This is idealistic at best. Remember that that is a human in that uniform, and he's making judgements based on his makeup, and he has a certain discretionary power. It's not some rigid set of guidelines like a flowchart.
Okay, one more spin-off... If cop asks whether you are armed?
- Thread starter ArmedBear
- Start date
- Status
This is idealistic at best. Remember that that is a human in that uniform, and he's making judgements based on his makeup, and he has a certain discretionary power. It's not some rigid set of guidelines like a flowchart.
danez71
Member
I did read you entire response and no where in your post did you say that.
The OP question boiled down to this.
Your basic reply was this.
And you asserted you position with.
And further asserted your position with.
So which is it? Is it ANY and ALL circumtances as you posted more than once?
Or is it
that you never said until a couple of posts ago.
The last quote I agree with because ITS IN THE RIGHT CONTEXT.
danez71 said:
No offense, but you obviously didn't read the post in its entirety. You like cutting and pasting small bits to change how things sound.
My very first post in this thread said that, and even I linked it for you. What I said, without your editing, was:
Me said:
I then went so far as to say:
Me said:
So honestly you are off base if you say that I have done nothing but recommend taking the hard line of silence. Clearly that's not the case.
However.....
danez71 said:
Yes, legal scholars recommend it in ANY and ALL circumstances, that is true. I've posted it more than once because it is, without any question, the method recommended by lawyers pretty much 100% of the time.
If people want to apply a little common sense to it and deviate from that advice, that's up to them and they need to make their own decisions.
That doesn't change the fact that legal scholars recommend not talking in ANY and ALL circumstances.
When people decide to go against all of that legal advice by speaking with LE, they need to understand the potential consequences of that.
This isn't nearly as complicated as you are making it.
Last edited:
Deanimator
Member
No, it's the law, take it or leave it.
If the LEO chooses to leave it, then he's a criminal and should and will be dealt with appropriately... unless you choose to condone that sort of lawlessness.
I don't have any "discretion" regarding obeying the law. I either do it, or I don't. If I don't and get caught, there are consequences. There will be consequences if he doesn't.
Know the law, obey the law.
If you do that, you won't need extra-legal "breaks".
If you think that you should get extra-legal breaks for pandering to a stranger's whims, you're doing your part to corrupt the system of justice in this country.
Deanimator
Member
It isn't complicated at all.
Know the law and obey it.
Insist that those who deal with you do likewise, LEO or otherwise.
I've known people for whom that was as inconceivable as an admonition to "breathe ketchup". But that's their problem.
Some people just can't play it straight.
danez71
Member
Ok. Lets get down to brass tacks as they say.
Your original post and the same post you provided a link to was this http://thehighroad.org/showpost.php?...07&postcount=4
In post 67 you said this (intire post so there isnt wiggle room)
I bolded the 2 senteneces in the 2nd quote.
You NEVER SAID those two bolded sentences in post 4 that you referenced. You didnt even say anything in post #4 that resembles the 2 bolded sentences.
Rather than saying I'm not reading your post completely, I politely request that you re-read your post #4 that you referenced and point out where you stated either one of those 2 bold sentences you stated in post 67 quoted entirely.
I'm not making this complicated. Your inconsistant stance and/or possibly lack of typing what you meant, is what is complicated and/or confusing because it appears you are now back peddling
Once again. Please re-read your post #4 and point out where you stated either one or both of those two bolded sentences you stated in your post #67.
If you can do that.... I will graciously say you're right and I'll apologize.
With out that, it leaves no other logical deduction other than your statements are inconsistant and/or vague and/or overstated.
To be honest I have no idea what point you are trying to make here.
All I've said all along is:
1) It's ALWAYS advised not to talk to LE, that's pretty much well documented countless places.
2) Sometimes people may feel like they want to deviate from that for whatever reason but if they do, they need to understand the potential consequences. Since it's not always easy to take the "don't talk 100% of the time" stance, an understanding of where it might be more appropriate is a good idea.
Like I keep saying, not complicated. I said the same thing in the other threads on this too.
Last edited:
If you think that gripping the steering wheel in defiance and refusing to talk to a cop is good sense, you're doing your part to misinform people who may not know better.
Deanimator
Member
"Gripping the steering wheel", whether in "defiance" or not, during a traffic stop, is not only NOT a crime (absent some lawful command to the contrary by an LEO), it's generally recommended. Refusing to talk to a cop on any substantive matter without benefit of counsel is also highly recommended. The only people who DON'T recommend that are people who quite obviously don't believe in the 4th and 5th Amendments.
And speaking of people doing their part to "misinform", weren't you the guy who said that LEOs had a LEGAL DUTY TO "PROTECT" INDIVIDUALS not in a "special relationship with police? We all know THAT'S errant nonsense, don't we?
The ONLY downside to refusing to speak to police about any substantive matter without benefit of counsel is that a particular cop MIGHT not like it. And as we all know, his likes and dislikes are of no consequence. Only adherence to the law, yours and his, matters. Anything else takes you completely outside of the western rational-legal tradition. I live in a country ruled by laws, not by men. I intend to keep it that way.
I'd like to keep my encounters with the police as different from those which take place in Mexico or Nigeria as much as humanly possible.
The downside is causing you more trouble than if had merely cooperated.
You do it your way, I'll do it mine. Mine has yielded positive results so far.
Men enforce those laws, and are subject to the same vagaries of personality as anyone else.
You have quite an idealistic view of the world, my friend.
And that's the point you seem to be missing. The 4th and 5th Amendments specifically are in place to account for that, yet you are suggesting that anyone who understands those protections, or invokes them, only does so because they have a "chip on their shoulder" or to "show how tough they are".
Doesn't make any sense.
hunto said:
Yet it clearly happens because we have several threads going on right here at THR discussing encounters that went wrong for lawful gun carriers.
I'm glad it has never happened to you, but that certainly doesn't mean that it never happens to anyone.
I'm not missing anything. But to ignore the human side of law enforcement is folly. That's why I don't like that video, or the blanket advice "never talk to a cop".
Deanimator
Member
Deanimator
Member
"More trouble" than being arrested and possibly indicted for something you didn't do?
And how would something worse happen without an overt criminal act by the cop?
My actions are predicated on the rule of law, not the rule of men. I've lived in places where the latter prevailed. No thanks, I'll pass.
Like I keep saying, men enforce those laws, and to ignore the human side of law enforcement is to do so at your peril.
That said, I will agree on this: of both hypotheticals we are discussing, the potential for more damage to you is to to talk. The likelihood of trouble is less than if you cooperate, but the potential trouble is infinite, up to and including doing time innocently. So if a person were so inclined as to prescribe a rule to follow 100% of the time, then yes, silence is prudent.
Deanimator
Member
They'll enforce those laws according to law or there will be consequences. That's completely nonnegotiable on my part.
You have a cynical view of the world that prevails in places where it's physically dangerous to be stopped by the police. If that attitude becomes common enough (and in certain places in this country, it has), it'll be dangerous (and expensive) to be stopped by the police here. I refuse to encourage such corruption by indulging it.
But the consequences later don't do anything to prevent the cop from doing whatever. You have no power over him, just recourse. And as you know, his word carries more weight than John Q. Public.
The police I encounter in my hometown aren't yet that corrupt.
Deanimator
Member
Hundreds of thousands of men and women have died to protect my 4th and 5th Amendment rights. I'd say that's "trouble". If I'm not willing to be INCONVENIENCED to preserve those rights, I don't deserve to have them, or any others.
And "trouble" flows both ways. If an LEO wants to step outside of the law, I probably can't stop that by the side of the road. After that, there are an infinity of ways to punish bad behavior, some of them subtle but absolutely unrecoverable.
Deanimator
Member
Actually I have considerable power. I can affect his career adversely, and without either a lawsuit or even a written reprimand.
You're not from Chicago.
You want to argue, and I'm just about done arguing.
But your considerable power? Cop can beat your ass, claim you assaulted him, and you may NEVER get out of prison again. What can you possibly do about it? Cops word > yours every time, law or not. A cop can make your life a whole lot more miserable a whole lot quicker than you can his. Why antagonize him? Unless there exists some semi-warlike state between police and citizens (evidently Chicago is one) mutual respect should reign.
In New Mexico, I would just do as I am asked to do.
comply now; if not happy, do something about it later
comply now; if not happy, do something about it later
Anyway, if there are exceptions, like in my hometown where the cops aren't your enemy, like they evidently are in some of your hometowns, then you can't say the advice should be 100%.
- Status