Never talk to the police.

[1sikbITCH]

Originally posted by: Vic
[ People should be cautious when providing anything more than basic information (like ID) to the police. They should fall back on their right to counsel and to not incriminate themselves if they feel intimidated.

This is absolutely sound advice but it seems pretty clear the OP takes the POV to NEVER talk to the police for any reason which is of course absurd.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: JLee

Originally posted by: Vic
If the ONLY offense is speeding, an infraction, then his only choice is to write to the ticket and release. He cannot and will not arrest for that. If you felt I insulted you earlier, it's because you insulted the rest of us with this BS.

Wrong. At least in New Hampshire, a custodial arrest is entirely legal for a violation-level offense. A citation is issued in lieu of arrest.

Yeah, I bet this happens every day, right? Technically, you can be arrested at any time and for no reason at all, and they just have to release you before habeus corpus, but that's not exactly relevant now is it?

The point is that you're not going to get arrested for refusing to tell the officer how fast you were going when asked. I know as I've done it more than once in fact. It increases your odds of getting the ticket, of course, but if you were going to get it anyway...

 

[jlee]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: JLee

Originally posted by: Vic
If the ONLY offense is speeding, an infraction, then his only choice is to write to the ticket and release. He cannot and will not arrest for that. If you felt I insulted you earlier, it's because you insulted the rest of us with this BS.

Wrong. At least in New Hampshire, a custodial arrest is entirely legal for a violation-level offense. A citation is issued in lieu of arrest.

Yeah, I bet this happens every day, right? Technically, you can be arrested at any time and for no reason at all, and they just have to release you before habeus corpus, but that's not exactly relevant now is it?

The point is that you're not going to get arrested for refusing to tell the officer how fast you were going when asked. I know as I've done it more than once in fact. It increases your odds of getting the ticket, of course, but if you were going to get it anyway...

It happens for operating without a valid license, which is a violation for the first offense.

I do know what I'm talking about here.

 

[waggy]

I am ALWAYS respectfull and courterous to the police. BUT i never give them any more information then needed.

Of course if thesituation as said some someone is in danger and wants to know where a guy went with a gun etc surve.

BUT 90% of the time i won't do really talk to them. As others said they are not your friend. they are not there to help you (even though they will say that) they are there to arrest someone. Anyone.

90% of cops out there are honest hard working people. But that 10% can ruin your life.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: JLee

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: JLee

Originally posted by: Vic
If the ONLY offense is speeding, an infraction, then his only choice is to write to the ticket and release. He cannot and will not arrest for that. If you felt I insulted you earlier, it's because you insulted the rest of us with this BS.

Wrong. At least in New Hampshire, a custodial arrest is entirely legal for a violation-level offense. A citation is issued in lieu of arrest.

Yeah, I bet this happens every day, right? Technically, you can be arrested at any time and for no reason at all, and they just have to release you before habeus corpus, but that's not exactly relevant now is it?

The point is that you're not going to get arrested for refusing to tell the officer how fast you were going when asked. I know as I've done it more than once in fact. It increases your odds of getting the ticket, of course, but if you were going to get it anyway...

It happens for operating without a valid license, which is a violation for the first offense.

I do know what I'm talking about here.

I thought putting the "ONLY" in all CAPS would be enough, but apparently not. I just knew someone who make up additional offenses. While you're at it, let's make up that the driver is grossly intoxicated and just ran over a family of 4.

 

[jlee]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: JLee

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: JLee

Originally posted by: Vic
If the ONLY offense is speeding, an infraction, then his only choice is to write to the ticket and release. He cannot and will not arrest for that. If you felt I insulted you earlier, it's because you insulted the rest of us with this BS.

Wrong. At least in New Hampshire, a custodial arrest is entirely legal for a violation-level offense. A citation is issued in lieu of arrest.

Yeah, I bet this happens every day, right? Technically, you can be arrested at any time and for no reason at all, and they just have to release you before habeus corpus, but that's not exactly relevant now is it?

The point is that you're not going to get arrested for refusing to tell the officer how fast you were going when asked. I know as I've done it more than once in fact. It increases your odds of getting the ticket, of course, but if you were going to get it anyway...

It happens for operating without a valid license, which is a violation for the first offense.

I do know what I'm talking about here.

I thought putting the "ONLY" in all CAPS would be enough, but apparently not. I just knew someone who make up additional offenses. While you're at it, let's make up that the driver is grossly intoxicated and just ran over a family of 4.

You also specified "cannot", which is simply incorrect.

DWI is a misdemeanor, and as such irrelevant to your earlier post indicating a violation-level offense.

 

[RESmonkey]

I don't like the justice system.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: RESmonkey
I don't like the justice system.

its not perfect. but best there is

 

[Bignate603]

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones
This is not a bash against cops what so ever. It's about staying out of jail or being prosecuted for something you didn't do.

These are words straight from Supreme Court justices and Chief US Attorneys.

If you're being accused of something then yes, you should have a lawyer. If not, then there's no need.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: Bignate603

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones
This is not a bash against cops what so ever. It's about staying out of jail or being prosecuted for something you didn't do.

These are words straight from Supreme Court justices and Chief US Attorneys.

If you're being accused of something then yes, you should have a lawyer. If not, then there's no need.

i disagree. unless its something minor like a speeding ticket etc but if ever asked to talk to the police you should have a lawyer.

 

[Gothgar]

Originally posted by: pyonir
I thought this was posted by jpeyton...wow...it wasn't. :Q

this

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: Crusty
Blah blah blah blah is all I hear. If you have something to hide from the police you shouldn't be putting yourself in situations where you have to talk to them.

We all can't stay inside our rooms all day playing GTA4 like you....some of us like to get out and you know, like meet chicks and stuff.

 

[BrunoPuntzJones]

Is there anyone who has actually watched it yet?

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones
Is there anyone who has actually watched it yet?

36 minutes in. So far they haven't given any reasons why you shouldn't talk to the police if you witness a crime and you aren't a suspect.

Not talking when you're a suspect or when you've committed the crime is pretty obvious...

 

[destrekor]

Originally posted by: Corporate Thug

Originally posted by: destrekor

Originally posted by: Corporate Thug

Originally posted by: destrekor

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Crusty

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Crusty
Blah blah blah blah is all I hear. If you have something to hide from the police you shouldn't be putting yourself in situations where you have to talk to them.

Yes, because no one has ever been falsely accused... :roll:

What does that have to do with talking to the police? That's a fault of the justice system, not your mouth.

Were you born this naive or did you have to study?

The fact of the matter is that unscrupulous police occasionally talk uneducated suspects into confessing to something they didn't do, or merely cooperating in a fashion that can incriminate them, on the promise that they will be released after they cooperate. That has everything to do with the police.

I've always wanted to know, why is there always something like you in every thread about the police or the law? Just FYI: people have rights in this country. Don't like it, move to fucking China where you belong.

if someone says something that can be used against them, that is there fault. They have the right not to talk, and they should know that in this country. But to parade around with the idea that you shouldn't talk to cops in situations where you could be really helpful, is just going against the idea of being a good citizen. You should help the cops, but if you are stupid enough to let a cop force any words out of your mouth that can be used against you, then that's the persons fault.
The reasons cops try and convince people into saying things, is because they aren't trying to pin something on the innocent, but rather trying to use their position of power to intimidate a person into telling the truth if they did something wrong. It's the same concept of a cop asking if you were wearing your seatbelt or going over the speed limit when you got into an accident. They prey on the nervousness to catch you tripping up your story.
I have no problem in them doing that. Because it catches dumb criminals. If an innocent is tricked into saying something, they are an idiot. If you are innocent, you should have NO problem in talking to an officer about a witnessed crime.

+

here is the problem: suspect is read Miranda rights, hauled of to station, put in room, and is told by police that he or she will get some sort of deal if he talks before lawyering up. Its not that the suspect does not understand his rights, its more so that the he the cop is using his position of power to coax the suspect into making an incriminating statement. If Miranda is to be used effectively, I fell that there sound be absolutely NO questioning prior to counsels arrival.

Yes, that can be a little abusive of power, but he is still just trying to do his job. A lawyer is going to obstruct information flow, especially if what the person knows is incriminating, such as he is guilty of whatever the crime is.
A cop has every right to suspect someone who wants a lawyer might just be guilty or have some information. That officer is going to want to get that information with no obstruction, which is exactly what lawyers are meant for when dealing with police... making sure their client doesn't say anything incriminating.

If the police aren't using force to get information out of you, they are breaking no laws or forcing you to give up rights. It's a little tricky, and can be shady, I admit that much, but I find no harm in it. Someone who is innocent but is a suspect should have no problem, unless they are an idiot.

+

If by an attorney obstructs information flow you mean he or she asserts his of her clients constitutionally protected rights, then I agree.

BTW, you are making a huge leap of faith that no rights are being violated in the interrogation room. What's tricky is that nobody really knows what goes on in there except for the suspect and the cop. I've worked in that environment before, and I've seen more than 1 law being broken at times.

Well first, yes the client has the rights, but I'd also argue if they have information or are a possible suspect, then all that is happening is the process is being slowed down. If the cop can legally coerce the individual to give up information without the lawyer present, then I don't care. Now, if it was done illegally, then yes that is wrong, and its a tough spot.
And no I didn't really make a leap of faith. I fully expect there are times some law enforcement DO go beyond their limits and break the law and strip rights from a suspect. The world isn't perfect, and that shit happens. Is it good? No, but it's also kind of impossible to fight against. But with those individuals, I suspect the officers have a lot of reasons to believe the person is guilty, and are probably extremely fed up with what they perceive is bullshit. It's kind of a natural human behavior, and you'll find that kind of situation everywhere, except sometimes its not laws being broken, but the same time of actions taken.
I'm not endorsing the actions, and would love for them to be able to be snuffed out, but I'm kind of a pessimist and a realist, and fully expect that to happen. However, I will take a leap of faith and say its far from the norm, and likely doesn't happen often with people in for questioning as possible suspects but with little for the 'Law to go on.
I'll admit I may be a little naive in this area, because I've never dealt with the 'Law in any serious situation. But in every area of employment, there are the good and bad employees. The bad employees in the law enforcement field just get a little ahead of themselves with their lust for power. The good ones get no attention, because they are simply doing their job. Just like with the media... we only hear about the bad officers, rarely are the good officers given much attention, because they do what we normally expect of them.

+

 

[OS]

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones
Is there anyone who has actually watched it yet?

i want to watch but all the links do not work and i don't have itunes

 

[Corporate Thug]

Originally posted by: destrekor

Originally posted by: Corporate Thug

Originally posted by: destrekor

Originally posted by: Corporate Thug

Originally posted by: destrekor

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Crusty

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Crusty
Blah blah blah blah is all I hear. If you have something to hide from the police you shouldn't be putting yourself in situations where you have to talk to them.

Yes, because no one has ever been falsely accused... :roll:

What does that have to do with talking to the police? That's a fault of the justice system, not your mouth.

Were you born this naive or did you have to study?

The fact of the matter is that unscrupulous police occasionally talk uneducated suspects into confessing to something they didn't do, or merely cooperating in a fashion that can incriminate them, on the promise that they will be released after they cooperate. That has everything to do with the police.

I've always wanted to know, why is there always something like you in every thread about the police or the law? Just FYI: people have rights in this country. Don't like it, move to fucking China where you belong.

if someone says something that can be used against them, that is there fault. They have the right not to talk, and they should know that in this country. But to parade around with the idea that you shouldn't talk to cops in situations where you could be really helpful, is just going against the idea of being a good citizen. You should help the cops, but if you are stupid enough to let a cop force any words out of your mouth that can be used against you, then that's the persons fault.
The reasons cops try and convince people into saying things, is because they aren't trying to pin something on the innocent, but rather trying to use their position of power to intimidate a person into telling the truth if they did something wrong. It's the same concept of a cop asking if you were wearing your seatbelt or going over the speed limit when you got into an accident. They prey on the nervousness to catch you tripping up your story.
I have no problem in them doing that. Because it catches dumb criminals. If an innocent is tricked into saying something, they are an idiot. If you are innocent, you should have NO problem in talking to an officer about a witnessed crime.

+

here is the problem: suspect is read Miranda rights, hauled of to station, put in room, and is told by police that he or she will get some sort of deal if he talks before lawyering up. Its not that the suspect does not understand his rights, its more so that the he the cop is using his position of power to coax the suspect into making an incriminating statement. If Miranda is to be used effectively, I fell that there sound be absolutely NO questioning prior to counsels arrival.

Yes, that can be a little abusive of power, but he is still just trying to do his job. A lawyer is going to obstruct information flow, especially if what the person knows is incriminating, such as he is guilty of whatever the crime is.
A cop has every right to suspect someone who wants a lawyer might just be guilty or have some information. That officer is going to want to get that information with no obstruction, which is exactly what lawyers are meant for when dealing with police... making sure their client doesn't say anything incriminating.

If the police aren't using force to get information out of you, they are breaking no laws or forcing you to give up rights. It's a little tricky, and can be shady, I admit that much, but I find no harm in it. Someone who is innocent but is a suspect should have no problem, unless they are an idiot.

+

If by an attorney obstructs information flow you mean he or she asserts his of her clients constitutionally protected rights, then I agree.

BTW, you are making a huge leap of faith that no rights are being violated in the interrogation room. What's tricky is that nobody really knows what goes on in there except for the suspect and the cop. I've worked in that environment before, and I've seen more than 1 law being broken at times.

Well first, yes the client has the rights, but I'd also argue if they have information or are a possible suspect, then all that is happening is the process is being slowed down. If the cop can legally coerce the individual to give up information without the lawyer present, then I don't care. Now, if it was done illegally, then yes that is wrong, and its a tough spot.
And no I didn't really make a leap of faith. I fully expect there are times some law enforcement DO go beyond their limits and break the law and strip rights from a suspect. The world isn't perfect, and that shit happens. Is it good? No, but it's also kind of impossible to fight against. But with those individuals, I suspect the officers have a lot of reasons to believe the person is guilty, and are probably extremely fed up with what they perceive is bullshit. It's kind of a natural human behavior, and you'll find that kind of situation everywhere, except sometimes its not laws being broken, but the same time of actions taken.
I'm not endorsing the actions, and would love for them to be able to be snuffed out, but I'm kind of a pessimist and a realist, and fully expect that to happen. However, I will take a leap of faith and say its far from the norm, and likely doesn't happen often with people in for questioning as possible suspects but with little for the 'Law to go on.
I'll admit I may be a little naive in this area, because I've never dealt with the 'Law in any serious situation. But in every area of employment, there are the good and bad employees. The bad employees in the law enforcement field just get a little ahead of themselves with their lust for power. The good ones get no attention, because they are simply doing their job. Just like with the media... we only hear about the bad officers, rarely are the good officers given much attention, because they do what we normally expect of them.

+

as many legal scholars have noted, it can be easily solved by not allowing questioning without counsel being present.

 

[Corporate Thug]

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones
Is there anyone who has actually watched it yet?

yes, it is very good.

BTW, his view is not unprecedented. Every con law, evidence, crim law, and crim procedure professor I have ever had has said the same thing to our class.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones
Is there anyone who has actually watched it yet?

36 minutes in. So far they haven't given any reasons why you shouldn't talk to the police if you witness a crime and you aren't a suspect.

Not talking when you're a suspect or when you've committed the crime is pretty obvious...

I haven't watched it because what you just said should be pretty obvious to just about anyone. I'm always amazed at the people who say "sure, go ahead and search my car, home, etc..".

And not talking to the Police when you're just a witness is beyond idiotic.

 

[rivan]

Originally posted by: Gothgar

Originally posted by: pyonir
I thought this was posted by jpeyton...wow...it wasn't. :Q

this

Yeah, same. I'd watch and comment but I've already seen enough torches and pitchforks to not want to bother.

The word "apologist" is a red flag for me, warning me away. It lets me know the poster(s) can't be talked sense to.

 

[SampSon]

I avoid the police when at all possible. There has never been a time in my life when interactions with a police officer were beneficial to me.
Even when I was one who called them, or I was the victim.

 

[NetGuySC]

I just watched it, it's an excellent video, and sound advice

 

[QED]

What kind of world do some of you people live in where your biggest fear is **gasp** a police officer talking to you?

If you've committed a crime, then common sense should already tell you to shut the fuck up. If you haven't committed a crime but are withholding information that could solve one because you want to consult your attorney first, you are probably a douchebag. In any case, this video helps noone. If you're a criminal with common sense, you don't need to be told to not talk. If your not a criminal and have common sense, you know that there are times when it is perfectly fine to talk to a police officer. So who is the target audience for this video--idiots?

You are far more likely to die in an automobile accident than you are to be falsely accused, arrested, and convicted of a crime you didn't commit simply because you spoke to a police officer. So I propose a new thread for the OP: "NEVER ever drive a car! Don't forfeit your right to live without first consulting an attorney!".

 

[RKS]

don't talk to anybody
don't make eye contact
move to a cabin in the woods
be sure to remember your typewriter



Anything that involves the use of an attorney is something I am all for.

 

[Corporate Thug]

Originally posted by: QED
What kind of world do some of you people live in where your biggest fear is **gasp** a police officer talking to you?

If you've committed a crime, then common sense should already tell you to shut the fuck up. If you haven't committed a crime but are withholding information that could solve one because you want to consult your attorney first, you are probably a douchebag. In any case, this video helps noone. If you're a criminal with common sense, you don't need to be told to not talk. If your not a criminal and have common sense, you know that there are times when it is perfectly fine to talk to a police officer. So who is the target audience for this video--idiots?

You are far more likely to die in an automobile accident than you are to be falsely accused, arrested, and convicted of a crime you didn't commit simply because you spoke to a police officer. So I propose a new thread for the OP: "NEVER ever drive a car! Don't forfeit your right to live without first consulting an attorney!".

a. who said that it's the biggest fear?

b. I'd rather be a douche bag then risk implicating myself.

c. the fact that you are more likely to die from a car accident then be falsely accused is irrelevant - you should still take steps from preventing it however unlikely. Besides, even though the probability is low, if it should happen, you are in for a world of hurt.