) Saving each tape when not required would waste money. It is important to wipe the tape so that new recordings start on blank media. Otherwise the defense could argue that a recorded confession came from a previous interview with a different suspect. Wiping the tape guarantees that anything recorded must have come from that specific interview.
2) Authorities must handle evidence. The same procedures involving evidence handling and chain of evidence documentation apply to any person who collects or handles evidence, so I don't see why transcripts would be any worse.
3) I imagine that notes taken *after* a traffic citation involving an admission of speeding would be even less accurate than a transcript which is directly made from a recording, yet both are considered evidence.
Saving each tape when not required would waste money
The cost of tape is trivial. It surely costs more money to transcribe the tape than could possibly be saved by reusing it. I stand by my statement that the only reason to transcribe the tape and then destroy it is to eliminate evidence. I do not know that this particular cop is dishonest, but I do know that dishonest cops write false transcripts. Dishonest cops want to hide evidence of coercion or mistreatment. A system that allows a cop to destroy evidence fosters perjury and evidence tampering. As I view that as a bad thing, I think the system should be designed to obstruct perjury. Ergo, the entire interview should be taped, and that tape should be preserved so the defense can examine it.
He is incorrect in many ways.
"The truth will set you free" and it will.
If the athlethe that used steroids admitted right away then she would've had a shorter sentance than shutting up for example as she would've shown "remorse" as it is called.
Other things include that statements you say cannot be used in your benifit. If you have provable statement then it is always better to say it than not to say it.
For example; If you know you were far away from the crime scene and have witnesses, transactions or anything that can prove it then you should say that at the beginning saving both you and the police time and money.
Ofcourse its a pitty the whole justice system is after to "convict" people. That it is not about finding justice but convicting someone and this makes it a bit unreliable.
But definetly not to the point that he puts it.
Ive had a listen and even though I am in the UK we have the right to remain silent
I am lucky because I was accused of assaulting two people
I kept my mouth shut when I got arrested and asked for a lawyer
I ended up not having to make a statement until all the other statements were in
I was able to in the room where they record the interviews with my lawyer present cast enough doubt, and accuse the "witnesses" of perjury and ask for a full 2 day trial with all the witnesses present
They dropped the case
It is always wisest to say nothing
In another fashion when you get stopped for speeding you dont say what the actual speed of your car is
Unless you know that you have been filmed
You reply I was driving at the speed limit or a few mph below
They can do nothing and then if they accuse you of speeding then you have a right to silence at that point.
You then see them in court
End of story
I have had my driving licence for over 20 years and had no ticket
Merry Christmas
I remain conviction free aswell
holy crap lol that cop's wife use to blow me, small world.
^^ nice blog!! ^@^
徵信, 徵信網, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 感情挽回, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 挽回感情, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 捉姦, 徵信公司, 通姦, 通姦罪, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 捉姦, 監聽, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 外遇問題, 徵信, 捉姦, 女人徵信, 女子徵信, 外遇問題, 女子徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 徵信公司, 徵信網, 外遇蒐證, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 外遇沖開, 抓姦, 女子徵信, 外遇蒐證, 外遇, 通姦, 通姦罪, 贍養費, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 女人徵信, 外遇
徵信, 徵信網, 徵信社, 徵信網, 外遇, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 女人徵信, 徵信社, 女人徵信社, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 女人徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信,
徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 抓姦, 離婚, 外遇,離婚,
外遇, 離婚, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信, 外遇, 徵信,外遇, 抓姦, 征信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信,徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社,
This is in response to the first one Jim, |They opened their mouths and then shut them when it came to suspicions. If they had not talked at all it would have left them in a better position. It wasn't not talking that hurt them. I was starting and then acting wierd and not explaining why.
Anonymous said...
One thing that I find interesting, and perhaps this is ust me but the cop should have taken his own advice. Isn't referring to a certain type of people as 'hood rats' slightly bigoted and derogatory. Perhaps this cop have some cultural sensitivity training.
Answer - calling a hood rat a hood rat is derogitory, and accurate.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home