no_problem
Member
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2006
- Messages
- 342
Thank you for this post. I will need to speak to my counsel before I respond to this post 
Must see video - 5th Amendment Lecture - Don't Talk to Police
- Thread starter SKILCZ
- Start date
- Status
Master Blaster
Member
That's how it works in the state of Delaware and the rest of the USA. Now if you are a police officer in Cuba or Russia, that may not be true.
I stick up for the scummiest, filthiest, most vile criminals because that is how MY rights are preserved. The easier it is for you (or any other legal enforcement officer, cop, DA, or whatever) to put scumbags away, the easier it is for you to put innocent people away (by accident or on purpose).
Equal under the law.
Innocent until proven guilty.
Free from being compelled to incriminate yourself.
These are BEDROCK ideals...and in order to preserve them...the state must be put to its proof.
Last edited:
762 shooter
Member
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2008
- Messages
- 95
The most important thing I learned in the video that what you say can be used against you, but cannot be used for you.
That should give anyone pause.
That should give anyone pause.
revjen45
Member
The cop says he doesn't set out to nail innocent people, right after saying he is allowed to tell any lie that 1) serves his purpose and 2) he thinks you're stupid enough to believe. They conduct "interviews" (interrogations) and decide who is easiest to pin it on. The hump who did it is probably the easiest, but if not, they will settle for whoever says the most that can be used to create a beef. Once the decision is made, any exculpatory evidence is ignored or buried, and whatever is inculpatory is embellished or fabricated. The cops openly announce that they're conducting a personal contest to see who can bust the most DUIs in a weekend. DUI is like witchcraft- you're guilty until proven innocent. How much chance do you have when the cops want you to stand on one foot while you thumb your nose, gargle peanut butter, and stack greasy BBs? The purpose of the legal industry is to supply fodder to keep the lawyers in power and money, and the cops job is to shovel in the coal.
Last edited:
The prosecutor represents the people, which includes the defendant...and if they are doing their job...and abiding by the ethical mandates of the profession, they MUST disclose exculpatory evidence to the defense and the court.
...of course reality is not theory...and your jurisdiction's rules of conduct may vary.
I finally watched the set of videos. I guess I see it from a number of points of view.
1. Yes, the lawyer and cop in the video are citing examples of criminals who essentially confessed along with one or two who were not criminals.
2. Notice also that many of the examples were of a lawyer allowing cops to interview their client about an incident. It had nothing to do with giving base facts at the scene of an incident.
3. I was putting my self in the situation of a home invasion where I had to shoot an intruder. I can't not say anything in that situation. I need to call 911 and report it and then I need to give the cops who arrive a quick run down of what happened. However, I don't need to get all chatty or get into long discussions. Just tell them the base facts in as few words as possible. "They broke in the front door, I saw them, I feared for my life or saw a weapon or heard a threat, I shot them....." I have never been in that situation so I don't know what I would be asked or what would be relevant, however, I honestly cannot see saying nothing in that situation. After base facts, I think you are perfectly fine just saying that "my heads scrambled right now, I can't talk to you right now"
4. In a similar self defense situation on a street or somewhere outside, the home, I can't see the situation any different. I realize most people are going to be stressed and chatty in a situation like that so I can see why a lawyer would tell you to say nothing. I just don't see how you can really do it. You need to at least say "he attacked me, I feared for my life" or something of that sort. Otherwise, some circumstances might look like a murder scene to cops showing up.
5. I am glad I live in Texas where I am more likely to get favorable treatment in the aftermath of a self defense event.
6. I was a little surprised about that little gem that while a cop can testify against you based on what you said, you cannot get him to testify for you based on what you said to him. That seems a bit strange. I would have thought that once a witness' testimony is allowed, it is all allowed.
1. Yes, the lawyer and cop in the video are citing examples of criminals who essentially confessed along with one or two who were not criminals.
2. Notice also that many of the examples were of a lawyer allowing cops to interview their client about an incident. It had nothing to do with giving base facts at the scene of an incident.
3. I was putting my self in the situation of a home invasion where I had to shoot an intruder. I can't not say anything in that situation. I need to call 911 and report it and then I need to give the cops who arrive a quick run down of what happened. However, I don't need to get all chatty or get into long discussions. Just tell them the base facts in as few words as possible. "They broke in the front door, I saw them, I feared for my life or saw a weapon or heard a threat, I shot them....." I have never been in that situation so I don't know what I would be asked or what would be relevant, however, I honestly cannot see saying nothing in that situation. After base facts, I think you are perfectly fine just saying that "my heads scrambled right now, I can't talk to you right now"
4. In a similar self defense situation on a street or somewhere outside, the home, I can't see the situation any different. I realize most people are going to be stressed and chatty in a situation like that so I can see why a lawyer would tell you to say nothing. I just don't see how you can really do it. You need to at least say "he attacked me, I feared for my life" or something of that sort. Otherwise, some circumstances might look like a murder scene to cops showing up.
5. I am glad I live in Texas where I am more likely to get favorable treatment in the aftermath of a self defense event.
6. I was a little surprised about that little gem that while a cop can testify against you based on what you said, you cannot get him to testify for you based on what you said to him. That seems a bit strange. I would have thought that once a witness' testimony is allowed, it is all allowed.
Rangermedic
Member
would a LEO be "interviewed" with out a lawyer present, if they were supected of ilegal activity?
benEzra
Moderator Emeritus
Nifong.
The zeal to convict someone you are sure is guilty can be a powerful motivator to bend the rules or ignore evidence that doesn't fit your paradigm. I'm sure that is a temptation that many prosecutors face, and that some do succomb to.
Had the Duke lacrosse players not been white and able to afford really good lawyers, they'd be in prison for rape right now, due to a prosecutor who became convinced they had to be guilty, and bent the rules accordingly. The DNA evidence was completely exculpatory, but the prosecutor buried it...and I am convinced never even grasped its import, because it was outside his paradigm. Cognitive dissonance can be a powerful thing sometimes.
762 shooter
Member
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2008
- Messages
- 95
Listen to rangermedic.
That is the question!
That is the question!
You know, when I took my carry class, I clearly remember my instructor saying if we're ever involved in a shooting:
1. Be the first to call 911
2. When the police arrive: tell them you were in fear for your life and you want to press charges.
3. Shut your mouth until your lawyer arrives. The police are not your friends, they're there to charge people with crimes.
Oh, this was comming from a cop too.
1. Be the first to call 911
2. When the police arrive: tell them you were in fear for your life and you want to press charges.
3. Shut your mouth until your lawyer arrives. The police are not your friends, they're there to charge people with crimes.
Oh, this was comming from a cop too.
Sadly, you are correct...and it is precisely this kind thing that the various protections of our criminal system are in place to prevent and/or mitigate. You can't preserve civil liberties if you make it easy for cops and prosecutors.
Are you implying that the system is not in balance? I am shocked! Shocked I tell you!
Not to say that there aren't bright spots...for all the scariness that DNA databases represent...they are being used to retroactively clear many wrongly convicted innocent people, people tossed in jail by prosecutors seeking political "results" instead of justice. The new DA in Dallas is an example. (of a prosecutor doing the right thing and clearing wrongfully imprisoned citizens)
Dallas District Attorney Craig Watkins
divemedic
Member
Many police departments give special training to interrogators with regard to the Miranda warning; specifically, how to influence a suspect's decision to waive the right without even realizing they have done so.
For instance, the officer may be required to specifically ask if the rights are understood and if the suspect wishes to talk. The officer is allowed, before asking the suspect a question, to speak at length about evidence collected, witness statements, etc. The officer will claim that they have all of the evidence they need for a conviction, and then will give the standard line about a lighter sentence in exchange for cooperation. The officer will THEN ask if the suspect wishes to talk, and the suspect is then more likely to do to in an attempt to refute the evidence presented. The real truth is that if the cops had the evidence they needed, they wouldn't need cooperation.
Another tactic commonly taught is to never ask a question; the officer may simply sit the suspect down in an interrogation room, sit across from him and do paperwork, and wait for the suspect to begin talking. These tactics are intended to mitigate the restrictions placed on law officers against compelling a suspect to give evidence, and have stood up in court as valid lawful tactics.
For instance, the officer may be required to specifically ask if the rights are understood and if the suspect wishes to talk. The officer is allowed, before asking the suspect a question, to speak at length about evidence collected, witness statements, etc. The officer will claim that they have all of the evidence they need for a conviction, and then will give the standard line about a lighter sentence in exchange for cooperation. The officer will THEN ask if the suspect wishes to talk, and the suspect is then more likely to do to in an attempt to refute the evidence presented. The real truth is that if the cops had the evidence they needed, they wouldn't need cooperation.
Another tactic commonly taught is to never ask a question; the officer may simply sit the suspect down in an interrogation room, sit across from him and do paperwork, and wait for the suspect to begin talking. These tactics are intended to mitigate the restrictions placed on law officers against compelling a suspect to give evidence, and have stood up in court as valid lawful tactics.
The officer presenting opposite the law professor mentioned this very thing. Interrogation techniques are designed to take advantage of people's inherent honesty, fear of silence, acquiescence to authority, etc. Most (not all) people are IHMO honest and try to stay with the law. Part of the problem may be that after a few years of sifting through human detritus, many cops and prosecutors get jaded and forget that most people are decent.
...There are 6 billion of us...I think we get along remarkably well.
Last edited:
I agree with that. You said it a bit more concise than I did. #1 and #2 are important. It is #3 that those videos were talking about. You still need to be able to communicate the basic facts in as few words as possible. If you sit and think about it, I am sure you could come up with what you would say for a few different situations as part of your prior planning.
MiddleAgedKen
Member
I think we can all do with a reminder that "The police officer is not your friend" is not semantically equivalent to "The police officer is your enemy." The officer is doing a job--attempting to solve a crime. This may or may not coincide with your interests (which doesn't mean you're involved in the crime or hindering the investigation, either -- your interests may be entirely unrelated to the crime in question).
The officer's job is not necessarily to look out for you (and in all cases this is the "editorial you"). Rather, it is to gather evidence. If you say something to inadvertently incriminate yourself, the officer is not going to say, "I knew John Q. Public was on the level and didn't really mean what his statement sounded like he meant, so I'm going to let it go."
I expect the officer doesn't dare do that. Police undoubtedly deal with sociopaths and other unusually experienced and convincing liars more often than most of the rest of us (if we're lucky), along with some really dumb and bad ones. If an innocent citizen manages to incriminate herself by talking when she shouldn't, I'm not sure we can ask the officer to play mind reader and sort out the actual criminals from the folks who choose their words poorly.
You must look out for yourself, rather than counting on others (who may well have other things to do) to do it for you. Better that everyone involved play it strictly by the book, which in this case means lawyering up.
The officer's job is not necessarily to look out for you (and in all cases this is the "editorial you"). Rather, it is to gather evidence. If you say something to inadvertently incriminate yourself, the officer is not going to say, "I knew John Q. Public was on the level and didn't really mean what his statement sounded like he meant, so I'm going to let it go."
I expect the officer doesn't dare do that. Police undoubtedly deal with sociopaths and other unusually experienced and convincing liars more often than most of the rest of us (if we're lucky), along with some really dumb and bad ones. If an innocent citizen manages to incriminate herself by talking when she shouldn't, I'm not sure we can ask the officer to play mind reader and sort out the actual criminals from the folks who choose their words poorly.
You must look out for yourself, rather than counting on others (who may well have other things to do) to do it for you. Better that everyone involved play it strictly by the book, which in this case means lawyering up.
JERRY
Member
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2003
- Messages
- 3,842
dont tell me anything....its much easier for me to charge both parties with the same crimes and let them explain their way out of it in court.....unless the non verbal evidence makes it reasonably clear as to who the bad guy is, which is rare.....you might beat the wrap, but you wont beat the ride......
dont take any video advise as a blanket answer to anything, talk to a lawyer in advance and use your common sence....if you are truly the victim, i cant imagine what you will say that will change that...
dont take any video advise as a blanket answer to anything, talk to a lawyer in advance and use your common sence....if you are truly the victim, i cant imagine what you will say that will change that...
Ragnar Danneskjold
Member
Unfortunately Ken, there are many on this forum who do indeed believe that police are not only not their friend, but that they ARE the enemy.
They of course, WILL, call the police when they need someone to put themselves in danger and aren't willing to do it themselves.
They of course, WILL, call the police when they need someone to put themselves in danger and aren't willing to do it themselves.
NASCAR_MAN
member
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2007
- Messages
- 179
I doubt it very seriously. In fact, here's an article written by a Policeman for Policeman in the event they are involved in a shooting.
http://www.virginiacops.org/articles/Shooting/shoot.htm
As you can see, he basically says that in the aftermath of such an unfortunate event you should "Shut Up and Lawyer Up" (my shortened version of what he says).
So...during the course of thread we have learned that our Nation's Founding Father's, Supreme Court Justices, Lawyers, and Former Policemen are telling us to "SHUT UP" until we get a lawyer.
Pretty good advice.
Feanaro
Member
I've always been on friendly terms with the PD in my town. I helped one of the officers do their inventory and I shoot the bull with the chief at council meetings. I'm glad to have them around.
But I'm still closing my trap if they want to question me. It's their job to collect evidence and that's what they do in interviews. Even if they think you are innocent, it won't mean anything if the DA is a prick in need of another conviction. Which is the case in my area.
turnyourback
Member
agreed 100%.
solareclipse
Member
There is a lot wrong with that attorney.. you need to realize he comes from the angle of "you NEED an attorney, you NEED ME. ME. I am an attorney. hire ME. dont speak before you hire ME". Half of what he said was subjective mumbojumbo. His entire speech was based on circumstancial evidence in completely detached incidents/examples. Witnesses can be discredited, there are volumes on witness procedure alone. He needs to consider this before talking nonsense about how somebody allegedly seeing you somewhere is an automatic sentence.... and so forth with 95% of his examples.
He is correct in that people are stupid, but that speech was better suited for a different audience.
The police dude said common knowledge that well, i guess not so many people know.
Generally a waste of my time..... i didnt watch the last few minutes even since i knew what it was going to be about.
If you find this insightful, you are one of the stupid people he was talking about in the speech, which is honestly an insult to anybody in that room (allegedly full of law students)
He is correct in that people are stupid, but that speech was better suited for a different audience.
The police dude said common knowledge that well, i guess not so many people know.
Generally a waste of my time..... i didnt watch the last few minutes even since i knew what it was going to be about.
If you find this insightful, you are one of the stupid people he was talking about in the speech, which is honestly an insult to anybody in that room (allegedly full of law students)
El Tejon
Member
I was not aware that he was still in private practice.
Can you give us some examples?
His speech was based upon the Constitution and direct incident/examples of innocent people talking themselves into prison.
Yes, maybe, but discrediting yourself as a witness is another kettle of fish.
Since you know everything, is it correct to say you are a prosecutor? How long have you been so employed?
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
Too much 'round and 'round and 'round and getting personal...
Enuf.
Enuf.
- Status
