Is there a *downloadable* version of "Why you shouldn't talk to the police?"

[Trebor]

I've seen links to the YouTube version of the Attorney and the Cop presentions on "Why you shouldn't tallk to the police."

Is there a downloadable version available I can save to my computer to show people when I'm not on-line? I haven't been able to find it yet if there is.

 

[Duke of Doubt]

As a criminal defense attorney I am too often in the position of cleaning up after my client has said too much to police, usually without realizing they have incriminated themselves. It's not like TV; a trained police investigator will not baldly accuse the suspect of anything. It's much more subtle, and typical criminals aren't equipped intellectually for that sort of mental warfare.

HOWEVER, it is important for the innocent person, in addition to not saying too MUCH, not to say too LITTLE, either. Do not hinder apprehension by clamming up, "taking the fifth" (not applicable in those situations) and denying knowledge of an active suspect's whereabouts. Do not harbor fugitives. Do not receive stolen property or evidence or contraband by hiding it for a friend. Do not make false statements by lying to police about your knowledge of or involvement in an incident. If you REALLY are worried about false incrimination, fine, say you want a lawyer present before answering more questions. But don't just shake your head and say "no" when the truthful answer is "yes." As an innocent party I've been swept up in quite a few investigations over the years and, knowing I was not criminally involved, deflected unwarranted suspicion with honest answers which did not incriminate me or anyone else. If you aren't up to that, okay -- just lawyer up. You'll probably be taken into custody, but your lawyer will love you for it. But whatever you do, DON'T LIE, and don't become an accessory after the fact to someone else's problem.

 

[Trebor]

Good advice.

But, I'm looking for a specific video from a legal seminar. An attorney and a cop both discusses interogation techniques and why you shouldn't talk to the police.

The video links I've found have all been You Tube and I want a downloadable version.

The You Tube version made the rounds of the gun boards a few months back and I'm hoping someone knows of a different source.

 

[Mojo-jo-jo]

Try here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...qwLyr5HYDw&q=why+you+shouldn't+talk+to+police

There is a link on the right side to download it in .mp4 format (generally for Ipod, but it is playable with other software as well).

 

[Wolfebyte]

I use the url: http://videodownloadx.com/
and paste the URL of the YouTube video into the box and download the .flv file to my documents.

I then use the YouTube downloader.exe (http://youtubedownload.altervista.org) to convert the downloaded .flv file to Windows Media Player format.

It sounds double duty, but I've seen too many of the youtube videos that would not download using the youtube downloader alone..

then I watch the videos on my laptop later when I'm not connected to the net.

 

[DCortez]

Good advice on this video.

/tinfoilhat on

I do have to wonder, how many cops will respect your right to remain silent. Will I take a beating in some jurisdictions for excercising my rights?

Guess a beating on the highway is better than a beating in prison, lol.

/tinfoilhat off

 

[Duke of Doubt]

DCortez: "I do have to wonder, how many cops will respect your right to remain silent. Will I take a beating in some jurisdictions for excercising my rights?"

The post-Miranda generation is so well-trained and their respect for procedure so ingrained that I'd not expect much of that, except perhaps in some small, unprofessional departments. I've never seen "aggressive interrogation" of in-custodies. HOWEVER, I HAVE heard reliable accounts of "aggressive" roadside interviews, often after chases and accidents. In one case, this led to all criminal charges against my client being dropped, presumably so that I could not obtain the videotape (assuming it still existed) through discovery. I suspect the PD was pretty confident that I wouldn't represent the client in a civil action, and that he wouldn't be able to hire or convince anyone else to on a contingent basis (assuming the tape still existed).

 

[DCortez]

DoD, I hope you are right.

I've been pulled over a few times in my 30 years of driving. Each experience, except for one, usually started off with questioning. Do you know how fast you were going, do you know why I pulled you over, followed up with what's your hurry, where are you headed, etc...

Seems very unprofessional and un-American to start fishing without first reading our rights to us. I'd rather answer, "Excuse me, but I don't see what that has to do with me providing your my license and proof of insurance". I'm getting older and little more crotchety.

Am I wrong?

 

[Duke of Doubt]

DCortez, they don't have to Mirandize you unless and until you are in custody. Otherwise cops would spend their entire day tutoring witnesses and suspects about the Constitution. Of course, you still HAVE those rights before (and after) you are in custody. They don't even really have to Mirandize you at all; it's just that your statements cannot be used against you in court after the point where they should have Mirandized you. One abuse I HAVE seen -- claims by cops that they read the suspect their rights, when they probably didn't. To oversome this problem, many departments have the suspect sign a Miranda card. That's a whole other discussion.

 

[DontBurnMyFlag]

In my few years in law enforcement I must tell you all that the new generation of cops is explicitly trained in all knowledge of the 4th amendment and how to conduct themselves during police/citizen contacts.

I wont go into too much detail as I tend to ramble.

But when I roll up on a scene where someone is a victim, I always treated them as such. I treated normal citizens as such. If they did not wish to talk to me, then they could leave (provided it was not a stop I based on probable cause).

During traffic stops, several citizens refused to answer my trivial questions about menial things. I.e. Where you are headed, why you are in this neighborhood, why you ran the red light etc. Now I didnt ask these questions to everyone, just certain people who given the time place and circumstances aroused suspicion.

Now I did not get angry when they refused to answer the questions. They had every right to do so (in certain situations.) But their attitude after the fact was very indignant and crass and often resulted in them getting a ticket for whichever infraction they were stopped for.

There is nothing wrong with being polite. Do so and if the officer was anything like me, you'll be on your way momentarily with a warning and a word of caution.

But thats just me.

 

[DCortez]

I'm not much of a law breaker. I speed every now and then but that's about it.

The last time I was stopped, it was for no front license plate. Here in Texas, it's required. I told the trooper the truth, I had just replaced the bumper, the hood, and the vehicle was repainted a week earlier. It has slipped my mind to replace the plate. He let me off with a warning.

However, I did not like the troopers (was two in one car) questioning my wife and kids while I was around the back of our Suburban. I don't like being impolite, but don't like having my privacy or rights stepped on. From their perpsective, I would have questioned me too. We were fully loaded (possible smugglers) and on our way to Florida for a vacation.

How can you go about letting an officer know you don't mind getting a ticket for breaking the law but do not like being questioned?

Thanks again for the input and civil discussion.

 

[Zoogster]

There was a very good video of it available in a local newspaper article, but it was removed.


Essentialy the reason not to talk is not only self incrimination (even an innocent person can incriminate themselves based on how they describe an action.) One of the major reasons cited that talking to the police is very foolish is that it then places a lot of your credibility in the hands of the officer in any potential future court case.

Even a perfectly innocent person who tells the officer one story can be in trouble if the officer months or years later recalls something slightly different than what was actualy said at the time.
The officer may have dealt with hundreds of similar situation in the meantime and remembering one detail of your story differently can question the credibility of your testimony.
Essentialy pitting the word of a LEO against your word in court.

If on the other hand you never gave them your version of events they have no version to incorrectly remember months or years later in court.

This is important to remember. You can tell the truth in all situations and if the LEO remembers it differently in the future even if he is incorrect it can sound like you are contradicting yourself and hurt your credibility before the jury.
That can happen with a perfectly honest LEO with a busy schedule. You are relying on the memory of someone that deals with similar situations all the time. Nevermind one with ulterior motives.

By never giving your detailed story to the LEO the LEO cannot give testimony about what came out of your mouth. Correctly or incorrectly. That means what you say in court will not contradict what the LEO remembers you saying.


So even the totaly innocent can benefit greatly by not putting thier future in the hands of a LEO's memory in that LEO's future testimony. What comes out of your own mouth can be more damaging than any other evidence. So what allegedly came out of your own mouth, even if incorrectly remembered by the LEO can be almost as bad.
Then you have to contradict the LEO's testimony. Wouldn't it be better if you didn't have to do that?

At the same time as the video says what you told the police cannot be used to help you. Only to hurt you. If it is in your favor it is just heresay and dismissed as not evidence one way or another.
So the only way it can be used in court is to harm you, not as evidence in your defense.

 

[coloradokevin]

Is there a *downloadable* version of "Why you shouldn't talk to the police?"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I've seen links to the YouTube version of the Attorney and the Cop presentions on "Why you shouldn't tallk to the police."

Is there a downloadable version available I can save to my computer to show people when I'm not on-line? I haven't been able to find it yet if there is.

Given that this site is dedicated exclusively to gun-related topics, I still have to wonder why these threads exist?

This has nothing to do with guns.
[/thread?]

 

[Zoogster]

Given that this site is dedicated exclusively to gun-related topics, I still have to wonder why these threads exist?

It has a lot to do with guns because it deals with any situation arising after a self defense situation.
It also deals with potential situations involving any of numerous potential violations of gun laws.
Laws regarding transport, ownership, possession,registration, licenses, fees/taxes etc etc

There is many situations where someone even not breaking a firearm law could create a worse situation by getting caught up int he legal system as a result of speaking with the police.
There is also situations where someone breaking a law regarding firearms they do not know about could incriminate themselves as a result.
It has a lot to do with firearms because firearm and weapon laws are some of the least intuitive and most numerous of laws.

Is there a downloadable version available I can save to my computer to show people when I'm not on-line? I haven't been able to find it yet if there is.

On the google video site you can find one of the numerous copies of the video. Look up the guy's name " James Duane ". There is even some that combine the professor's and the officer's reply into one video. You can then click "download video ipod/PSP" and save it as an MP4 file. A format that works with the default windows player.

You can also get numerous conversion tools to convert from one video format or another and play in the more common video players.
Even without such tools it is easy.
You tube videos and other video sharing website videos are all downloaded onto your computer in a temp file. Few things in that file should be the size of videos, so it should be easy to sort and find them. Players that work in that format are available even if you do not wish to convert them.

 

[Trebor]

Given that this site is dedicated exclusively to gun-related topics, I still have to wonder why these threads exist?

This has nothing to do with guns.

Considering that this site has a strong emphasis on the use of firearms in armed self defense, a discussion of how to handle yourself with the police *after* any defensive incident involving firearms is *very much* on topic.

I teach CCW classes for a living and I plan to burn copies of both the Lawyer's presentation and the cop's presentation to give to my students in addition to all the legal information they already get in the class.

 

[TRGRHPY]

I think that XavierBreath has a link to it on his blog.

How can you go about letting an officer know you don't mind getting a ticket for breaking the law but do not like being questioned?

Why do you assume that an officer cares if you mind getting a ticket? ...or being questioned, for that matter? He can ask you questions, you can decline to answer.

 

[richark1]

There was a very good video of it available in a local newspaper article, but it was removed.


Essentialy the reason not to talk is not only self incrimination (even an innocent person can incriminate themselves based on how they describe an action.) One of the major reasons cited that talking to the police is very foolish is that it then places a lot of your credibility in the hands of the officer in any potential future court case.

Even a perfectly innocent person who tells the officer one story can be in trouble if the officer months or years later recalls something slightly different than what was actualy said at the time.
The officer may have dealt with hundreds of similar situation in the meantime and remembering one detail of your story differently can question the credibility of your testimony.
Essentialy pitting the word of a LEO against your word in court.

If on the other hand you never gave them your version of events they have no version to incorrectly remember months or years later in court.

This is important to remember. You can tell the truth in all situations and if the LEO remembers it differently in the future even if he is incorrect it can sound like you are contradicting yourself and hurt your credibility before the jury.
That can happen with a perfectly honest LEO with a busy schedule. You are relying on the memory of someone that deals with similar situations all the time. Nevermind one with ulterior motives.

By never giving your detailed story to the LEO the LEO cannot give testimony about what came out of your mouth. Correctly or incorrectly. That means what you say in court will not contradict what the LEO remembers you saying.


So even the totaly innocent can benefit greatly by not putting thier future in the hands of a LEO's memory in that LEO's future testimony. What comes out of your own mouth can be more damaging than any other evidence. So what allegedly came out of your own mouth, even if incorrectly remembered by the LEO can be almost as bad.
Then you have to contradict the LEO's testimony. Wouldn't it be better if you didn't have to do that?

At the same time as the video says what you told the police cannot be used to help you. Only to hurt you. If it is in your favor it is just heresay and dismissed as not evidence one way or another.
So the only way it can be used in court is to harm you, not as evidence in your defense.

Remember? Assume that the cop is mic'd. When they put you in the back of their squad car, assume you are being recorded as well...

 

[Hugo]

I found it on itunes too in the free video section so it's free. Title is "Talking to the Police" and it has 2 parts, one by a law Prof. and one by a cop. Very educational!

Several firearms related podcasts there other than Guntalk too.

 

[Sergeant Sabre]

...typical criminals aren't equipped intellectually for that sort of mental warfare.

As a cop, and thinking back to some of the "intellectually challenged" persons I've dealt with, that statement really made me laugh!! Nicely done, putting it so tactfully.

HOWEVER, it is important for the innocent person, in addition to not saying too MUCH, not to say too LITTLE, either.

Excellent, and oft-overlooked point. Police interviews are as much about weeding-out innocent persons as they are discovering guilty ones. Why not let us clear you as an innocent party?


And no, this isn't gun-related.

 

[franconialocal]

Here's an idea.....

Don't break the law and you won't have to worry about "not talking to the police".

Seems pretty simple to me.

There seems to be a TON of "police paranoia" on this site. Too bad really.

I know, I know........"I had *this* happen to me with the cops", blah, blah, blah.....
I feel for you, I really do...
Find a different fourm to cry on. IMHO it's getting really old here.

+1 to Trebor for at least clarifying it's applicability here, but I see this topic going south REALLY fast.

 

[Guntalk]

>Here's an idea.....

Don't break the law and you won't have to worry about "not talking to the police". <<

If only it were really that simple. Many, many people have had nasty experiences with the police even through they have not broken the law.

Some have been killed by the police, even though they had not broken the law.

Just the latest case of the man in Wisconsin who was planting a tree on his own property, while legally wearing a handgun, is an example. The police charged him with their weapons drawn.

Question: If I charge at a police officer with my weapon pointing at him or her, what would the the reaction?

With thousands of examples of people being handcuffed, arrested, literally dragged off to jail, etc., while doing nothing illegal, I would offer that there is a pretty low level of trust among the general public for the police.

You may want to review the tapes of gun and other thefts by police officers during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina for a refresher.

 

[larry_minn]

Just remember. The Police are given training in how to question a person. How to evaluate what method will work to get answers they want. Plus they practice this. Do you? I don't.
I have alwasy hoped I could stick to "script"
My name/address. Then stick to hopefully simple statements. "That person attacked me (or whatever happened) I locked door, called for help, moved away, *whatever happened* He then showed weapon/said he was going to kill me,etc so I took action then called Police. I hope I won't try to go into detail "He stood there and took a step with his left foot...... and try to document it as if it was a coreographed fight scene. I understand that is common and you will make mistakes that could be looked at as lies. Most Police Officers are given time before they make a report (beyond basics)
Knowing me/med concerns I would then request a ambulance as it is realistic to consider medical help might be needed. - I have been questioned in hospital after having 2 units of blood/meds aboard. I must have done ok but was really ticked when I found out.

 

[HIcarry]

Here's an idea.....

Don't break the law and you won't have to worry about "not talking to the police".

Seems pretty simple to me.

Not really. Lots of laws out there, arguably far too many for one to be expected to know each and every one of them. How many times have you "flashed tin" to get out of a traffic ticket or some other minor infraction? Just recently there was a story about a cop visiting another state (NJ?) and relating an incident that happened in a gas station where he almost drew down on the attendant who rushed up to him because, unbeknownst to the visiting cop, it was illegal to pump your own gas. The poster (the cop) even made mention of the fact that the subsequent encounter went much easier because the responding officers noted the poster's badge on his belt and wondered how things might have gone for the "ordinary citizen" in the same situation.

You think you are a law abiding citizen, don’t you? Think again! You have been, you are now, and you will continue to break the law for the rest of your life, because there are too many laws, with millions more laws to follow. Many of these laws are totally unconstitutional but have never been challenged in the courts. Sometimes you break the law without any knowledge of it, even though ignorance of the law is not an excuse, if you are caught. But worse, millions are breaking the law because they are convinced the laws are illegal, or just plain stupid. With more people intentionally breaking the law, eventually the rule of law breaks down, as does our Republic.

The examples of stupid laws would fill volumes. Examples of conflicting laws would fill even more volumes. Some (or is it most) lawmakers just aren’t very smart.

Since the final draft of the U. S. Constitution became the Supreme Law of the Land, legislators have been legislating, that is they have been passing law ..... after law ..... after law. Do you want to know why you are a criminal? Here is why. “The U.S. Code, which contains all federal statutes, occupies 56,009 single-spaced pages. Its 47 volumes take up nine feet of shelf space. An annotated version, which attempts to bring order out of chaos, is three feet long and has 230 hardcover volumes and 36 paperback supplements. Administrative lawmaking under statutes fill up the 207-volume Code of Federal Regulations, which spans 21 feet of shelf space and contains more than 134,488 pages of regulatory law. … Federal law is further augmented by more than 2,756 volumes of judicial precedent, taking up 160 yards (almost twice as long as a football field) of law-library shelving.”

This is just federal law and it is growing by the second. All of this law does not include the millions of state, county and city laws that have been passed since we won our freedom in our first revolution. State and local laws are also growing by the second. The Obama/Pelosi/Reid Stimulus package was over 1,000 pages of more law that no one read and it included more taxes and much more socialism. More so-called “stimulus” packages are on the way, requiring trillions more of our dollars that the government doesn’t own and must “steal” from us, by force, to “fix” the problem that they themselves created.

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/8674

There seems to be a TON of "police paranoia" on this site. Too bad really.

I know, I know........"I had *this* happen to me with the cops", blah, blah, blah.....
I feel for you, I really do...
Find a different fourm to cry on. IMHO it's getting really old here.

+1 to Trebor for at least clarifying it's applicability here, but I see this topic going south REALLY fast.

You may be right, but I also sense a lot of hostility toward citizens that may have legitimate reasons for some of that "police paranoia." All you need to do is look at the Georgia incident where the police burst into the wrong house and planted drugs to cover their mistake, or the well documented problems with the LAPD or Chicago police to realize there are genuine concerns with SOME departments and SOME individuals.

Seems to me things here are kept pretty balanced...so, if you seem to have such a distain over what you perceive as a "TON" of "police paranoia" here, you have an equal opportunity to seek out alternate forums for your displeasure, IMHO.

And, the only one I have seen thus far taking this discussion "south," is you...

 

[TimRB]

The vast majority of police officers are honest and brave individuals who really do a lot of GOOD. That notwithstanding, "police paranoia" is as American as apple pie. The writers of the Constitution *wanted* us to be suspicious of all parts of government, and especially the Executive branch.

Tim

 

[Art Eatman]

Here's an idea: After a question has been answered, don't beat on that poor old horse.